Rating: 
Summary: Illuminating Life Journey of Former Lefty
Review: "Commies" is an illuminating account of one man's odyssey through the left wing of American politics. Along the way, Ronald Radosh introduces us to an assortment of famous (some would say "infamous") and semi-famous champions of socialist thinking with whom he comes into contact: Paul Robeson, Bob Dylan, Tom Hayden, Irving Howe, Biannca Jagger, to name just a few.As time progresses, we see Radosh increasingly questioning the double-speak, double standards (Classically, there is the socialist who defends lobotomy policies in Castro's Cuba by distinguishing between "Capitalist Lobotomies and Socialist Lobotomies.") and anti-Americanism that were (and still are) the hallmarks of the Left. But it would be Radosh's groundbreaking work on the Rosenberg Trial (which proved conclusively the guilt of Julius and the complicity of Ethel) that would cause the first fissures in Radosh's relationship with his Leftist comrades. His subsequent broadsides against the Sandanistas, the Stalinst rulers of Nicaragua, would result in Radosh's excommunication from the Left and make him a virtual pariah in the academic community. Radosh's journey parallels the similar life course of David Horowitz, another 1960s radical with the courage and conviction to repudiate long held assumptions. Fans of "Commies" would do well to check out Horowtz's autobiography, "Radical Son."
Rating: 
Summary: TROUBLE WITH THE TIMING
Review: An admirable trait of our challenged species is that we suffer in silence a lot. And it's sad when a person once devoted to ameliorating this suffering concludes not that they've done their best and the job was too big, but that all along they were wrong. Possibly, it was Ronald Radosh's being brought up in bourgeois "red diapers" by loving parents that instilled a softer commitment to communist ideals than others' fiercer commitments, instilled differently. If such a thing can be, Radosh's book "Commies" is kind of a (Whittaker Chambers') "Witness" lite. And thank god for that, because books of ex-communists' expiations run to the superficial, egomaniacal and infantile stinky. The lite-er the better, I say. American flag-wavers will love this book. Many if not most others will find it superficial, egomaniacal and infantile stinky, as I did. But I give it one star for the lite. Consider. Radosh writes on p151 of the "Commies" paperback edition I read, that since "he was a historian" when the government released the FBI's Rosenberg files, he figured he was "the perfect person to undertake a serious effort to examine them and write a book." But just two pages later he demonstrates an inattention to his own factual narrative that would embarrass an undergraduate history major. In the second paragraph on p153, Radosh writes that what "stunned" him reading the FBI files was that the bureau's prison informant (who presumably had talked only to Julius Rosenberg) confirmed a story previously told to Radosh by Jim Weinstein about how he (Weinstein) "had (driven) Julius...from Ithaca to New York." Further on in that very paragraph, however, Radosh elaborates on what the informant told the FBI and comments on it, "(the informant)...told the FBI (that a communist party recruit, Max Finestone) had borrowed (Jim Weinstein's car) to drive Julius to Ithaca.....This of course is precisely what Jim Weinstein had related to me." No, not even close to "precisely," Ronald Radosh. The drivers and the destinations differed in the two versions of the story. The explanation for these inconsistencies is probably trivial especially if one believes the Rosenberg case itself was fairly trivial, beyond the personal tragedies involved. But in his book, Radosh makes a lot out of his Rosenberg case research as disenchanting him with the left in general. And his failure to even notice two glaring inconsistencies in one short paragraph in "Commies" - about what he says had stunned him in his Rosenberg case research -- reduces his claim to be "a historian" to plain silliness. On the next-to-last page of the book, Radosh muses: "Our history should have been a cautionary tale, but as the causes of yesteryear collapsed, my old friends found it hard to reevaluate their experiences or acknowledge that they were wrong." Not true again, Ronald Radosh. And especially not true of the cause you say finally convinced you that left politics were wrong - the New Left's opposition to Ronald Reagan's Nicaraguan war of unprecedented murderousness and devastation, ultimately funded in secret with Iranian arms money - the New Left's opposition to this war, you write, convinced you lefties were wrong because they condemned what Ronald Reagan wrought in Nicaragua but were silent about Daniel Ortega's insensitivity to personal freedoms there. How grotesque. No, your old lefty friends were not wrong, Ronald Radosh. On the contrary, although as prone to overzealousness and impatience as to long and debilitating periods of quiescence, lefties have never been wrong. We've just always had trouble with the timing.
