Socialism, Howard Zinn and his fake history
By: Robert Knight
This communist socialist book is a complete perversion of American history. It has zero value and no good points to make. Pure propaganda.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The "everything for free" scheme being pushed by Democrats like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders appeals to many young people because they've been miseducated into thinking they live in a bad country that must be rebuilt as a socialist paradise.
Why do so many young people hate America and think we'd be better off as a socialist country?
We've all heard about the impact of "fake news," but there's something even more dangerous: Teaching "fake history."
"If you think that it is outrageous that Democratic presidential candidates want to eliminate the southern border and that Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez calls our detention facilities there 'concentration camps,' then you haven't been reading and believing Howard Zinn's best-selling A People's History of the United States ," writes Mary Grabar, Ph.D.
First published in 1980, A People's History has sold more than 2.5 million copies and is in virtually every school district, university and local library.
Zinn (1922-2010) chaired the history and social sciences departments at Spelman College (which he helped radicalize), and was a political science professor at Boston University.
A People's History paints America as a darkly evil nation whose every advance came at others' expense. In 2007, A Young People's History of the United States was published in two volumes ("Columbus to the Spanish-American War" and "Class Struggle to the War on Terror").
In her long-needed and extensive corrective, Debunking Howard Zinn (Regnery 2019), Ms. Grabar provides numerous examples of Zinn's revisionism:
- America discoverer Christopher Columbus? A genocidal maniac, driven by lust for gold and murder. Zinn juxtaposed passages from Columbus' diaries to construct outright lies about him.
- The English settlers at Jamestown, Virginia, and Plymouth, Massachusetts? Perpetrators of "genocide."
- America's Founders? Greedy exploiters who fought a revolution not for liberty but for their own class-driven acquisition of wealth and power.
- The United States in World War II? No better than Hitler's Germany or Japan. In fact, America fought only because our "main interest was not stopping Fascism but advancing the imperial interests of the United States."
- The Marshall Plan, in which the United States spent billions restoring war-torn Europe? The real purpose was "to creat[e] a network of American corporate control over the globe."
- America's internment of Japanese-Americans during the war? No different from Hitler's extermination camps, in which 6 million Jews were systematically murdered.
- North Vietnamese Communist leader Ho Chi Minh? A people's leader and liberator.
Everything Zinn wrote was couched in the language of Marxist class warfare. Key events were omitted. The mass slaughter that followed the Communist takeover of Cambodia? Good luck finding it in A People's History . Like his fellow Communist historians in Moscow, Zinn conveniently "disappeared" the more than 2 million murdered by Cambodia's Communist dictator Pol Pot.
Zinn was a member of numerous Soviet front groups, and he helped found the socialist New Party, which helped Barack Obama launch his political career. Zinn mentored a young neighbor in Connecticut, Matt Damon, who went on to be a movie star, and who plugged A People's History in his film "Good Will Hunting."
Zinn helped found the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), a communist organization that undermined the non-communist National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and instigated political violence.
As for fake history, "Zinn did everything – misrepresented sources, omitted critical information, falsified evidence, and plagiarized," Ms. Grabar writes. "Zinn liked to pretend [that] he wrote a 'people's' history, telling the bottom-up story of neglected and forgotten men and women. The problem is that he falsified American history to promote Communist revolution. … all the while denying that he was a Communist."
Before the fall of the Berlin Wall, Zinn warned that concern over communism was due to "hysteria," and he denied that there was any worldwide movement anchored in the USSR and Communist China.
In 1967, he lectured that, "We need to get accustomed to the idea that there will be more Communist countries in the world, and that this is not necessarily bad."
In a chapter titled "The Coming Revolt of the Guards" – a term that includes homeowners, taxpayers and other middle-class folk – Zinn states flatly that "capitalism has always been a failure for the lower classes. It is now beginning to fail for the middle class."
That would be news to a lot of people. Most of America's poor live better than billions of people around the world who don't have electricity, indoor plumbing, televisions, cars, smartphones, access to medical care and dentistry and other modern advances.
After this predicted "revolt," Zinn envisions a utopian future in which "certain basic things" would be "taken out of the money system and be available – free – to everyone: food, housing, health care, education, transportation."
