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
39 visitors
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.
The Patriots Guide to American History is a true representation of American history, the American people and our nature as an exceptional nation founded by divine providence.
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.
There is no such thing as benevolent big government. True socialism always ends up in brutal repression.
True socialism has never existed. Not on a large scale.
Your problem isn't with true socialism, it's with totalitarianism and tyranny, it's with oppressive concentrations of power. The thing is, power in socialism is supposed to be very highly distributed, politically as well as economically.
Equality is kind of a big deal in socialism, remember? It's supposed to be a classless society. That makes oppressive concentrations of power technically impossible.
Here's a general rule of thumb for you: If what you're looking at has a dictator, or a ruling class of any kind lording over the rest of society, then you're not looking at "true socialism".
True, but that is what the contemporary leftists who self-label as 'socialist' are looking for. ( Looks like you missed my point. )
(see @3.1.1 ... or do research that goes beyond the superficial abuse of labels)
socialism = distributed (demos vs. minority) control over the resources of the economy
Not so. Tribal life is true Socialism. In a Native American tribe, everyone owned the land and the fruits thereof, they worked together for the benefit of the Community and took care of their Members. Children were raised by the tribe, taught by the tribe, and when it came time to move into their own dwelling, the tribe helped them make it.
I support that. Basic necessities are exactly that-"necessities", and replacing the Profit Motive with what is actually necessary being provided would eliminate so much waste. I would even go so far as to be willing to give up half my income to cover the costs of those things, since I already do so just to line someone else's pockets with enormous profits. True, I don't want the ugly block housing Russia was known for, but a nice comfortable home with actual free public transportation to a free school or to work doesn't sound bad to me. We don't need a t-bone to live, but we do need food and by giving everyone a basic, balanced, diet we could also eliminate a lot of the health problems we have now with obesity related illnesses. I also find it immoral that we should allow people to profit from another persons pain, or illness. We also have to face the fact that the better educated we are as a Society, the better off we all are! I'm talking about actual useful knowledge like math, science, engineering, tradeschools, etc..., not bullsjit courses in philosophy, religion, politics, et al.
Now I'm not saying these things can't have their "For Profit" counter parts where you can buy your own car, buy a bigger house, buy bigger boobs, chow down on a standing rib roast, or even study non-useful subjects in school where you pay for the privileges.
Necessities, however, should be available to all.
Now how much do you really support ending Homelessness, Starvation, Disease, an Illiteracy people?
Wow no one mentioned Communism, did they?
And there you go comparing the pastoral socialism of native American Indians
to the big bad trigger word Communism.
Another victim of Moral Relativism...black is white & green is red?
smh.
I’m a proponent of charity and charitable giving. I don’t oppose all government aid to the unlucky, the ill, the disabled in need. It’s a matter of degree. Things governments do are not all socialism and yes if governments get too big they are anything but benevolent.
The ideas behind both Socialism and Communism are noble endeavors. Unfortunately when you try to put them into practice, the driving force behind Capitalism ruins it...GREED!
Greed is a fallen human condition, a sin that has been around since the fall of mankind to sin. Capitalism has only been around for about 240 years or so.
I believe I already laid the blame at the feet of Greed. Capitalism encourages it by rewarding the greedy with more than they actually need whereas in true Socialism it is supposed to be to to each as they need...
Well ... let me suggest a more nuanced meaning.
The idea of ' to each according to his need ' is based on a future vision wherein technology provides all the resources needed to sustain decent lives for all of society. That is, we have finally moved past 'work to live'. People would, theoretically, pursue their ambitions based on interest without concern for necessity.
Basically the idea is that society would provide what is needed for a decent life style and, from that point, each individual chooses their careers based on their own ambitions. Some will seek more wealth (develop and sell products) while others will pursue artistic endeavors, research, etc.
Whether anything like this ever happens it is hard to say. I am confident that none of us will live long enough to see something like this due to the pace of societal evolution and the very different manner in which people would be thinking of their lives to get to this stage.
Also, the ' from each according to his ability ' part refers to the idea that everyone is encouraged to productively contribute to society (entertainment, art, engineering, administration, research, ...) and that the contribution would be based on the ability (aptitude, education) of individuals pursuing their passions. So, one must imagine a society in which low wage, shit jobs do not exist.
No, you responded to 3.1.3, nothing else.
Let's just request that YOU go back and read CK's long comment #3.1.3 completely and then maybe you can point out the
actual word "communism" for all of the rest of us to see.
(clue: the word communism is not in that comment)
We are alreay weii on that path with Automation.
