By Zach Foster
Continued from Part 1
Recently there has been a rumor campaign among Los Angeles-based socialists slandering my character. I’ve met a few people at various socialist meetings and we’ve even hit it off, discussing current events and exchanging ideas on Marxist theory. Someone I know and care for (you know who you are!) let it slip that I’m not a Marxist (gasp)! What was that? I’m not a Marxist??? Well, by default that means I must be an evil fascist bastard! Alright, alright, I have yet to be called an evil bastard, but I have been called a fascist, a Neo Nazi, Neo Confederate, etc., and the rumor campaign being waged against me by these angry Reds states that I’m some sort of infiltrator and spy.
Really, folks? Who’s the McCarthyist witch hunter now? I’m genuinely disappointed at the amount of ignorant ill will being thrown at me. I am neither an infiltrator nor a spy. What these people are doing is the purest form of name calling—yes, just like angry children do over playground disagreements. They’re engaging in childish name calling simply because they don’t like what I have to say. I find it highly ironic that the people who so passionately advocate freedom of information and so strongly support Wikileaks all of a sudden have a problem with having their own secrets exposed (but somehow it’s okay to release the names of civilians who cooperated with American soldiers knowing full well that doing so puts these people in danger of insurgent retribution).
I keep getting accused of “red baiting,” another accusation that is completely untrue. Red baiting literally means accusing someone of being a communist or a communist sympathizer. When ultraconservatives call Barack Obama a communist, that is actual red baiting. I have accused no one of being a communist or communist sympathizer (all the people I’ve written about have publicly come out as proud Marxists), nor have I denounced anyone for being one. What my articles have done is stated theses and woven facts into well-reasoned arguments supporting my theses. Unraveling a flawed ideology is not a denunciation; it is an intellectual argument. Denunciation equals saying “That is evil.” The message in my articles has been “That is not an option for improving society and this is why…” But then again, it’s easier to slam my character and even write me off as a “red baiter” than it is to try to intelligently refute my arguments and prove me wrong. That is name-calling in its most refined form. It also begs the question: when they call me “bourgeois” does that mean they’re capitalist baiting? Wow, actual capitalist baiting right when they’re complaining about nonexistent red baiting… If so, that adds yet another thick odorous layer to the bitter onion that is their hypocrisy.
In order to put to rest the foolish idea that I’m some sort of spy or infiltrator, I’m neither. Every meeting I’ve been to has been a public one, advertised openly on the internet. The fact that I’ve been able to discuss Marxist theory with people shows that I have an understanding of Marxist theories and philosophies that is either equivalent to or greater than those of the people who believe these doctrines. Some of these people I spoke with assumed, because of my understanding of Marxist theory, that I was a socialist. Again, remember what happens when people assume…
One of them did have the courage to confront me personally and actually ask me whether or not the rumors were true, and I have unending respect for this person for actually seeking my side of the story. I explained to him who I am and what the mission of The Political Spectrum is: to make every voice heard. I also explained that my attendance of PUBLIC meetings was not for some twisted purpose of gathering information on people, as if I was a McCarthy-era with hunter, but rather to educate myself and to HEAR THEIR SIDE OF THE STORY rather than draw conclusions from my own assumptions. My tendency to write about current events, economics, political philosophy, and political economy stems not only from my critical thinking but also from my permanent understanding and appreciation of my First Amendment rights. Such freedoms of speech and expression are utilized and capitalized on by socialists and hardcore communists, even though the same rights are guaranteed to them by the founding documents of the very republic they wish to do away with.
When asked why I didn’t identify myself as a Republican, I simply answered, “Revealing myself as a Republican patriot (a.k.a. bourgeois nationalist) at a Leninist party (a.k.a. government takeover party) would be like claiming to be a neo-Nazi at a synagogue or an ethnic minority at a Ku Klux Klan meeting.” I elaborated that identifying myself at those times would have painted a target on my back, causing intense distraction from the meetings through collective fear and distrust of my presence and motives, and that their current paranoia and rumor campaign steadily supports my thesis. I also explained that I have a right to privacy, especially in a public forum like the ones I attended. Why should I have to identify myself and my political affiliation, especially when I’m a minority among a group that is hostile to my ideals and the things I hold sacred? According to standards like these, I might as well sow a yellow Star of David on my coat for whenever I go out in public. For a philosophy that claims to be all-inclusive, it more closely begins to resemble fascism (but that’s another argument for another day).
Marxists ultimately believe that the revolution is coming and it will probably be a violent one. Marxist-Leninists believe that not only will the revolution be violent, but that’s it’s their job to make it happen soon in order to save humanity. I, however, have the audacity to believe that the war between capitalists and socialists ought to be a battle of ideas, the weapons being spoken and written words and the armor being powerful arguments and un-dismissible evidence. You can call my idea a dream; I call it democracy.
Images courtesy of Wikimedia Commons