If this sounds familiar, it's because leading Democrats like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are promising the same pie-in-the-sky results to their Free Stuff Army. To pay for it, both plan massive tax increases on what's left of the private sector.
The reason this insane, economically illiterate, un-American scheme appeals to so many is that they've been miseducated via Howard Zinn into thinking that they live in a bad country that must be rebuilt as a socialist paradise.
A People's History of the United States should be taken out of the schools and relegated, like The Communist Manifesto , to libraries.
But there should be a copy of Debunking Howard Zinn right next to it.
Tags
Who is online
329 visitors
Because they view 'socialism' as benevolent big government and the author defines 'socialism' as brutal authoritarian rule.
Two entirely different concepts using the homonym 'socialism'.
No wonder people cannot communicate.
Considering that socialism is an economic system wherein the workers own the means of production and being as practically nobody is actually proposing we adopt such a system I have to ask, what is your point?
Whether liberal or conservative a tyrant is a tyrant is a tyrant. If capitalist or communist a dictator is a dictator is a dictator. ALL tyrants and dictators suck!
Since the time of the ancients in Greece and Egypt and Rome people have always desired more efficient more effective less corrupt governance. Butt...Power Corrupts AND Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely! It makes no difference left or right. That is why we must always be leery of anyone who covets power...too much. Donald Trump would be one example of your typical would-be tyrannical dictator and that is exactly why it is so imperative he be removed from office ASAP...
well said, I totally agree... thank god we have tools to defend ourselves from tyrants.
aka "the bill of rights"
how to spot a tyrant 101 ( aka: hiding behind the flag does not work)
tyrants suppress free speech they do not like and always try to limit and/or remove gun rights.
those who try to remove or limit those rights? those are the tyrants.
now... in today's world, which side of the political spectrum is trying to limit free speech and gun rights? those are the traitors and tyrants. there is no debate about it.
cheers
Because I have a subscription to Scribd, when I see an article like this, more often than not I can check out the source material.
So I went and looked to see if the book "Debunking Howard Zinn" is available on Scribd, and it is, and so I opened up to the chapter on slavery.
Howard Zinn, of course, thought slavery in America was just about the worst thing that ever happened.
Mary Grabar, in Debunking Howard Zinn, spends a lot of time making excuses, not for slavery itself, but for the type of slavery practiced in America, which she repeatedly claims was not as bad as slavery practiced elsewhere, particularly by Muslims or other Africans. She also takes every opportunity to state things like that slaves in the south were not whipped as often as Zinn claimed, and that their food and nutrition was not as bad as some serfs in Italy , or whatever.
She also says Zinn does not give enough credit to the founding fathers who were not slaveholders, but instead Zinn concentrates on the ones who were. .
She also wonders why people like Zinn dont understand that it takes time and patience to end an institution like slavery, and America was doing the best it could.
The seeded article acts if the book "Debunking Howard Zinn" settles an issue, namely if The People's History Of The United States by Howard Zinn is accurate. Mary Grabar says it is not. But all she really does is make an argument against Zinn's conclusions. The reader of both books will see which is which by their own lights.
Amen.
This is a short passage from Grabar's book
Instead of condemning slavery in America, which existed for about 200 years , Grabar summarizes her chapter on Zinn's treatment of the issue by praising the fact that America is the country which ended the practice in 1865. And she claims that it was Christian principles which led to this great progress, and "western" civilization , as opposed to the Muslim or African cultures.
But I have a question. If western civilization and Christianity were the keys to understanding that slavery was wrong, why did it flourish in America from the mid 1600's until 1865? America was a product of western civilization and Christianity that entire time.
and only the American Indian's committed atrocities against the white settlers /s
Correct! I wonder how a holocaust survivor might feel about that?
The reader of both books will see which is which by their own lights.
That would be fair to say, except that Zinn's book is being used in school's as a history textbook! Student's don't get to make the comparison.
Nice strawman. The book is about American history isn't it?
How Zinn felt about the Russian Revolution or the invention of gunpowder would be equally off topic in a book
about the history of The United States of America.
