The Leftist magazine Salon has outdone itself on this take on changing the past. Like Winston Smith of 1984, the low-level bureaucrat in the Ministry of Truth (Minitruth in Newspeak) was tasked with changing old newspaper articles to reflect what the elite of the Inner Party wanted them to say.
In this case, the horrors meted out by Mao-Tse-Tung and Stalin are candy-coated and chalked up to being either due to mistakes of policy or consequences of unforeseen famines. One particularly gross falsehood represented as the new historical reality is the purges of Communists by Stalin - the tens of millions (these largely denied by the Left) are now the bulk of the slain; according to the writer, the kulaks were not the targets. The Ukrainians themselves, forced to starve to death by the millions at the word of Stalin, who ordered all food removed from their homes, do not even appear to get a mention
'He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.'
The Left is softening up Americans for their goal - worldwide Socialism. We are being assured that there is no reason for us be concerned and that nothing in Marxism mandates that the method of rule will be totalitarian in nature. The many tens of millions that lost their lives in the USSR, China, Cambodia, North Korea, etc., are - as 1940's-1950's Leftists insisted, not due to Marxism but to aberrations of the same.
Young people who have been victimized by the revisions of history in primary school and college textbooks are - unless they do their own research, powerless in the face of such an onslaught of lies.
"It just hasn't been done right yet" means on thing and one thing only; it has to be worldwide and must at a minimum include the US and Western Europe. All modern Leftists are Trotskyites at heart, and all of them abide by his position that Communism/Socialism must be implemented worldwide for it to actually function.
Author Jesse Myerson pushed back at the claim that communism has killed as many as 110 million people. Using “The Five” host Greg Gutfeld as an example, Myerson sought to clarify details about the slaughter that occurred under Stalin and Mao:
In declaring this, Gutfeld and his ilk insult the suffering of the millions of people who died under Stalin, Mao, and other 20th Century Communist dictators. Making up a big-sounding number of people and chalking their deaths up to some abstract “communism” is no way to enact a humanistic commitment to victims of human rights atrocities.
For one thing, a large number of the people killed under Soviet communism weren’t the kulaks everyone pretends to care about but themselves communists. Stalin, in his paranoid cruelty, not only had Russian revolutionary leaders assassinated and executed, but indeed exterminated entire communist parties. These people weren’t resisting having their property collectivized; they were committed to collectivizing property. It is also worth remembering that the Soviets had to fight a revolutionary war – against, among others, the US – which, as the American Revolution is enough to show, doesn’t mainly consist of group hugs. They also faced (and heroically defeated) the Nazis, who were not an ocean away, but right on their doorstep.
Additionally, Myerson said that the Great Chinese Famine was the most “horrifying episode in 20th century official communism.” However, the main reason for the deaths of tens of millions of people was Mao’s “Great Leap Forward.” It was a “disastrous combination of applied pseudoscience, stat-juking, and political persecution designed to transform China into an industrial superpower in the blink of an eye.”..........
“Famine is not a uniquely ‘left-wing’ problem,” Myerson wrote.
Another popular “misconception” many people have is the assumption that “21st century American communism would resemble 20th century Soviet and Chinese horrors,” the article stated.
Communism is more of an “aspiration, not an immediately achievable state,” Myerson wrote. “It, like democracy and libertarianism, is utopian in that it constantly strives toward an ideal, in its case the non-ownership of everything and the treatment of everything – including culture, people’s time, the very act of caring, and so forth – as dignified and inherently valuable rather than as commodities that can be priced for exchange.”
Because of the various technological and social advances made in the last century, “we could expect an approach to communism beginning here and now to be far more open, humane, democratic, participatory and egalitarian than the Russian and Chinese attempts managed.”.........."
No comments:
Post a Comment