Howard Zinn's 'Perfect World'

Who let this Marxist agitator into the building?

Published on May 7, 2006 By singrdave In World Trade Issues

I have never heard of this tool of the left, Howard Zinn, but from what I read today I am glad that I never have. This guy advocates the "drastic reallocation of wealth" (aka revolution)... but I'll let you read it for yourself.

The theme of the World Social Forum, which is held annually, is "Another World Is Possible." If you were to close your eyes for a moment, what kind of world might you envision?

The world that I envision is one in which national boundaries no longer exist, in which you can move from one country to another with the same ease in which we can move from Massachusetts to Connecticut, a world without passports or visas or immigration quotas. True globalization in the human sense, in which we recognize that the world is one and that human beings everywhere have the same rights.

In a world like that you could not make war because it is your family, just as we are not thinking of making war on an adjoining state or even a far-off state. It would be a world in which the riches of the planet would be distributed in an equitable fashion, where everybody has access to clean water. Yes, that would take some organization to make sure that the riches of the earth are distributed according to human need. I'll bet I know who'd be in charge! -- singrdave's comment

A world in which people are free to speak, a world in which there was a true bill of rights. A world in which people had their fundamental economic needs taken care of would be a world in which people were freer to express themselves because political rights and free speech rights are really dependent on economic status and having fundamental economic needs taken care of.

I think it would be a world in which the boundaries of race and religion and nation would not become causes for antagonism. Even though there would still be cultural differences and still be language differences, there would not be causes for violent action of one against the other.

I think it would be a world in which people would not have to work more than a few hours a day, which is possible with the technology available today. If this technology were not used in the way it is now used, for war and for wasteful activities, people could work three or four hours a day and produce enough to take care of any needs. So it would be a world in which people had more time for music and sports and literature and just living in a human way with others.

You can read the entire interview here: Link

This guy is a blinkard fool.

Comments

MasonM

on May 07, 2006

In a perfect world, schmucks like this would choke to death sucking on their mother's teet.

Dr Guy

on May 08, 2006

Sure, I agree with his opening statement. A world without borders. But before we can have that, we have to get rid of his favorite leaders, like Castro, Mugabe, Tseming (SP) and all those who enslave people and rob them of their wealth for their own enrichment. The rest of his screed is just paradise lost. And we know what happened there. Stalin anyone?

singrdave

on May 08, 2006

It would be a world in which the riches of the planet would be distributed in an equitable fashion, where everybody has access to clean water. Yes, that would take some organization to make sure that the riches of the earth are distributed according to human need.

I think that is a pretty telling statement.

Chakgogka

on May 09, 2006

Politically, I find his ideas naive. The 'organization' needed to make sure that 'riches' are fairly 'distributed' have always and everywhere become bureaucracies that themselves became ruling classes. All that had changed was the murder, imprisonment and torture, and the replacement of 'rule of law' by arbitrary power arising from the need to 'protect' the redistributive project from 'counter-revolutionaries' (a fancy way of saying killing anyone who objects to the new rulers' power and privilege - starting, of course, with those revolutionary idealists who still believe in 'redistribution'). And this is even before considering the justice of collectively 'appropriating' (stealing) the property or 'riches' in the first place.

But before completely dismissing him as a 'blinkard fool', it is worth thinking about the role that ideals play in our thinking. It is arguable that a genuine attempt to live out the ideals of the Sermon on the Mount would actually cause chaos, rather than universal enlightenment. (This at least was the plot theme of a Peter Sellers movie from 1963 called Heaven's Above!, in which he plays a naive vicar who tries to do exactly that). Nevertheless, we still read these words and are moved by them. There is really little to seriously disagree with in the ideals of free movement, universal peace, freedom of speech and everyone having enough to eat; it's just we've all become so much wiser about how dreadfully it can all go wrong when we try to implement the ideals in an unrealistic fashion.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!