Rating: 
Summary: Hard to put down!
Review: Autobiographies are almost never "page turners", but I have to say this one makes for fascinating and fun reading! You don't have to be a history buff to enjoy this book! In some ways, Radosh's "Commies" can be seen as a sequel to Whittaker Chambers' outstanding autobiography "Witness". Commies takes us from the period of the 1940s & 50s to the present, showing the profound influence and acceptance Communism enjoyed (and still enjoys) amongst the "mainstream" left in the United States. While it is true (as another reviewer mentioned) that little of what the book describes is truly new, the fact remains that the word has yet to get out to the majority of the public; Radosh's telling of his personal story may help this. The most intriguing thing about this book is that Radosh doesn't tell us where he ended up with respect to personal ideology. We know that he is no longer a Communist or Communist sympathizer, but we don't know what his beliefs are today. I left the book with the impression that he was still searching out what his rejection of Communism really meant. However, this sense of not having joined a new "camp" is probably what makes Radosh the perfect person to tell this story.
Rating:
Summary: Where was he?
Review: I believe this was a tough book to write in many ways. A realization that one has changed and no longer believes in the beliefs/goals of tight-knit organization is difficult. Leaving such a group can be emotionally draining. A loss of identity and purpose can be the result. The "party/movement" provided him with a sense of belonging and, as he put it, a sense of moral superiority. I do not believe that Mr. Radosh made the decision lightly. I also think that he wrote Commies to provide information, of course, and not as an instrument of revenge.
I always suspected that the left was not intetrested in U.S. workers (I am one) as much as its own power grab. The self serving high-mindedess of the "comrades" always seemed to make them aloof from lowly blue-collared workers like me. Mr. Radosh's account of the transistion of the Socialist/Communist movement in America is fascinating. I always understood Marx was propogating a political/economic movement...however, all the movement people that show up at our plant talk about gay rights, and the homeless. I enjoyed this book very much. The information was not only useful but entertaining. Thank you Mr. Radosh for your time and effort on our behalf and, yes, GOD BLESS AMERICA.
Rating: 
Summary: A valuable book but a mediocre read
Review: If you read history and want to understand the left and WHY it thinks the way it does this book in invaluable. It through the life of the author traces the trip from an idological closet to the actual world we live in. The author's own trip and exit comes from reason, observation, and the dedication to actual goals which his movement espoused. (More a C.S. Lewis than a Horwitz.) When eventually he saw that the cause was the end rather than the means, he recognized communism for what it was and is: Just another device for somebody to get power. (or in his younger days to get laid.) It takes courage to recognize and admit when you are wrong. If you can't you entrench yourself for self justification. I have often wondered if the left really believes what it says, Radosh answers this question and the answer isn't pleasant. Unfortunately until the later chapters of the book the narative seems to crawl. I found myself with minor exceptions, (such as the sleeping analysit, hilarrious!) struggling to get to the later chapters where the meat was. The early setup chapters and the family history were interesting and his early college years were less so but passable. Once you get to the Rossenberg book and the later struggles the book seems to pick up steam and passion, perhaps the passion of the author on his conversion? As I think on the book I'm not so sure if it was just the style that is not to my taste, or if it was just poorly edited. Thinking back it is probally the former. I Compare it to THE DRUDGE MANIFESTO as both are books which esposue ideas which I agree with by authors I admire, but unlike The Drudge Manifesto which was a horrible read this book just seems flat to me. The style was enough to put the book to three stars for me but as far as substance goes it would be worth four. It's definately worth a read for the historical value alone.