Per your incredibly naive meme, the future (foreseeable) certainly is capitalism. It is not likely to be what you think is 'socialism'. But the distant future might indeed be a system wherein the demos have distributed control over the resources of the economy. No way to know at this point but to declare it impossible is as arrogant as claiming God is who you define God to be.
( By the way, take a tip from al Jizzerror and post your memes graphically. Although I clicked your link, most people likely skipped over your comment. If the meme is a picture within the comment, it will more likely be seen. )
I agree. Technology (robotics, artificial intelligence, communication, batteries, etc.) will be there well before society is able to evolve to the point where living a decent life is simply a function of being a citizen and people are freer to pursue ambitions rather than work to live. (If that ever happens.)
Greed is the root of capitalism.
Socialism is a means of curbing the tragedy of the commons.
The Heartland Institute is all about unregulated greed.
I would disagree. Greed is what causes the failure of Socialism.
So sorry, it does have to say the word. Purely and simply the site is about what people WRITE,
not about what you imagined that they wrote.
[DELETED]
So greed is the source of all slavery and genocide that produced the greater good? Is that your actual position?
Please take the 5th. Quit while you are behind.
Your good with that because you got yours,
you think you beat the CA tax system and brag about meeting Russian chicks on your McYacht
while bragging about the Olympics, your trophy wife and kids,
because you are the prefect iconoclast. BS
Give us all a break, please.
The Heartland Institute is a great American think tank and research institute that I can’t recommend to all highly enough. They are the best authorities on what climate change fraud and global warming hoaxes truly are.
That is one case where greed is good.
Hardly.
Notice the passages I emphasized above? THAT is what Greed gets you--destruction of what should ultimately be a fair and equal society. I'm guessing you've never been a victim of Greed to a point where it turned your life upside down completely. Until you have, I don't think you will ever understand the injustice inherent within it.
Sorry SP, but I actually did mention Communism at 3.1.4 above when I stated:
...even though I am primarily discussing Socialism as you say.
That was FW. He was the first to mention communism in this thread. SP pointed that out. Your post mentioning communism was later.
actually it is much simpler than that...
socialism is theft and thieving bastards will be shot.
True.
Not sure where you are getting that from. If you are talking about when the government Nationalizes businesses, it really would depend on how it's handled. To simply take the business and hand it over to the employees would be theft. However forcing the owners to sell it to the employees at Fair Market Value would not be.
From the quoted articles link:
Under Socialism, if you want more, you can still earn it. Just as in our Capitalistic Society we now live in, a portion of your earnings go toward the maintaining of the Public Welfare through taxes. The difference is that since businesses are owned collectively by the employees, no one person will profit off the blood, sweat, and tears of their fellow workers without them also benefiting. The catch though is that those who work harder, will get bigger benefits than those that work less.
Sounds pretty fair to me...
we did not give the federal government the power to force us to sell our business at a fair price. the supreme court will never allow it. this nation is built on individual ownership and "the states" will make sure it stays that way.
your only choices are to pass an amendment to the constitution... or go fish. ( I hope you can cut bait because that amendment will never pass. )
the resulting civil war will be fair also. LOL
That really goes beyond the definition of socialism and into what might be be called a bloodless revolution. I do not see revolution happening. Rather, if socialism is in our future, it will very likely be an evolutionary process. A process driven by the people as society slowly changes toward a system wherein a minority no longer has control over the productive resources of the economy (and government control is minority control too).
Abrupt actions such as expropriation of private property, seizing personal assets, etc. would be an ugly business and I do not see it yielding good results. But I can see our society moving more to worker-owned businesses and progressive taxation (mitigating hyper-accumulation of wealth) as well as developing a baseline standard of living. Given AI technology, our society will almost certainly change because we must face the reality of high unemployment as AI (intelligence and robotics) takes over not only the simplistic, boring jobs but white collar jobs as well. This is going to force profound changes in our traditional work-to-live paradigm. Difficult to predict how this might manifest, but it is obvious that our paradigm is going to change.
the fundamental change of our country will continue to be denied for generations to come.
count on it.
It is hard to imagine the USA not being based on capitalism. It is so entrenched in everything that we do, the evolution would take a very long time. That is why I note that I do not think anyone alive today will ever see the USA operating on an economic system other than capitalism.
What is funny is that people get all bent out of shape about 'socialism' when clearly they do not understand what they are talking about. If they understood socialism they would realize that it is, if ever, a very long term proposition. Something none of us will ever see.