Luckily, the Jewish American former WWII USAF bombardier wrote 20 books and an untold amount of papers and speeches.
For a clue as to Zinn's feelings about the Holocaust look here.
The statement John made was:
"Howard Zinn, of course, thought slavery in America was just about the worst thing that ever happened."
Obviously that means "slavery" is worse than "genocide"
It is not a strawman's argument. That's what was said!
John also wrote this, which is very clear that he is talking about North America...
not Europe.
But John...!!!
I don't care about the other stuff John made a very definitive statement. BTW..John can speak for himself. However, let me hear you admit that genocide is worse than slavery.
Zinn mentioned the Genocide of the Native American People as an atrocity; 90% were decimated. I do believe that outranks the horrors of slavery by a long shot.
Thank you sir and my apologies to my two Native American friends for not mentioning that fact.
You only have two ?
Complicated question.
Other more acceptable historians estimate the native population of North, Central and South American native Indian tribes numbered between 120 and 150 million when Columbus arrived. Think about that.
Contrary to the white washed history that Zinn dispelled, disease should not have been a factor because North and South American Indians came in contact with Vikings, Polynesians and Spaniards without suffering plaques. The British and Americans did deliberately use smallpox infected blankets on at least two occasions to kill Indians indiscriminately but the theory that the Indians simply died of disease is just a myth created by "history as writ by the victors".
First the Spanish in the 1500's Caribbean, then the French, the British, the colonists then the American government, then the Canadian government in the North with the Spanish in Central and South America fought the Indians for the natural resources
They fought the Indians, in Spanish territories they enslaved them to mine gold and rare gems. The more the Indians resisted the less territory and food the Spanish ceded. When the Indians died from overwork and starvation, the Spanish brought in slaves from Africa.
In NA one government after the next fought the Indians, pushed them out of the best lands, destroyed their crops and animals at harvest time, harassed their villages forcing them further West and South denying them food by denying them access to traditional hunting grounds. When the American Civil War ended the government once again turned to the "Indian problem" and almost exterminated the Buffalo in it's determination to starve the last Indians. For all intents and purposes it worked ( and wrecked the ecosystem of the US & Canada causing the Dust Bowl, etc )
The Spanish, British and French lied to them again and again. Treaties with the USA proved pointless over and over again.
Over 400 years the Indian population was decimated from about 150 million to possibly 2 million. In North America the estimates are that out of 15 million only 250,000 survived by 1908. Of course many simply stopped being Indian for many decades so it's hard to accurately assign a value but I will take CK's figure of 90% any day.
90% of 150 million = 135 million in the Holocaust of the Americas ( which frequently involved slavery of the victims)
.
Slavery seems to be the theme doesn't it?
The Germans also enslaved most of the Jews, Gypsies, gays, Communists et. al.,and worked them to death before exterminating them. True they executed many upon arrival, because they made quick decisions about who could be a good worker and who was worth feeding for a while. Because the Germans were fanatically anal about accounting we can at least be accurate about how many "dissidents " they disposed of by various means.
In about 5 years there were 17 million victims of the Holocaust, over 6 million were Jewish. There were 56,000 survivors.
The survivors and descendants owe their lives to the the fact that they were slaves and of course the Americans and Russians who freed them. And that was an accident of war. A war Germany could have won if they used their "different" populations differently...
.
So the big question. Was slavery in the US as an institution worthy of a Civil War? Was it worse than genocide?
I have seen many ridiculous comments here about how good the slaves had it in America as compared to elsewhere.
3 hots and a cot, no taxes, no worries as long as you keep working, don't get sick or old, or look the wrong way a a white woman.
Zero chance at freedom, to worship, to marry who you love, to learn to read & write or waste your own time.
Escape by unarmed uneducated blacks was generally a fools errand in a country of armed white people.
Where are you going to hide for the rest of your life? How will you eat and survive?
They had no personal time, they were property to be bought sold, raped, punished or killed as the "master" saw fit.
You would think that with good husbandry techniques the slaves would breed and bring increased wealth to the plantation
owners but apparently they didn't see slaves the same way they valued their pigs and cows.