Rating:
Summary: A Comment About The Reviews
Review: Just an observation - as of this writing, there are about 26 reader reviews for this book posted here at Amazon, and I'm struck by something - as of right now (12/21/2003) the only negative reviews are all from "a reader". Only one negative review provides a name, but no email address. Furthermore, the negative reviews are filled with name-calling of the author or of like-minded people, rather than honest debate of the book's content or ideas. Which is the point of this book - communists not only have used lies and deception to promote their way of life, but are far more pervasive than the average American has any clue about, and are as alive and well today in the United States as they ever were. One glance at the negative reviews of this book - and in particular the manner in which they are written and "signed" - is all the evidence you need to ... go buy this book.
Rating:
Summary: How did they lose?
Review: Radosh provides ample evidence that throughout the 20th century there was indeed a Red under every bed. Not only was communism (socialism) popular everywhere else, it was preferred by the thinking classes here at home. With so much support one is left to ponder the question: How did they lose?
Rating: 
Summary: More Negative Name-Dropping than Useful History of Communism
Review: Radosh's newest book is a combination of tell-all celebrity-style memoir and attempted semi-history of the old and new lefts. Unfortunately, the result is a discomfiting excoriation of Radosh's past political assumptions and allies seemingly based upon a desire for score-settling and even outright vengeance for his own blackballing after publication of his masterful _The Rosenberg File_. In some ways the tone of Radosh's book echoes 1950s exposes of the CPUSA written by former party members such as Louis Budenz and Whittaker Chambers (although it is not nearly so well-written as Chambers' _Witness_), with the central argument being that American Communists and fellow travellers place(d) loyalty to the party and the USSR ahead of loyalty to country and to friends who dare(d) to question Communist directives. In this respect, Radosh travels well-trod ground, and adds little to the genre. It seems his intended audience is those most militantly ideological believers -- the left and their right-wing anti-Communist foes -- whose ranks have the most to lose or gain by Radosh's conversion. For the rest of us, however, there is little of historical value. Is it new news that the Rosenbergs, Woody Guthrie, and the members of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade, for example, were Communist sympathizers whose primary emotional and political attachments were to Soviet Russia, and whose beliefs contributed to the advancement of an anti-democratic Communist party? Perhaps to some, but certainly not to historians of American Communism. Furthermore, Radosh often fails to distinguish between leftists, liberals, and feminists in his sometimes petty criticisms (such as naming radical and academic women he had brief affairs with in his allegedly misspent radical youth, as if their sexual adventurism was somehow part of a vast leftist conspiracy to undermine American [or at least Radosh's -- it is not quite clear] morality. Radosh's book will satisfy conservatives who wish to feel bolstered in their anti-Communist convictions, and some former leftists who share Radosh's experiences and beliefs. It will outrage others who cling to the beliefs Radosh rejects and adhere to the loyalties he scorns. For readers hoping to find new insights on the history or personalities of the left, however, Commies has little to offer--save, perhaps, some almost salacious and perhaps defamatory descriptions of leftist and liberal individuals that will amuse and gratify some and outrage or embarrass others. In any case, they seem rather out of place in a scholarly text. In short, Radosh attempted to write history and memoir combined, but did not succeed terribly well. His book will satisfy readers who already hold his beliefs, and anger some of those who do not. Most of us, however, given Radosh's previously proven talents and the contrasting weaknesses of his newest book, will walk away disappointed, bemused, and perhaps even bored.
Rating:
Summary: He Had the Courage To Confront the Lies and Seek the Truth
Review: Ron Radosh was born and bred a "Red Diaper" baby.