In reality, it seems to me that most people do not understand socialism but rather have a superficial, label-based concept. And the meanings vary. Basically they have some confused notion that the former USSR, Red China, ... Venezuela are exemplars for socialism. They do not bother to do any research and just stubbornly run with that naive conception of socialism.
Bottom line, the USA will remain capitalist for all of our lives. Socialism is not the concern. The concern, the real, practical concern is statism. Too bad most people focus on labels instead of understanding the concepts. Only by understanding the concepts can one make informed decisions and act accordingly.
not as long as one might think.
it only took one generation to destroy that country.
Venezuela is an example of authoritarian rule, expropriation and gross incompetence of a centrally planned government. Never did the people of Venezuela have democratic control over the productive resources of their economy; socialism thus never existed there. It was (as in the past) merely the label Chavez used to promote his power play.
The 'if they understood socialism' part of my quote is important. Venezuela is not an example of socialism; it is state capitalism coupled with irresponsible statism. The authoritarian minority controlled the productive resources; the people did not.
Having just read it, that article gets a few things muddled, such as claiming this early on:
A command economy like the former USSR shouldn't actually be considered true socialism, since it puts ultimate control of everything in the hands of a very few who basically function as a new ruling class.
The article does go on to mention concepts with a more proper distribution of power, such as democratic socialism, libertarian socialism, and market socialism, but not in a very satisfactory way (IMHO at least).
Your point about greed certainly stands, though.
our federal government is not a democracy either, the national majority means nothing and never will.
the only democracies we have are state governments. and state majorities are all that matters.
hint: the majority of states will never accept socialism.
What does that have to do with what I wrote?? We were talking about Venezuela and the meaning of socialism vs. authoritarian state capitalism.
venezuela was just an example of socialism.
I'm talking about this country and socialism.
don't like it? move on.
as for the meaning of socialism? we already covered that.
socialism is theft
and thieving bastards will be shot.
write that down. it will be on the test.
You can talk about whatever you want. But when you reply to one of my comments it makes a lot more sense if your reply has something to do with what I wrote. If you are just going make comments then post rather than reply.
But, since you replied I will weigh in on what you wrote:
Our system is a federated constitutional Republic based on representative democracy. We are a Republic and a Democracy. We are not a direct Democracy but we are a Democracy nonetheless. We are both a Republic and a Democracy (the two are not contradictory).
The government structure of states is representative democracy; just as is the government structure of the USA as a whole. Best I can do to salvage your point is if you were comparing election of a Governor to election of a President. There you see a difference. Maybe that is what you were trying to say.
Of course not with the current population. Our culture is not one that is even appropriate for socialism. Also, our system is so intertwined in capitalism that I am not sure how it would ever get untangled.
It is an example of authoritarian rule, incompetent central planning and state capitalism.
Buy a vowel.
I originally replied to Citizen Kane-473667 before you jumped into my conversation
[ deleted ]
This is an open forum. Every comment can be replied to. If you want a private conversation, use a different medium.
sure.. only one problem.
you don't get to dictate the terms of my reply.
have a nice day.
And I did not dictate. I made a suggestion. Here, read it again:
don't worry about it..... you will get over it soon enough.
if you want to define socialism.
a more moving target can not be found
so, find someone else.
Short of tossing out slogan level definitions for socialism and making declarations, you have not provided any thoughtful comment. You offer nothing resembling a meaningful rebuttal of my counterpoints but instead toss out juvenile taunts. Is that all you have to offer?
I already told you I'm not interested in defining socialism or redefining socialism. and could not care less about how you define socialism.
so, you obviously have nothing I want to discuss.
the definition of socialism is:
You open with this and then proceed to (re)define socialism as:
Ignoring even the dictionary definition you just supplied.
it can exist in various forms of watered down socialism.
the question is: do you think one's business (aka the means of production) is not one's property?
No watering down required. Personal property is not the focus of socialism. ( Personal property is very different from private property. )
A business is typically owned as private property. That is entirely different from personal property. Further, under socialism, the people would collectively own their businesses. What makes you think otherwise?
Now, under authoritarian rule where the state owns businesses, etc. the people would clearly NOT own their businesses. So you (everyone in fact) certainly should be against state capitalism and authoritarian rule.
tell me, how did those people get the business they now own?
By developing an idea and a supporting business plan, securing capital, securing approval by the people wherein the business operates and committing themselves to running the business as worker owners.
employee-owned business funded through capitalistic means is not an example of socialism.
it is not even a new idea, groups of capitalists have been doing that for years and it does not make them socialists.
I'm done with this conversation... it is meaningless.