Black infant mortality was twice the rate of whites because black woman kept working to the last minute.
Half of all slave children ( not including the masters bastards) died in the first year due to chronic malnutrition.
America only imported 480,000 slaves over a 200 year period. By Emancipation there were 4.5 million
We do not know accurately how many died in North America.
We do know that of the 12 million plus shipped to the New World, between 1.5 million and 2.2 million died in transit
or in the holding pens upon arrival.
We also know that at least 4.4 million died in concentration camps on the African end of the supply chain.
Further inland the wars that created the slaves killed another 60 million.
Over 300 years from 1500 to 1800 while the populations of Europe and Asia doubled,
Africa populations dropped from 117 million to 106 million due to the slave trade and the wars feeding it.
So how many people died to get the surviving slaves to market? The highest estimates are 150 million.
.
Is it worse than genocide?
I don't know if I can honestly answer the question Vic.
I can list them in the order of man's inhumanity to man.
1. 400 years of greedy whites vs Native Americans, possibly 150 million killed.
2. 300 years of Africans vs Africans assisted by greedy White Christians distributing black slavery all over the world
3. The German Holocaust; 5 years of the madness of white christian purity which wasted 17 million peoples lives.
I think all it proves is that the human game is rather hopeless.
Everything you wrote is wrong.
That's right. Iv'e lived in the northeast my entire life. The first time I was fortunate enough to even meet some Native Americans was only about 5 years ago (in NM). There are two on NT that I actually got know and I regard them both as friends of mine.
I do note the nature of the question.
Well first let me thank you for another bit of info to discuss about the mystery of the disappearance of so many native AI
even though it is once again an obscure 9 year old scholarly review of those 3 scientists work. It would certainly be nice tto see something more current which Native Americans can agree with.
Having said that, and acknowledging the fact that my comment far exceeded the average person's attention span of 8
seconds, did you have any thing to add about my comments about the German Holocaust
or the African Slave Trade and it's death tolls?
Since you did not bother to refute those two topics I can only assume you did not read the entire comment.
Don't worry though, it's just the first sign of SPDS which is not contagious.
Cheers
Because a nation supposedly founded on Christian principles whose "god given rights were self evident" should have known better than to embrace slavery from the beginning. Because it besmirched the very idea of the USA being some mythical Camelot, a shining beacon of "liberty and justice for all".
27 Amendments later, modern men and women, black & white are still working on the Constitution & Bill of Rights because the "god given original rights" were horribly flawed and incomplete.
That was Zinn's point.
To be fair SP, God never condemned nor prohibited slavery. Just the opposite. So I suppose one could say slavery was allowed because God was OK with it. Not that that was the reason it was allowed. But it does say something about god and his morality, or lack thereof.
I almost made the same point, but what stopped me is that SP is referring to Christian principles rather the biblical content. They differ (as we know).
Yes, although, some might not see a difference.
Agreed.
Clearly Zinn thought & taught that America was evil right from it's founding even though the founders did have ideals based on equality. America eventually lived up to those ideals and the nation paid in blood for them. The Civil War took approx 620,000 American lives. Zinn's work was always ripe for a real critique. There are many conclusions of the book that are seriously flawed. A notable example was Zinn's comparing internment camps for the Japanese to Nazi concentration camps. A thought process we see in so many newly minted progressives.
I've read both. I threw away Zinn's book and kept Grabar's on my bookshelf.
Just ordered it on Amazon right now. Been meaning to do so for a while. My thanks for bringing that up.
I have a question for Heartland American.
If western civilization was the antidote for racism and slavery, why did Abraham Lincoln believe that Negroes and Africans were inferior?
Lincoln never went to school, he was self taught, reading the classics of western civilization and the works of Jefferson and other founding fathers. Western civilization provided Lincoln with little to nothing to persuade him that all men were created equal. It doesnt seem as though Lincoln ever believed that non whites were the "equal" of whites, although there is some indication he was changing in that regard in the waning months of the war. Lincoln did hate slavery.
I think he believed in something that was written about a century before - "that all men are created equal"! They didn't really need a crazed, wild eyed, modern progressive to tell them what was right and wrong. I happen to think that even the slave owners knew deep down that what they were doing was wrong. It was about money for them. It was that simple.