Among his earliest heroes was his uncle, Irving Kreichman, whom the Jew-baiting Stalinst Communist Party of the United States had change his name to Irving Keith. Keith, or Kreichman, a "true believer" went off to Spain in the Abraham Lincoln Battalion, and was killed believing he died for the freedom of the Spanish Republic and fighting Hitler. Unfortunately for Keith, it was another Fascist like Schicklgruber, the pockmarked Georgian thug named Koba aka Stalin who sent just enough arms to ensure that the Spanish Republic died a lingering death just in time for him to break bread with Herr Hitler.
Despite this, Radosh was weaning on the Party tenets and dogma. His music teacher at the Communist Camp he attended was none other than Pete Seeger. And Bobby Zimmerman, aka Dylan, was another pupil there - Dylan would flirt with the Left but never join the Communists. The clown below who claimed that Radosh was never in the SDS - namely B. Apetheker was too busy swallowing CP dogma courtesy of "her" daddy to realize that Radosh was just as much a major part of the Left as this pathetic so-called "woman" ever was.
Radosh, unlike Bettina had the courage and moral integrity to take in the truth even after it had hit him squarely in the eyes. His epiphany came long after Soviet tanks blasted away the dreams of freedom for the Hungarian people, or even after Brezhnev pissed on the "Prague Spring". It came, ironically, while Radosh was researching the lives and misdeeds of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, hoping to clear their names but discovering instead that they were indeed Soviet spies and traitors who helped give Stalin the bomb.
Even after exposing the lies of deceit of the Rosenbergs, Radosh still remained steadfast to his own beliefs, even denouncing the election of Ronald Reagan as President of the United States in 1980. Then he went to Nicaragua to celebrate the Sandinista revolution and came back exposing the corruption and totalitarian nature of the Sandinista regime and its thug leadership. He paints a humourous picture of the former Mrs. Mick Jagger as a pathetic bimbo, ever willing to strip off her clothes in a hurry to be the sexual playtoy of one of the worst thugs and torturers of that regime, Tomas Borge. It was in Nicaragua, amidst the freedom fighters of the Contras - that Radosh finally had the guts to acknowledge the fraud that he had supported for most of his life.
Ron Radosh learned a lot and is still learning. Quite unlike the "daughter" of one of Stalin's worst apologist who was also a self-loather. Irving Keith was a hero - a sadly misguided one as things turned out. The same cannot be said for H. Apetheker.
Rating:
Summary: A notable activist's progress
Review: Ronald Radosh is a first-rate historian who has travelled a well-worn political path from the Marxist left to the heterogeneous coalition devoted to the defence of liberal democratic values and processes. There are some fine autobiographical accounts of that journey - which many of us have also taken - extant, most notably the 1950s collection The God That Failed; Radosh's book is a valuable and often moving modern example of this literature. The early chapters of the book evoke a distant world of Communist youth camps and Jewish radicalism. The author's insights into the nature of the Communists' exploitation of these movements (for example, protesting against the supposed anti-Semitic 'frame-up' of the atomic espionage agents Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, while being silent over the ferocious anti-Semitic pogroms practised by the Soviet Union) make scandalous reading, while his account of the naivete of the 1960s counter-culture draws out the rather pathetic nihilism of that movement. But the story really gets going when Radosh depicts his gradual disillusionment with 'the Movement' from the early 1970s, dating from a trip he made to the prison-state of Cuba and continuing through his seminal research demonstrating the guilt of the Rosenbergs. His conclusion at the end of the book - articulating the premise of those who subscribe to Madisonian principles of deliberative democracy and thus who know that democratic politics can have no pre-defined 'end-state' - about the relative merits of western societies relative to the tyrannies that Marxism has always and everywhere established is so true, and so apt an epitaph on the bloody course of much 20th century history, as to be poignant. There are minor quibbles to be had with the book. Radosh pays generous tribute to his editor, but there was no need: the book is peppered with mistakes that, while not serious, are certainly irritating and ought to have been picked up. (On more than one occasion the book spells 'minuscule' wrong; the notorious 1950s game-show cheat portrayed on film by Ralph Fiennes was Charles, not Mark, van Doren.) Overall, though, this is an excellent read.
| 
