Embrace of Socialism Highlights The Difference Between Being Educated and Being Informed

There is a significant difference between being educated and being informed. To become educated, one merely has to fulfill the requirements of a specific degree-granting institution; upon doing so, one receives a doctoral degree--but it is a dangerous fallacy to confuse being educated with being informed, because education far too often involves being indoctrinated with false narratives. In contrast, being informed means thinking with an open mind, consuming information from objective sources while considering information from subjective sources with skepticism, and then synthesizing the acquired information to base opinions on facts and logic.

Our politics, our schools, and our media outlets have far too many educated people and far too few informed people. Educated people often spew ideas that Vladimir Nabokov would correctly dismiss as "poshlost." One such idea is that socialism is good. 

In an August 6, 2025 Wall Street Journal Op-Ed titled "The Scholar Who Saw Zohran Mamdani Coming in 2003," Daniel Shuchman noted that over 20 years ago Alan Charles Kors foretold the circumstances under which socialist ideas could take sway in the West:

Mr. Kors lamented that socialism has yet to be held accountable for the scale of its crimes: "No cause, ever, in the history of all mankind, has produced more cold-blooded tyrants, more slaughtered innocents and more orphans than socialism with power." The failure to acknowledge and come to terms with this reality in the West, he believed, eventually would allow socialism to resuscitate itself, even with millions of skeletons hiding in plain view.

Zohran Mamdani, the New York Democratic mayoral nominee, has proposed government-run grocery stores as a hallmark of his campaign. This is a perplexing platform because, as Mr. Kors reminded us in his paper, socialism's "collectivization of agriculture alone led to untold suffering" and the starvation of millions...

As Mr. Kors noted, wherever socialism was implemented, "its vision of the abolition of private property, economic inequality, and the allocation of capital and goods by free markets, culminated in the crushing of individual, economic, religious, associational, and political liberty."

It is demonstrably false that Mamdani is promoting some form of "democratic socialism" that can be distinguished from the socialism that failed in the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, North Korea, and elsewhere. The socialism that failed in those countries advertised itself as "democratic socialism" before showing its fangs and true nature after its leaders had full control of the power levers. Socialism starts with a utopian dream and ends with a dystopian nightmare; informed people understand this, but educated people often have been indoctrinated to believe in the dream while ignoring the inevitable nightmare.

As I noted in a 2021 article, former World Chess Champion Garry Kasparov--who had firsthand experience with socialist tyranny while living in the former Soviet Union--laments the Western embrace of socialism. The contrast between how an informed person like Kasparov speaks and how educated Leftists speak is profound:

Asked to expound upon the difference between America and the Soviet Union, Kasparov begins by stating, "The problem with Americans is you take things for granted. You keep forgetting the wise words of Ronald Reagan...that freedom is a fragile thing that is never more than one generation away from extinction." Kasparov adds that when he lived under Soviet tyranny, "We knew America had problems. Again, there is no perfection in this world! Compare this country to any other place on the planet and you will not find a place that offers more opportunities for people of all races, genders. That is why people like me are getting so concerned when self-criticism turns into self-flagellation." He rightly calls it "nonsense" to assert that America was built on evil, and he adds, "I know that a lot of people may feel uncomfortable with what I am saying, but I speak on behalf of millions and millions and millions of people from Iran, Afghanistan, Russia, other places who look at America and they are confused and scared and don't understand why this great power is in retreat." 

America is not evil, and it is not courageous or "speaking one's truth" (what a vacuous phrase that is!) to call America evil. America is not perfect, but America is--in the timeless words of Abraham Lincoln--"The last, best hope of Earth." It is courageous to speak that truth in a time and place where speaking truth can get you canceled. I applaud Garry Kasparov, and I hope that his message plays a role in helping to reverse the deplorable trend of American self-flagellation that has become a badge of pride to some but is in fact a badge of ignorance and shame.

Kasparov concludes by noting that the free world is at war with tyrannical forces and regimes, whether or not we understand and accept that challenge--and it is a fight to the death. He wisely notes that America did not end the war in Afghanistan and we certainly did not win the war; we retreated. We must be eternally vigilant to build a better world not only for ourselves but for our children.

The New York mayoral campaign is not just of local significance. New York City is the largest city in our country, and is a symbol of what our country represents (or should represent): a melting pot of different ethnic groups and religious groups living side by side while enjoying the unparalleled freedoms and opportunities that exist only in America. Free countries like America build fences to keep out illegal immigrants, while tyrannical countries build fences to prevent people from leaving. It would be an unspeakable tragedy if New York City became a bridgehead for implementing the socialist nightmare on our shores. 