Another thing Lincoln felt was a love for this country. Something the likes of Howard Zinn can never understand.
Wrong, he clearly stated otherwise, many times.
Who are they, them and the modern progressive?
Some knew it was wrong and most were in it for the money & power.
But that doesn't explain the deep racism still felt in the South today does it? Slavery has been gone for 155 years.
Apparently not.
Most definitely.
Ridiculously wrong again.
Have a good weekend, sir.
Ya, you too
Socialism, as defined, is a fantastic concept that I support wholeheartedly. However, unlike some here, I’m not naive enough to believe it is possible in the real world and history agrees with me.
Idealism is great until it bites everyone square in the ass.
Who here has suggested that socialism (national level distributed control over the economy) is possible in the current real world (including history)?
Also, what do you mean by 'socialism'? No way anyone can know what you mean by the word alone, one must supply a definition to avoid hopeless ambiguity.
You have here:
Or was that comment for informational purposes only?
Where do you read me saying that this is currently likely or even possible at a national level?
By the way, you truncated my words in your quote leaving off the key qualification I had offered:
”Who here has suggested that socialism (national level distributed control over the economy) is possible in the current real world (including history)? ”
What do you think "Socialism" ……. is/means ?
So your post was for informational purposes only. Got it.
Nice to know you apparently have realized Socialism isn’t a viable economic model in today’s world.
Do you not read what I write on this topic? Looks like you do a lot of presuming.
I routinely offer that socialism requires societal evolution and that it likely will not emerge in our lifetimes, if ever. I also routinely note that it has never existed at a national level. Sound familiar?
Given I have explained this to you in the past, pretending that this is news is dishonest.
i read what I quoted What’s so difficult to understand about that? Stop presuming there is more to it.
No but I’ll make sure to put that subject on my future “posting by Tig” reading syllabus.
One thing is for sure. You surely like the sound of your opinion. Even when its wrong.
You sure did, and that is what I noted. You read what you quoted ...
... yet what I wrote was ...
And the part in blue is key based on your accusation. Leaving off part of a sentence to portray a different meaning is crude intellectual dishonesty.
You engaged me on my last article on socialism. Later in the exchange I directly replied to you with the following:
And I make comments similar to that all the time. If this is new to you then you have not paid even the slightest attention to what I actually write and instead are merely presuming. If this is not new then your allegation and subsequent comments are pure intellectual dishonesty. Knowingly making false statements. Which is it?
Back that up. Explain what you think I have wrong. Don't just claim and run, take a stand.
Don’t be obtuse, you know I meant what “you” quoted. I never “quoted” myself in this case.
Nah, it’s just where I stopped my copy. But you got your sanctimonious insult in there so good job.
SOSDD for you I guess.
Another option. If I read and/or responded to it I clearly don’t recall and yet you automatically go for the “intellectual” insult. Again, I read what I quoted and you still conveniently haven’t responded to that.
Lol, having trouble understanding my stand? I suggest you go back and read what I wrote. As to what you got wrong, you’re, assuming, presuming, claiming that I’m being somehow dishonest. Not everyone here is playing internet word games. I stand by the veracity of everything I post here and your supposition that I’m somehow being dishonest reeks of the obtuse sanctimony I’ve come to expect from some here.
Stop throwing rocks in your glass house and perhaps we can get somewhere on this topic but I’m not holding my breath.
I did not suggest you quoted yourself. No wonder you do not understand what I write, you misread even the most basic sentences. To be crystal clear (third time), you omitted the last part of my sentence. Quoting a portion of a sentence —when doing so changes the meaning— is crude intellectual dishonesty. It is a slimy tactic.
Clearly. That has been my consistent message on the topic for many years. Given the number of comments (and articles) I have made on this topic (including those directly to you) you are not paying even casual attention. And that is fine until you make certain statements on my position. If you do not understand my position, you should avoid presuming to know it because your presumption is demonstrably wrong.
And worse than that is to deem me naive on a position of your own invention when I routinely state the opposite.
