For the sake of argument, lets say we give in to the Marxists in the Democrat party and their race warmongering allies – what gets better and who benefits?
Well, if history of other communist takeovers is any indication, the answer to the first question is nothing.
People will argue that the CCP in China reduced poverty drastically – but they never mention that the CCP and Mao were the reasons for the poverty in the first place, nor will they mention that the vehicle for that reduction wasn’t communism, it would never have happened without China practicing capitalism with other nations around the world.
To those who think China is the future model, just remember that China is just a huge corporation built on theft of intellectual property and slave labor.
As to the second question, the answer is “those at the top”, also in every case, the leaders of the “revolution” and there families make out like bandits. Dead Hugo Chavez’s daughter is reputed to be the richest person in Venezuela, worth $4.2 billion. Maduro is a piker at a net worth of a little over $3 million, but he did that on a salary of $48,000 a year. He must have invested in GameStop.
All the Soviet leaders lead Western lives with access to amenities and creature comforts of which the Soviet people could only dream.
The rich never suffer from the economic chaos of socialism. The reason is, of course, that the rich have the resources to weather such economic storms.
It is always the poor who suffer from its failures.
But this time is different. Really, it is.
Never has a communist takeover been based on race as the class conflict instead of economics. The kicker is that while one’s economic status can change, their racial status cannot, and when evil is inexorably ascribed to skin color, the class conflict becomes a zero sum game.
That zero-sum, oppressor/oppressed, game is a construct the communists always try to structure to support of their “glorious revolutions”, and the Critical/Critical Race Theory crowd is no difference.
But it is all crap. The logic is garbage.
Keep in mind that those behind this, the American left, the radical collectivists, could not give a tinkers damn about helping any race of people, they are only in it for the conflict because they plan and scheme to be on top when the dust settles.
They claim America is “systemically racist” and to cure that, every “system” must be destroyed, burned to the ground – but here is the flaw in that argument: systems are rarely inherently evil or good, they only produce what those who control them direct them to do. For example, lets say there is a certain law that prohibits some action – it just says, “this action is illegal”. That statement is neither racial nor economic, it just prohibits the action.
Now lets say the authority responsible for enforcement of that law enforces it arbitrarily and capriciously, every body who wears red is issued a citation and everybody who wears blue is ignored. Is that the fault of the system or those who run the system?
Here’s another example. I go out and buy some new home theater gear and refuse to read or follow the instructions. It doesn’t work, but when I take it back to the store and the techs set it up according to the instructions and it works fine. Were the instructions wrong or was I wrong?
But in each case, the contemporary communist radicals would say the system failed in the former case, and the instructions were wrong in the latter. The miracle of our country is that, through elections, we can change those who control the systems and as long as we follow the instructions, everything works.
As I have written previously, there is no doubt our system has been used by people to disadvantage others – and for many reasons, race being but one. There are also mountains of examples of people who don’t follow the instructions and wind up in jail – or worse – but neither of these cases are proof the “system” is inherently one thing or the other and needs to be burnt to the ground.
Everything these radicals claim needs to be changed can be changed without setting our Constitution on fire or starting a race war. It certainly seems to me they choose to ignore 50 years of socioeconomic, cultural and racial progress so they can fight a war from a half a century ago.
Call it “Zinn’s War” because most of these “warriors” only know of the Civil Rights struggle in a second hand way – from being miseducated by historical accounts like Zinn’s – and through relativism, equating calling whites racists in 2021 with marching across the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama in 1965.
In his book, “The Temper of Our Time”, Eric Hoffer wrote:
“Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.”
In my estimation, these movements have transitioned through being a business at light speed and are now firmly in the racket category, right where the “revolutionaries” always end up.
One thought on “Zinn’s War”
Hoffer is right on a lot of social issues. Good analysis this article, on point. Thx