It may seem overwhelming to confront the hordes of educated people who promote socialism and the "useful idiots" who blindly follow them, but two years ago in the wake of Hamas' mass casualty terrorist attack against Israel--and the outpouring of "progressive" support for Hamas--I outlined the methods for combating the self-proclaimed "progressives":

1) Don't vote for self-proclaimed "progressives." We need to vote the self-proclaimed "Squad" and all of their allies out of Congress (and out of any other elected offices) as soon as possible.

2) Don't contribute money, time, or any other support to organizations that are founded on Marxist, anti-democratic principles. If you do a little research, it is not difficult to identify these organizations, and it is also helpful to understand that most of them use the same catchphrases/terminology that provide great warning signs of their true nature/goals.

3) Fight against the infiltration of pseudo-intellectual nonsense into the education system. No reasonable person is saying that slavery should not be taught about in the schools, or that racism should not be discussed--but the notion that entire groups of people can be classified as oppressed or oppressors (or racists or antiracists) should be consigned to the dustbin of discredited concepts. 

4) If you went to college, urge your alma mater to sign up with Universities United Against Terrorism. My undergrad alma mater Excelsior University signed up after I contacted the university president; shamefully, my law school alma mater University of Dayton has not signed up. Make it clear to colleges, corporations, and charities that you will redirect your contributions away from institutions that lack the moral clarity/courage to condemn Hamas and toward institutions that display moral clarity and courage. 

The self-proclaimed "progressives" are defiant, loud, and strident, but they have not taken over society--yet. It is our duty to make sure that they never do while also being aware that our society is not perfect and while working toward improving our society in the areas where it falls short of its foundational ideals.

Garry Kasparov on Risk Taking, Being a Champion, and the Differences Between Capitalism and Socialism

Last week, in Garry Kasparov Laments the American Left's Embrace of Socialism, I cited some of the former World Chess Champion's brilliant thoughts and observations about socialism's flaws. I found another Kasparov interview that is also brilliant and timely. Kasparov did a wide-ranging interview with Patrick Bet-David in which he spoke about risk taking, what it takes to become a champion (a subject that has always intrigued me), and the differences between capitalism and socialism. 

The Kasparov/Bet-David video lasts 72 minutes, but the investment of that time to watch the video is well worth it. Time is our most precious commodity, and time well spent yields lasting dividends. Put another way, the saying "You are what you eat" is true on many levels. The food that you put in your body is the fuel that determines how efficiently and effectively your body works; it is also true in a broader sense that you are what you consume: if you put nonsense ideas in your head then you will have a confused mind. 

We are dealing with an epidemic of confused minds that have consumed nonsense. 

When I read Garry Kasparov's words or hear him speak, I know that I am consuming material that strengthens the mind and spirit.

Asked how he maintained dominance over the chess world for 15 years, Kasparov replied, "If you challenge your own excellence, you will never run short of opponents." Kasparov explained that there is no such thing as playing a perfect game. The loser made the last mistake, but the winner also made mistakes, and the smart winners--the champions--learn from those mistakes. In Habit, Attitude and Promises to Yourself, I cited words of wisdom from John W. Scott's book Step-by-Step Basketball Fundamentals (Prentice Hall, 1989), including this gem by Sydney J. Harris: "A loser is afraid to acknowledge his defects; a winner is aware that his defects are part of the same central system as his assets, and while he tries to minimize their effect, he never denies their influence."

Kasparov mentions that working hard is a talent, and the combination of that talent with other talents produces a champion. That reminds me of a quote from Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Famer Harry Gallatin; he was asked how he became a great rebounder, and he replied that he was blessed with the talent to work hard. I was struck by that notion of working hard being a talent, and I never forgot it.

Many people talk about risk, and they try to figure out how to eliminate risk. Kasparov has a different perspective: "Taking risks is risky. Not taking risks is riskier." Kasparov understands that it is not possible--or desirable--to live a risk-free life, and there are benefits to taking risks. Of course, risks must be calculated accurately, and balanced with potential benefits, but the notion that it is possible to eliminate all risk--for example, to live in a COVID-19 free world, which some politicians appear to believe to be a realistic goal--is foolish. 

It is disappointing--and concerning--that within living memory of the collapse of the U.S.S.R. there are so many people who are trying to implement socialism in America. Kasparov quotes Winston Churchill: "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. The inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."

Comparing the free world countries to the countries dominated by totalitarianism, Kasparov declares, "We had an experiment: China gave us a virus; America gave us a vaccine." Kasparov has emphasized in previous interviews that he is not saying that China intentionally created COVID-19, but rather that COVID-19 emerged from a dictatorship that is unwilling or unable to create an effective vaccine, while in contrast America--a country so reviled by the self-proclaimed "progressives" in our midst--produced a life-saving vaccine in record time.