You changed your comment. Okay, under this new version here is the answer:
A business is not a means of production. The means of production are land, facilities, equipment, etc. Under socialism the means of production are controlled by the people and not by any particular business. Owning a business means having management control over the domain to design, manufacture, market, sell, etc. It means having full control over the distribution of profits (surplus value), business strategy, etc.
You do not understand that every business (under any economic system) needs to be capitalized? Do you think that capitalizing a business means the system is Capitalism??
You ask questions, get answers that apparently you have never considered and now you deem it meaningless. Perfect.
you don't have answers you have bs.
an employee-owned business is not an example of socialism.
when a group of capitalists get together to start a business that does not make them socialists. but it might make them rich
contrary... a group of socialists using capitalistic methods for funding to start a profitable business would be seen as capitalists and not thieves... LOL
Thing is, what I have told you is fundamental to socialism and if you ever take the time to actually research the subject matter you would find that these basics I have offered are not only well established but that there is a wealth of supporting details.
Man, you are working overtime to not get it.
Correct. Are you under the impression that what takes place under socialism cannot take place under capitalism and vice-versa? Socialism is not defined as 'a group of people starting a business'. You asked me:
... and I answered you with ...
I did not offer the defining criteria for socialism, I answered your direct question. Do you think that competitive markets do not exist under socialism? Do you think that people with great ideas, ambition, guts and tenacity (and luck) will not outperform those with lesser qualities and reap the economic benefits? Do you think that socialism is somehow devoid of everything that exists in a capitalistic society?
Well I suppose you are making a little progress. The collective ownership of a business occurs in both socialism and capitalism. The key difference is the control over the productive resources of the economy. Under capitalism the MoP/MoD are controlled by a minority (government politicians/officials are a minority too). Under socialism the control is by the demos.
actually, I am just watching you try to redefine socialism.
but ya can't even come up with some bs I have never heard before.
I see you stubbornly holding to a platitude — a slogan-level meaning for a term — while refusing to even consider that there might be more to the story. That is no way to operate if you wish to be knowledgeable on a topic.
there is no more to the story.
an employee owned business is not socialism.
you can type till your fingers fall off... won't change a thing.
when a govt (group of people) facilitates the creation or ownership of business via force, taxes, or coercion? that is socialism. aka theft.
borrowing money and/or combining money to start a business is called capitalism.
end of story.
Well that is demonstrably wrong. It takes no effort on Google to find a ton of information describing socialism (beyond the superficial, slogan level nonsense). Google 'Economic Democracy' for starters.
Correct. You write that as if I had claimed employee ownership is a defining characteristic of socialism. Yet, in reality I told you that this is a mechanism that can exist regardless of economic system.
Well of course it will not change your mind; you are just tossing out whatever you can think of in an attempt to try to rebut what I am writing. I am not attempting to change your mind. I am using your comments as a springboard to offer commentary on the subject for others to consider.
You cannot move past the slogan-level understanding. Yes, I would consider it theft for a group of people to expropriate a business. Chavez engaged in theft. He also build a system of state capitalism with a centrally planned economy and ruined a productive nation. Meanwhile, never did the people of Venezuela ever gain control over the productive resources of the economy. Never, did Chavez deliver socialism to them. Instead he made his regime the super-capitalist and turned Venezuela into a system of state capitalism and then managed to ruin their economy with his incompetence.
It is called 'capitalization'; that is not a defining characteristic for capitalism. I assumed you at least knew the definition of capitalism. Do some research man.
so ya say.... LOL
I have heard all the pseudo intellectual bs before.
be creative... come up with something new.
That is exactly what should not take place. I am encouraging people to go beyond lazy acceptance of terms and gain at least a basic understanding of the concepts. Right now people are all over the map in how they define 'socialism' (among other things). It is embarrassing to observe the level of stubborn ignorance on this subject in the USA.
that is exactly what I meant when I said a more moving target could not be found.
but you, have got it all figured out huh? LOL
I asked how socialists got the business they owned - you said they got the money same as any capitalist would while describing a basic employee owned business.
im not thinking you have socialism figured out just yet.
All you have to do is engage in basic research. Do not lazily stop at slogans but rather investigate the defining characteristics, understand the ultimate objectives, understand the proposed systems pursuant to those objectives, etc.
You, in particular, need to first understand capitalism (the defining characteristics, objectives, etc.) before attempting to understand socialism.
I don't need any research to know what you described at post @3.1.55 is not socialism
I asked how socialists got the business they owned - you said they got the money same as any capitalist would while describing a basic employee owned business.
