Leftist Historian Howard Zinn's Communist Ties



by the Left Coast Rebel

A Howard Zinn primer:

"Let's talk about socialism. I think it's very important to bring back the idea of socialism into the national discussion to where it was at the turn of the [last] century before the Soviet Union gave it a bad name. Socialism had a good name in this country. Socialism had Eugene Debs. It had Clarence Darrow. It had Mother Jones. It had Emma Goldman. It had several million people reading socialist newspapers around the country. Socialism basically said, hey, let's have a kinder, gentler society. Let's share things. Let's have an economic system that produces things not because they're profitable for some corporation, but produces things that people need. People should not be retreating from the word socialism because you have to go beyond capitalism."

---Howard Zinn, Madison, Wisconsin 2009

Can anyone here say how many died in the 20th century for the notion of a kinder, gentler society that 'shares' things? Historian Howard Zinn (passed away recently) and many leftists, progressive and liberals think that socialism (Marxism, Leninism, etc.) has failed so resoundly because it hasn't been given enough of an American attempt (until, as of, late).

Common sense, of course, relates just how preposterous this is.

An absolutist ideology melded with absolute power and a fervent faith in the absolute force of that power will always create human misery.

I'm off on a tangent (again). The actual gist and purpose of this post is to point the reader to Robert Stacy McCain's barn-burning exposé on Howard Kinn in relation to recently released FBI FOI documents. RSM is one of the best in the business when he is firing on all cylinders - he must have had the amply-necessary caffeine and nicotine this morning (and some rest).

Anyway, Howard Kinn was a communist (among many other things) way-back-when (and obviously, still was before his death). Perhaps this shouldn't even surprise us any more.

Read Stacy's post - it's fascinating stuff that dates all the way-back-when.

Exit question - how many leftists in academia, intelligensia, the press and the Soros-funded groups are actually dyed-in-the-wool communists? Or at least were at one point? Don't forget the White House and congress too.

The truth on that might shock you.

Via Memeorandum.

6 comments:

  1. "Exit question - how many leftists in academia, intelligensia, the press and the Soros-funded groups are actually dyed-in-the-wool communists? Or at least were at one point?"

    first question must be how many could be called socialists which is an easier question to ask?

    since it has been declared that communism is just a higher form of socialism then we can call anyone that is seen as a socialist as a communist also.

    ReplyDelete
  2. When you get down to it, Socialism and Communism only differ by scematics. One is by brute force, the other by the votes of the parasites. The only difference is will you die by being murdered or committing suicide. So, Griper, the question isn't really all that easier to answer as it is on which extream they want to go to achieve their goals, murder or suicide.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Actually communism is, as the Griper points out, an advanced state of socialism.

    The murder you speak of is actually that which comes from totalitarian rule with a brtal and despotic dictator.

    Communism in its true form does not hold the murder of those in the collective as ethical.

    Just sayin.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Well as for me, i don't need to analyze socialism or communism. We have seen both to be utter failures. As far back as the Mayflower company. Those that will have food because another is willing to provide it, will continue to expect to be fed...
    Capitalism has built all that we see in world!

    ReplyDelete
  5. actually both socialism and communism are dependent upon the use of force. this is because both systems can only exist through the enactment and enforcement of the laws of the State. this gives the government total control over the system as well as the people of the nation. it becomes a dictatorship by the very nature of its existence. and it matters not how the government was installed, whether by brute force or by vote.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Griper - I agree to a large extent as your reference to the force of government is correct.

    Occasiobnally a benevolent dictator comes along but that anomally does not change the fact that totalitarian rule is the ultimate use of force. Whether it be economic, military, or any other means that is used to control the lives of the individual.

    You make your points well my friend.

    ReplyDelete

Commenting here is a privilege, not a right. Comments that contain cursing or insults and those failing to add to the discussion will be summarily deleted.