New York Times readers struggle with communism’s legacy. Communism wins.
A friend emailed me yesterday night, “If you don’t feel sufficiently depressed today, be sure to read the readers’ comments on Brett Stephens’s column in the NY Times condemning communism and the Left’s soft spot for it.”
The comments were already closed at 522 when he wrote me. I haven’t got the time to read a significant chunk. Some of the ones I saw were quite entertaining. There are lots of intelligent, literate and inventive people demonstrating their power to rationalize away the lessons of common sense.
A number had decent points, in that Stephens chose to focus on Stalinism as his means of discrediting communism. That opens the door to all sorts of arguments. But it was Stephens’s way to stake out his house conservative turf in the ongoing series of articles commemorating the centenary of the Communist Revolution. A good number already have provided great entertainment, such as the claim that sex was better for women under socialism.
Good for Stephens to point out the blind spot, aka hypocrisy, of most of the people in his milieu at the New York Times, not to mention its readers. That was brave.
...many of today’s progressives remain in a permanent and dangerous state of semi-denial about the legacy of Communism a century after its birth in Russia.
No, they are not true-believing Communists. No, they are not unaware of the toll of the Great Leap Forward or the Killing Fields. No, they are not plotting to undermine democracy.
But they will insist that there is an essential difference between Nazism and Communism — between race-hatred and class-hatred; Buchenwald and the gulag — that morally favors the latter. They will attempt to dissociate Communist theory from practice in an effort to acquit the former. They will balance acknowledgment of the repression and mass murder of Communism with references to its “real advances and achievements.” They will say that true communism has never been tried. They will write about Stalinist playwright Lillian Hellman in tones of sympathy and understanding they never extend to film director Elia Kazan.
As for communism, the slide into despotism is inevitable, because the govenrment is put in charge of everything during the "interim" transition to Marx's paradise. But as for socialism of various stripes, I'd rather focus on the dysfunctionality of a system that relies on people putting aside their self-interest for the betterment of all. That’s a fantasy capable of engaging young minds before they have any experience of adult life, which is why the ideological stronghold of Marxism is academia.

Ad Free / Commenting Login
FOLLOW US ON
Recent Articles
- The Slush Fund Nobody Voted For
- Hacktivism and the Possibility of WW III
- Illegals Working for Congress?
- Should FBI Agents Learn Martial Arts?
- Deep-State Sabotage in the DoD?
- What DOGE Is Accomplishing
- From Churchill to Vance...Sounding Off About Tyranny
- Globalist Games: They Play, We Pay
- Scorched-Earth Disease Control
- NATO, Ukraine, and the War Hawks’ Pixie Dust Playbook
Blog Posts
- Hunter Biden hotfoots it to a luxury vacation in South Africa, seemingly to avoid a deposition on his claimed poverty
- The Obamas' podcast bombs
- Did Stacey Abrams’s NGO really get $2 billion for appliances to hand out to Americans?
- Mark Kelly exposes the hypocrisy behind the Democrats’ electric vehicle fixation
- Washington state attorney general is mad at sheriff's office for complying with federal law
- Can Trump and the team really win?
- The Democrat party is in dire need of shock therapy in the form of hard truths
- CNN wants you to know that Biden did not strand the astronauts Musk is rescuing
- Could Rahm Emanuel be the Democrats' great hope for 2028?
- The South African ambassador’s fate shows that America will no longer be bullied
- Nvidia: The Vera and Fritz chips
- A track attack
- Dem violence and manhood
- Ending the Fed
- Hey Chuck, you need a tune-up