I'm not thinking you have socialism figured out just yet
I was not defining socialism @3.1.55. I answered your question with a direct answer. I explained this to you @3.1.60.
Yes. In both cases a new enterprise needs to be capitalized. The mechanisms for capitalization vary but the need for capitalization is common to both systems.
Based on what you have written in this thread, I do not see you in a position to make that judgment call.
I know this and ya lost the discussion right there when you described capitalism.
obviously, you don't know what socialism is.
Given you do not even understand that capitalization of a business is not a defining characteristic of capitalism, there is no expectation by me that you understand even a fraction of what we just discussed.
yeah... I tend to ignore leftwing bs.
next time you try to explain socialism don't use an example of capitalism. they are not the same thing.
people working together and starting a business with their own saved or borrowed money is not socialism. that is called capitalism.
You are stuck in a circle. You keep repeating the same comment. Since I have explained this to you multiple times I will simply copy & paste. Maybe you will read one of the copies.
from TiG @ 3.1.60 :
Correct. Are you under the impression that what takes place under socialism cannot take place under capitalism and vice-versa? Socialism is not defined as 'a group of people starting a business'. You asked me:
... and I answered you with ...
I did not offer the defining criteria for socialism, I answered your direct question. Do you think that competitive markets do not exist under socialism? Do you think that people with great ideas, ambition, guts and tenacity (and luck) will not outperform those with lesser qualities and reap the economic benefits? Do you think that socialism is somehow devoid of everything that exists in a capitalistic society?
As evidenced by your comments in this thread which show no concept of the topic. It is what I would expect from someone who categorically dismisses that which s/he perceives as 'left wing bs' without making an attempt to understand the concepts. Do some research Magic 8, your comments in this thread were foolish.
In the West farmers have formed various cooperatives like Farmers Cooperative cotton gins and wheat elevators. Farmers own these facilities and they are examples of socialism.
I live in a NYC Coop where the stockholders own the building and this is an another example a socialist business construct that work well and have been doing so for over a hundred years...
The existence of cooperative business structures put your denials of how things must work in our economy to rest. There are many businesses in America which operate quite effectively which are organized as socialist structures within our capitalist system.
Holy crap, my Electric Power provider co-op must be socialist then? And by extension me too?
Holy crap!
Businesses that are entirely employee owned can function within a capitalist or a socialist economy. The difference is how these businesses operate externally. In a capitalist economy, the businesses will typically own their MoP such as land, facilities, equipment, etc. and will tap into various mechanisms for capitalization. In a socialist economy the businesses would lease their means of production (owned by the demos) and secure capital from regional sources (one of many methods) that are themselves funded by lease revenue and taxes.
To wit, workplace democracy is not a defining characteristic of socialism since it can work in both systems. It is, however, the preferred method of business organization in socialist theory. Since it is not a defining characteristic, the presence of workplace democracy does not mean 'socialism'.
An wholly unrealistic and idealistic expectation from my experience. My people are very good at what they do but if they owned and operated this business, it wouldn't last a year. Not many would IMO.
The practical application and viability is a different question.
I think it is wrong to think of taking an existing business based on the typical hierarchic structure and with a culture of hiring employees (rather than expanding the owner pool) and magically expect it to work effectively with workplace democracy. This is not something one simply snaps a finger and converts to. It is something that evolves from a very different way of thinking. As I have noted in the past, changes in paradigm typically are a result of gradual evolution. In this case, the people would all need to be predisposed to the responsibilities of workplace democracy and few in the USA have even a clue as to how that would work much less be sufficiently disciplined and motivated to make it work.
But, that said, the Mondragon Corporation demonstrates how worker coops can indeed work effectively and on a large scale. So the question is not if it can work well, but rather if this will ever become the predominant mode of operation for businesses.
I tend to deal in the here and now and not in a place that MIGHT come true far, far away in time.
The Idealism you speak of is great but it doesn't pay the bills today.
Mondragon Corporation has been in operation since 1956. Thus it has existed longer than you. Worker coops are not far, far in the future nor are they idealistic. They exist today. You did not acknowledge what I wrote but the points I made are:
Wrong-headed Thinking:
I think it is wrong to think of taking an existing business based on the typical hierarchic structure and with a culture of hiring employees (rather than expanding the owner pool) and magically expect it to work effectively with workplace democracy. This is not something one simply snaps a finger and converts to. It is something that evolves from a very different way of thinking. As I have noted in the past, changes in paradigm typically are a result of gradual evolution. In this case, the people would all need to be predisposed to the responsibilities of workplace democracy and few in the USA have even a clue as to how that would work much less be sufficiently disciplined and motivated to make it work.