Finally, you are pretending that you engaged me here to have an honest, adult discussion. Bullshit. Your comments have misrepresented my position since the start and when challenged you simply double down on the dishonesty. Engage me that way if you wish, but do not be surprised when I call you out on it.
Sure you did and that much is clear. This is what you said:
Trying to change the meaning of that comment to something that supports whatever screwed up message you are trying to communicate here is really strange on your part. A weird attempt at gaslighting? Perhaps ..... regardless, your propensity to resort to insults and disingenuous misrepresentations of my words are the real slimy tactics here. No doubt about it.
I was going to respond to the rest of your reactive, insulting nonsense but this is going nowhere good and I have no desire to fling poo like you seem hard wired to do here. Since It’s clear you have no desire to debate this respectfully without trying to make it personal I am out ....
The phrase ' You read what you quoted ... " means that you quoted a portion of my sentence and then interpreted only what you quoted. You left off the remainder of my sentence and that changed the meaning entirely. A slimy tactic by you. How you think that means that you quoted yourself is beyond explanation. You are either confused or you find this pointless deflection to be the best rebuttal you can offer.
The reality is that I proved that you misrepresented my position on the viability of socialism. I delivered a full direct quote from me to you in the past and a direct quote from me right here in this thread. You are dead wrong and it is obvious. Yet here you are again making new allegations in what appears to be an emotional rant.
Returning with nothing but projection-based trolling is a slimy response when proven wrong.
Here again is one of several comments I made directly to you months ago when you engaged me on my socialism article. This is clear language that states my position on the subject; a position I have articulated consistently for years. It is the opposite of your allegations here. And note, unlike yours, my reply was adult-level commentary:
Note that the link is included so you can even go to the context and refresh your memory. Much better use of time than making an emotional rant when proven wrong.
I’ll let you know when you’ve proven me wrong in some way and/or characterized my intentions or character correctly.
So far you haven’t been correct on any of that. Not even close actually.
It’s curious but for some reason you seem to have a need to make this personal. Again, not interested in that game but enjoy since it does appear to be your thing based on this conversation.
Hard to imagine what you think you will accomplish by pretending you have not been proved wrong. Or by pretending that you are the one who made this personal.
Does not matter. When someone engages me as you have done my response is to call them out. You can keep pretending but anyone reading this thread will see this:
Your allegation that I claim socialism is viable (nationally) today and that I am naive for holding that view was wrong. I proved it by delivering a direct quote from me to you from when you engaged me months ago on my socialism article.
Instead of admitting your mistake (or just silently leaving) you continue with comments pretending as though the fault lies with me. Keep playing that intellectually dishonest game and I will continue to call you out on it.
Repeating my question: What do You mean by ‘socialism’? Using the term without definition is beyond ambiguous.
Definition via my well worn Merriam Webster that I’ve been using since college.
You are going to simply defer to a dictionary?? Take a stand Sparty. If you cannot provide anything more than a basic dictionary definition then you have no grounds to suggest anyone else naive. Especially when your interlocutor has and will provide substantial supporting details.
Nah, some Of us as accept definitions for what they are. Definitions. No need to get verbose and debate it endlessly or try to redefine a concept simply because we are in love with our own voice.
Dictionary definitions are simply the starting point. Dictionaries provide usages for words. Go to the dictionary and read the definition for 'impeachment'. Does that give you a deep understanding of the process or does it simply establish a basic vocabulary from which one can begin one's study?
Impeachment: "the action of calling into question the integrity or validity of something."
You think that is sufficient to claim understanding of impeachment? If discussing the process of impeaching Trump, do you not need to have a substantially broader base of knowledge than a starting definition?
At the very least, one needs an encyclopedic treatment of a topic before claiming to have even a basic understanding.
If, when called to define socialism as you use the term, all you can do is point to a dictionary then you should think twice before suggesting others are naive.
Many thanks to Mary Grabar. I don't have the book yet, but it's on my list. What we really need is a text book to replace Zinn's, which was written as a history text book and has been so destructive to a great nation.
Socialism is just another form of supply-side economics. The fundamental socialist idea is to collectivize and control the supply side of the marketplace. Socialism (like any other theory of supply-side economics) cannot be considered capitalism.
