The real treasure is in the comment section of the Hall announcement, bros. Here are some highlights:
I can't shake the feeling, that some people desperately wanted Hall to be a bad guy in order to feel vindicated in their personal political opinion of "cOmMuNiSm bAd". The idea of a Marxist-Leninist politician doing something moral and just is irreconcilable with their perception of history/politics.
TNO is
filled to the brim with all blends of communists, socialists and anarchists being moral. Even the more questionable options in warlord Russia (Suslov, Yagoda) end up building rather viable, defensible governments. In the UK, you get a wholesome commonwealth of free love and fair taxes. TNO has
too many politicians on this side being rather palatable when their causes have historically been riddled with systemic violence and grueling neglect for pluralism, justice and dignity.
And it's clear that you are approaching this topic from a position of actually looking into who the man was, and not just viewing him as a generic boogeyman to slap every red scare stereotype onto. Would he actually be a good President? Probably best discussed in a separate dumpster fire.
There is no reasonable scenario where someone like Gus Hall, a radicalized Marxist-Leninist devoted to orthodoxy, would be a "good President" by the standards the American constitution and political culture observe. He stood against early critics of Stalinism in the CPUSA. He shut down any criticism of Soviet institutions and even military policy. He was, in fact, bent on shutting down any criticism that read against the party line he wanted to preserve for decades on end.
These are the basics of a sectarian mindset. Constitutional liberal democracies and radical, idealistic sectarians mix terribly. It's not the "no one wins" scenario the devs seem to imagine. It's evidently a "someone ruins it for everybody from the top to the bottom" scenario.
We don't see too many 'well intended extremists' stories in TNO to my knowledge and it'll be cool to see just what he has in store for America.
I swear these people only see good intentions when it's talk about liberty or equality, values of liberal and socialist traditions. You have ambiguous despots, right-wingl extremists and military cliques with the "best intentions". If you don't agree with them, I don't see why I should understand Hall to be any more well meaning. The only way they can sell us this shit is by filling Hall with events about dreams and rainbows that will clash with on-going events but ultimately prove he just has a good, Bolshevik heart.
If we want to earnestly look at what in a counterfactual word a keen Marxist would do in the United States, it doesn't make sense to look to an "American Stalin", because the conditions that we see in the United States versus the Russian empire and later the Soviet Union are entirely different....
...This isn't a defense of Hall, but rather the refutation of the idea that Marxism is synonymous with terror a la the Jacobins or Russian Civil war era Reds or Whites.
There's some truth to this, as it seems the poster knows one thing or two about the actual foundations of Marxist thought. But Gus Hall is coincidentally the Gus Hall that rejected eurocommunism and "national roads to communism" precisely on the basis that it was too divergent and heterodox. Orthodoxy is the tradition of Marx, Engels and Lenin. I have no clue why Gus would, with all this appreciation and defense of the revolution and its justified violence, suddenly opt to be a very moderate, careful politician when it comes to liberty, welfare and dissent.
This comment got a reply from the modteam OP, who said "all the actions of his party contradict this". It may contradict that Hall would've been an American Stalin, but not that he would be the swashbuckling red zealot you get in various shapes and sizes, none of which bode well with liberal institutions. Some are even suggesting he'd somehow tone it down,
despite the TNO world seems ripe for the radicalization, not the soothing, of socialist sentiments.
With all due respect, if we are looking at presidents who endorsed “the use of violence to crush dissent,” then every single US leader must similarly be dismissed as a monster. Yet, I rarely see much discussion of Nixon’s role in Cambodia, of JFK and LBJ’s actions of Vietnam, of the long shadow the United States casts over Latin America.
TNO bro really believes U.S. foreign policy is not under scrutiny. They may even believe it isn't in a game where Nixon gets ousted, the U.S. goes on grueling wars in South Africa and Asia,
intervenes in Latin America like it did in real life, and has to deal with domestic opposition to boot. Also, I absolutely would prefer to live under any, absolutely any, American president from 1945 to 1991 than under the opaque, unappealable will of a one-party state with complete control of police, military, freedom and truth.