Future for Workplace Democracy as a Predominant Model:
But, that said, the Mondragon Corporation demonstrates how worker coops can indeed work effectively and on a large scale. So the question is not if it can work well, but rather if this will ever become the predominant mode of operation for businesses.
Fine with me if you think a predominance of workplace democracy would be far in the future; that is generally my position too. And if you only want to think about factors in the here and now then why do you bother speaking of these matters? If you do not want to discuss then all you need do is not write a comment.
JFC! Read the following carefully, because it's important for anyone trying to have a conversation about capitalism and socialism to at least know the basics.
The most important characteristic of capitalism is often defined simply as private ownership of the means of production, but is more correctly defined as individual ownership and control of social means of production.
Competition tends to concentrate that ownership into the hands of a relative few over time and keep it there, so in a capitalist society there will always be two main types of players in the game, or classes: (1) The capitalist class, the owners and controllers of various social means of production in any given time and place, and (2) the working class, those who require access to social means of production in order to survive, but don't actually possess any, or at least not in sufficient quantities to sustain themselves, and therefore must seek employment from a capitalist who does.
In other words, in capitalism a social minority quite literally owns and controls the means of production that the entire society depends on for life. That gives them an incredible amount of power. It allows them to deploy capital wherever and however they see fit, almost always exclusively for their own benefit (as much profit as possible for themselves). It also allows them to take advantage of (exploit) the desperate circumstances of the working class who depend on their means of production for life (which is where their profit, and by extension their replacement capital comes from), while having no requirement or responsibility whatsoever to employ everyone, or to even pay the ones they do employ a penny more than what the market says they have to just to keep them showing up for work (which can be pretty minimal in a lot of cases). And let's not forget the inordinate amount of power they can individually exert over politicians, and thus over government itself, in order to guide policy in ways that, again, primarily benefit themselves. Capitalism is essentially an extortion racket -- of, by, and for capitalists.
Socialism, on the other hand, is conceptually a classless society in which capitalism's individual ownership and control of social means of production, and all of the crap that goes along with it no longer exists. In its place would be one form of pluralistic ownership and control or another, basically converting capitalism's two main conflicted classes of owning capitalists and non-owning workers into a single, society-wide superclass of combined worker-owners. In other words, as you've probably heard it described before, workers (or the community as a whole) would own and control the means of production they depend on for life, themselves. That means together, cooperatively and democratically, not as slaves to authoritarian or totalitarian leaders and their central planners.
There are several possible ways to organize pluralistically-owned production, including my own personal favorite of largely independent worker cooperatives producing freely for a goods and services market according to supply and demand, joined up under a common umbrella organization to establish system-wide operating principles similar to the Mondragon Cooperatives (which I see TiG has already mentioned above). At any rate, there would no longer be a minority controller class lording over and exploiting the labor of a subservient worker class for its own gain.
By the way, to get a sense of what I mean, here are the Mondragon operating principles listed on their website: Open admission - democratic organization - sovereignty of labor - instrumental but subordinate nature of capital - participatory management - payment solidarity - inter-cooperation - social transformation - universality - and education.
You can click on each one at their website to see what they mean by them. I think it's all been translated for English speakers, because some of it reads a bit strangely, but it's easy enough to understand. There is one thing they don't make clear about payment solidarity, though: No person in any cooperative makes more than 9 times anyone else, and I'm pretty sure 9 is only for jobs like top officials in their banks (yes, they have their own banks). Other businesses are more like 5 or 6, or they were the last time I checked, anyway. Compare that to CEOs in other places making 200 or 300 times their lowest-payed workers.
The point is for everyone to work together in a way that allows everyone to live reasonably well, not for some few to live very, very well by paying others poorly. They actually go out of their way to create new cooperatives and new jobs whenever possible out of a sense of social responsibility (which is reflected in their principles), not just to increase the wealth of minority owners like traditional capitalist companies do. You don't see mansions in the hills around Mondragon, but you don't see slums and generational poverty either.
Of course, Mondragon doesn't officially describe itself as 'socialism' -- democratic, libertarian, or otherwise (even though they could), and almost certainly because of the stigma associated with the word. I think I've seen them use the word 'cooperativism' instead, but anyone with half a brain can see what they've built there, right? Its structure is perfectly in keeping with everything socialism is actually supposed to be, from the governing General Assembly at the top of the organization, comprised of delegates from all of the various cooperatives, to the cooperative bank, cooperative university, housing, supermarkets, and factories, right down to the smallest agricultural producer. People owning means of production together, pluralistically and democratically, and working in cooperation with each other as partners in society according to a common set of principles aimed at making life as good as possible for as many as possible. And we're talking about modern businesses here as well, some of them high tech, not third-world, dirt floor sweat shops.