Rewriting history won't change the nature of supply-side economics. And, it seems, that every theory of supply-side economics depends upon twisting history to make itself more appealing. A socialist oligarchy isn't any worse than a free market oligarchy.
Supporting one type of supply-side economics while deriding another type of supply-side economics is a nonsensical argument. That argument is only about which oligarchy benefits the most.
Zinn is, as even most serious left wing historians will concede, not a historian but a propagandist.
All you need to need to know about Zinn is ;that he spent years claiming a soviet atomic spy Morton Sobel was innocent and railroaded by the American Government.
Decades later, after being released from prison, Sobel admitted he was a Soviet spy. Confronted with his confession, Zinn's response was "it didn't matter if they were guilty or not."
That's Zinn, the "historian" to whom facts don't matter, only ammunition that could drive the anti-American narrative that defined his work did.
It's insane this zealot has a much influence on popular American history as he does, it's no better than allowing our students to be educated about American history by Nazi propagandists.
A good quick read. I highly recommend it.
Socialism Sucks
The authors are defining socialism as the authoritarian, central-planning, expropriation, etc. practices of the former USSR, Red China, Cuba, Venezuela, etc. Using that as the exemplar definition of socialism, socialism clearly does suck. The authors also distinguish this 'socialism' from the social democracy at play in the Nordic nations and elsewhere (including the U.K and France). That is exactly correct, social democracy is not socialism; it is capitalism. Bernie Sanders needs to read this book.
Based on how people commonly define socialism (simply accepting the meaning derived from dictators slapping the label onto their initiatives as a smoke-screen) the authors are certainly correct. Socialism, as commonly understood, does indeed suck. Who would want such a system?
Now, in contrast, a system wherein people have strong democratic control over the productive resources of the economy (not government, not a capitalist minority, but the demos) is profoundly different from any system in our history. It has never existed. While it may never happen, the absence of a powerful force, be it authoritarian government or massive-scale crony capitalism, and instead a free-market of collectively-owned and operated businesses operating in a competitive market with unequal results is entirely different from what the authors are considering.
No doubt. The issue here seems to be the difficulty in swallowing the idea that the ideal system would ever be implemented. Several months ago, after reading an article posted here, I visited the DSA website to read what they claimed for themselves. What better place to visit? Under the "About Us" tab, I found a paragraph explaining the ideas on market controls. Then, the site unabashedly claimed that a group of well informed people would be calling the shots. I commented about the irony of such statement. The DSA wants decentralization, and was promoting the concept of centralizing it instead in a group of "well informed" people.
I checked the DSA site today. I'm not surprised to find that said suggestion has been removed. I doubt the sentiment has been removed though. It has been replaced with a statement that controls would be placed in the hands of "workers and consumers who are affected by economic institutions." Forgive me if I still read that as a group of well informed people, supposedly representing the interests of workers and consumers who are affected by economic institutions. In my view, they are promoting a changing of fat cats, not a takeover by the mice.
From the DSA site:
Let's take the 3rd sentence. As Penn and Teller would put it...Bullshit. 2nd sentence? Generally agreeable comment. 1st? People work because they want something. Period. They don't work out of a sense of responsibility to their community and society. There may be a handful that do, but good luck finding them, as well as in getting them into a position of authority. Cynical view? Absolutely. No more cynical than a view that capitalists and capitalism are inherently evil. The difference in the two, obviously my opinion, is the pie in the sky attitude of the DSA. Ironically, I looked up the origins of "pie in the sky." Apparently attributed to Joe Hill, member of the International Workers of the World, via a parody he wrote of "In the Sweet By-and-By." Instead, now the DSA is selling pie in the sky.
The DSA is a political organization. I would not look to them to provide guidance on socialism. They are more like Bernie Sanders (one of their members) ... trying to push a statist cause using a (very confused) mixture that they call 'Democratic Socialism'. Not impressive.
It is far better to get away from the partisans and into the theorists because socialism is theoretical. A popular exemplar is Economic Democracy by Schweickart .
Well, I'm glad to see I'm not confused for no reason.