Notes on Arthur Miller’s Anti-Communism


‘The ladies’ ferocity toward Communism was matched only by their duplication of some of its practices – as I was reminded in the Soviet Union a decade later when I read the Party’s directions to Soviet writers to cease linking wisdom to criticism of the country and either praise or shut up.’

(Arthur Miller – Timebends – A Life – [2012] Page 440)

Whatever else this man may have achieved during his long lifetime, and regardless of assumed ‘Communist’ leanings, I can state after reading his 1987 biography entitled ‘Arthur Miller – Timebends – A Life’, he was nothing more than a bourgeois playwright with vague leftwing leanings, that for a time thought it was trending to associate himself with the Soviet Union and Communist China.  In so doing, he strove diligently to bring-down both those Marxist-Leninist States, through a rhetoric that can only be described as ‘Trotskyite’.  In fact, his Trotskyite disparaging of Marxist-Leninism is Miller’s elephant in the room, hidden in plain sight.  As with the emperor’s new clothes, no one appears willing to point-out this obvious truth – Arthur Miller was not a Communist – he was an ‘anti-Communist’ working to bring that alternative system to capitalism, down from the inside.  Like Trotsky, Miller viewed the anti-bourgeois Revolutions as inspired by Marxist-Leninism, to equate with a ‘lack of freedom’.  This typically Eurocentric and capitalist idea that the eradication of the exploitation of the working class is a ‘lack of freedom’, is exactly the attitude of a long successions US governments, that interpret ‘freedom’ as the eternal right of the bourgeoisie to exploit the working class without remorse or limit.  When viewed in this traitorous light, the rest of Miller’s career is irrelevant from a Revolutionary perspective simply because it opposes that Revolution.  Typical of his White bourgeois mentality, Miller made a living out of once being the husband of Marilyn Monroe. As for his writing output, it is only of interest to Eurocentric reformists who do not want Revolution, but rather a slight altering of the rules of exploitation, in this regard, just like his hero Trotsky, Miller was every inch a Menshevik, and ‘Socialist’ in name only, as he obviously possesses very little understanding of Marxism or dialectical materialism.  Instead, Miller practised the age old bourgeois habit of dominating at the point of contact, all Socialist cultures, and presenting these cultures in the worst possible light to a Western (bourgeois) audience.  Although this is the essence of imperialism and neo-imperialism, Miller used this tactic to inoculate the Western working class ‘against’ the very (and only) ideology designed to empower and save it from terminal exploitation.  Arthur Miller was a despicable ‘enemy of the people’ who never questioned the privileged bourgeois ‘Whiteness’ of his opinions.  Indeed, in later life, Miller made it clear that he regretted his dalliance with Marxism and Soviet Communism, preferring the safety and security of his preferred US capitalist existence (after-all, he was a multimillionaire in his old age). Miller’s liberal familiarity with Communism in his book, is the very basis of his criticism of it, and explains the success of his dangerous anti-Communist rhetoric.  Miller perceives everything Communistic as conspiratorial, under-hand, dishonest and destructive.  In many ways, being a bourgeois artist, Miller has to interpret Communism in this manner, because a successful Communist Revolution would mark the end of the dominance of the very bourgeois, capitalist culture he served, and that had served him.  His willingness to play along with the official US distortion of Soviet and Chinese Communism, defines exactly his approach to ‘pretending’ to be a Communist (presumably for some vague artistic reason), whilst roping ever more people in (through his work), to supporting the notion that these two regimes were corrupt, and that Marxist-Leninism was not suitable as a means to save the Western working class. Of course, Miller’s plays do not concern me simply because they are the product of the bourgeois mind, designed to entertain a bourgeois audience, and as such, are an ideological irrelevance to the working class, or its eventual emancipation.  After-all, bourgeois leftists are still capitalists motivated by sentimentality, and their viewpoints mirror the interests of their class.  Arthur Miller pretended to be a Communist at one point in his life because it was in ‘fashion’ (rather like the bourgeois habit of ‘marrying’ Marilyn Monroe).

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s