That's the kind of society socialism is supposed to be. Civilization on purpose. Classless. Cooperative. Pluralistic. Democratic. Do you honestly consider it evil, or something to oppose? I mean, Mondragon didn't steal its capital, or force anyone to join. If something like that started to take off on a really big way here in America, would you be attacking it?
That kind of thing, that general kind of societal arrangement is what most modern day socialists are imagining as being practical and realistic, especially those identifying as democratic or libertarian socialists.
Lol i never said they DIDN'T exist. I'm sure you can dig up some more, maybe even a few in the USA to where i was speaking of, but the fact remains it is not the norm in the USA or most of the free world today. Not even close actually and it is idealistic as hell to expect that it will be the norm any time soon.
Super, i'm really happy for the Mondragon Corporation but if it's such an "enlightened" business model, why haven't more businesses followed in their footsteps? I mean after all the world has had over 60 years to do so. Clearly there are many, many people in this world with the means, passion and idealism to start such corporations and make them the norm. Why hasn't that happened?
I'm sure you can come up with a fallacy or two to skirt answering that simple question.
I'll sleep better knowing that.
I don't and never said i did.
Why not?
Nah, i'll comment how and when i want.
Nicely done Dig.
Let me add a little seasoning on this since Venezuela often appears as the modern exemplar for socialism. I wish to include the concept of state capitalism and its corresponding governing minority (vs. social minority) which owns and controls the MoP/MoD. Too many think that socialism is essentially whatever the former USSR did thus the expropriation of industry, authoritarian rule and command economy of Hugo Chavez is considered 'socialism' when in reality it was a forced conversion to state capitalism. Chavez' (et. al.) governing minority became the predominant capitalists while the people of Venezuela not only NEVER had control over their MoP/MoD but rather suffered (still suffer) from the incompetence of the state.
I did not suggest you said that. I mentioned Mondragon to show that workplace democracy is clearly viable since it has been around in Mondragon (and of course elsewhere) longer than you have been alive.
Now you are telling me what I have already stated (and also what is obvious to most everyone).
Because (as I explained in what you just quoted):
Our planet is based on capitalism and our organizations (businesses) are based on hierarchic control. That is our paradigm. It works well for capitalists when the controlling minority sits at the top of the hierarchies. Changing the paradigm means the people will first want to take more responsibility. That is culturally at odds with how people are conditioned and that conditioning will take time to change (evolution). It also might never change (as I also noted) in a predominant manner.
The point is that this form of organization is indeed viable.
You wrote this ☟ instead of responding to the content of my post regarding the future:
I suspect most people would take that as a clue that you are not interested in talking about that which is not in the here and now. Especially since your comment deemed the discussion as idealism which does not help in the present. You are (oddly) equivocating (and on a minor point).
Okay by me. But it is ridiculous for you to complain about commenting on a topic when it is in your power to NOT comment. If you do not want to discuss the future then simply do not do so. See?
Other than being (weakly) combative, what was the point of your comment? What new content did you offer to advance the conversation?
I did not suggest that you did
Good to know. Now you can stop putting up obscure Corporations from Spain as key points in your argument.
I never said it wasn't.
So what does "tend to" mean to you? The meaning of my comment was clear and succinct. Stop being disingenuous just for the sake of argument.
And again, thanks for your permission. Once again "my point" is clearly made in all my posts. You don't like them, too bad. That said i'll file you under the group here that likes to argue just for the sake of arguing and repeat what i said earlier. You don't like what i post, don't respond to it.
Have a nice Tig day and feel free to get your last thinly veiled insult in here since that does appear to be how you prefer to roll ....
Yet another combative comment of pure projection that offers no thoughtful commentary.
One more off-base comment and unneeded lecture of no value.
My comments have attempted (in spite of your tactics) to focus on the content — a discussion of socialism — but your comments have been combative, flippant, snarky, intellectually dishonest and clearly designed to not seriously discuss the topic at an adult level.
Apparently you find that mode of commentary to be advantageous; I would be embarrassed.
Yeah, state capitalism, when the government takes over the role that private capitalists would otherwise play, owning the means of production, creating the jobs, and then controlling whatever products and surpluses are created. A lot of people really do think that's what socialism means, unfortunately.
We mostly have Stalin's dumb ass to thank for that. It was his warped, super-centralized, totalitarian model of control that many other places tried to emulate later on. The problem, of course, is that the people who would have been subservient workers in capitalism remained subservient workers in the new system as well. The workers weren't liberated, they were filling the same wage labor roles that they would have in capitalism, just with a different set of masters. A smaller, more powerful, and more oppressive set of masters, to boot. It's tragic, really.
I have no problem describing them as a social minority, though. Governments are comprised of people, and they are members of society like anyone else.
That and the willingness (inexplicably) of people in general to simply accept a dictator's label as the definition for a term. On one hand there is the legacy view of socialism as ' the system of the former USSR ' and recently there is the view of socialism as ' the system in place in Venezuela '. And then there is the view that socialism is ' the system of the Nordic nations '. Nowadays with Sanders, et. al. socialism is viewed as redistribution of wealth and statism. Beyond that there are the fantasies that socialism is a purely egalitarian system where everyone is equal: same kind of house, car, clothing, etc. all operating as system cogs under an all-powerful state.
What is most disappointing is that with all these various and contradictory meanings for the term 'socialism', the actual principles of socialism seem to be lost. So many think they know what socialism is (stubbornly so) yet it takes no time at all to see that their understanding amounts to little more than parroting a slogan level understanding. And, as you have noticed, many do not actually understand the defining characteristics of even capitalism.
Finally, even when provided with substantially more than hints, it seems that no effort is ever made to do research (even to verify the substance of the 'hints'). Month after month the same stubborn, slogan-level understanding persists.
Another unwarranted and off-base internet lecture.
I'm not the one who should be embarrassed.
Zinn was nothing more than a pro communist sympathizer and propagandist during his life time. His book is a tome for America haters across the generations of our history to the present and beyond.
Your comment has nothing whatsoever to do with the point I made @3. Why did you reply to my comment?
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...
Feel free to vote for someone else in November...
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
And now they have tools to limit free speech at alphabet, Facebook, Twitter, and many others and they are doing so.
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
Slavery was hardly the only part of Zinn’s ridiculous book that was wrong. It was all about how our founding fathers could do no right and how bad and repressive America has Been to our own people(us) and the world. He set the pattern for the recent blame America first mantra on the secular progressive left.
I was not about to read her entire book in an hour, and I really dont intend to read it in its entirety at all.
Zinn's book was an intention to debunk some common misconceptions about American history at a time when American history was largely taught as a history of white European men and the great things they did on North America. Zinn brought in the stories on women, non whites, poor people, labor movements, slave insurrections, socialist movements, civil rights movements, etc in a positive way. It was and is a very important history of the United States. Grabar gives an alternate view from Zinn. It is what it is, but from what I have seen of it , it is hardly a definitive "debunking" of Zinn.
Mary Grabar is among other things a regular writer for The Federalist, which is a far right website.
Isn’t it awesome that so many stew and organizations that they rate as borderline, questionable, pseudoscience, hate, etc. have so much power and influence in our government and in several cases the group in question are or it’s leadership are actually part of it. The one you mention has a say in our judiciary. I’ll take real political power and a say in our day. To day lives over being unable to seed from to here or Facebook any day.!
The Federalist Society which recommended judges to Trump and The Federalist website, which is far right disinformation and hackery, are two different things.
Keep up the good work XX. Your record for inaccuracy is without equal here.
The Federalist was much more accurate in it's reporting on the collusion/ FISA scandal than CNN or any other MSM./left wing source.
Given the state of left wing media, no wonder you call a site that reports reality "disinformation." If only you'd have paid attention to the Federalist, you could have saved yourself countless embarrassing posts.
[deleted]
A great review for a great media outlet. Ones with reviews like that are my preferred seeding sources.
A thousand thumbs up for all that you said. It is right on in every regard.
what's really funny is most every so-called "rightwing nut job conspiracy theory website has been more accurate about that than the entire msm
people saw through the fisa charade like it was made of glass.
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.
That has always been the case. Thanks for saying it.
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
I just wonder why as bad as slavery in America was, did Zinn view it here as worse ever as slavery has occurred through out human history since the fall of man to sin to the present time?
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.
I have A Patriots Guide to American History 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
[Deleted]
How can the description of an opposing viewpoint book on American History be off topic?
Posting of the title and opposing views from the book would not be. Just posting the ad for the book after the title is Off Topic and Advertising because the ad does not address the topic. Please feel free to post some excerpts and link them to the book. That would be within bounds.
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.
A Patriots Guide to American History is just that book.
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.