Asked to expound upon the difference between America and the Soviet Union, Kasparov begins by stating, "The problem with Americans is you take things for granted. You keep forgetting the wise words of Ronald Reagan...that freedom is a fragile thing that is never more than one generation away from extinction." Kasparov adds that when he lived under Soviet tyranny, "We knew America had problems. Again, there is no perfection in this world! Compare this country to any other place on the planet and you will not find a place that offers more opportunities for people of all races, genders. That is why people like me are getting so concerned when self-criticism turns into self-flagellation." He rightly calls it "nonsense" to assert that America was built on evil, and he adds, "I know that a lot of people may feel uncomfortable with what I am saying, but I speak on behalf of millions and millions and millions of people from Iran, Afghanistan, Russia, other places who look at America and they are confused and scared and don't understand why this great power is in retreat." 

America is not evil, and it is not courageous or "speaking one's truth" (what a vacuous phrase that is!) to call America evil. America is not perfect, but America is--in the timeless words of Abraham Lincoln--"The last, best hope of Earth." It is courageous to speak that truth in a time and place where speaking truth can get you canceled. I applaud Garry Kasparov, and I hope that his message plays a role in helping to reverse the deplorable trend of American self-flagellation that has become a badge of pride to some but is in fact a badge of ignorance and shame.

Kasparov concludes by noting that the free world is at war with tyrannical forces and regimes, whether or not we understand and accept that challenge--and it is a fight to the death. He wisely notes that America did not end the war in Afghanistan and we certainly did not win the war; we retreated. We must be eternally vigilant to build a better world not only for ourselves but for our children.

Garry Kasparov Laments the American Left's Embrace of Socialism

Some American socialists insist that their brand of socialism is completely different from the socialism that tyrannized the Soviet Union and still tyrannizes China, Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela, and far too many other countries today. "We just want to make people's lives better and create a safety net for the less fortunate," these American socialists insist.

Those who understand history--and those who lived under socialist oppression--know better, as I discussed in Petr Izmailov's Story is a Cautionary Tale About Marxist Theory in Practice.

Former World Chess Champion Garry Kasparov was raised in the USSR but he educated himself about socialism's flaws and he recently did a brilliant interview explaining those flaws. The entire interview lasts less than 90 minutes and is well worth your time, but if you only have five minutes then fast forward to around the 55 minute mark and listen to him explain why the socialism advocated by Bernie Sanders and Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez is just as evil and dangerous as the socialism that enslaved Kasparov's home country. Among other things, Kasparov points out the hypocrisy of people who protest police brutality in the United States but turn a blind eye to the horrors taking place in China and so many other totalitarian dictatorships. Although Kasparov does not mention it directly, the warm feelings that the American Left has for leftist dictatorships are nothing new, and date back for several decades (all the way back to Stalin's regime, in fact). American socialism is not about improving the lives of the less fortunate; it is about destroying the American way of life, and replacing it with a system that has failed every single time that it has been implemented--and failed in ways that caused profound misery and suffering.

During the interview, Kasparov states that he supports any country that has democratic values, and he emphasizes that this is why he supports Israel. Contrast Kasparov's take on Israel with the hateful rhetoric emanating from the American Left, including the false accusations that Israel practices apartheid. 

Kasparov does not mention Critical Race Theory by name, but Critical Race Theory embodies the ignorance and hypocrisy that Kasparov discusses. It is important to become educated about the Marxist underpinnings and implications of Critical Race Theory. Once you understand the founding principles of CRT, and the goals of its followers, if you still support the precepts and goals of CRT then the burden is on you to explain/prove that you are not against democracy (both in this country and in other countries around the world, including Israel), and the burden is on you to explain why you act as if America is an evil country while ignoring the evil taking place on a massive scale in China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, and many other totalitarian countries. 

Put simply, I would say to any supporter of CRT, "I agree that the history of the American slave trade and racism should be taught in schools. Why do you want to suppress media coverage and education about the slavery, oppression, and genocide that is happening in the world right now? Why do you pretend that America is irredeemably racist and evil while ignoring the racism and evil taking place right now in countries that, not coincidentally, are sworn enemies of America and American values?"

No intelligent person can take seriously an ideology or a movement that attacks America but then is silent about China's atrocities. Many media members anoint various athletes and entertainers as so-called social justice warriors. Enes Kanter is a real social justice warrior, an NBA player who has bravely spoken out against the oppression in his native Turkey and also about Chinese oppression of Hong Kong. The NBA has repeatedly proven that its slogan "The NBA Cares" should be renamed NBA Cares About Profits as it rakes in Chinese sponsorship money while ignoring China's brutality. 

Kasparov laments that for young Americans the Cold War is ancient history that has been misunderstood, if not forgotten. He correctly states that America is not perfect, but no country is perfect, and he disagrees with the awful notion propagated by the American Left that America is fundamentally evil.

During the interview, Kasparov made a very insightful comment about the sad state of American political discourse. America used to be about striving for excellence, he explained, but the last two Presidential elections have been about choosing the lesser of two evils. Kasparov rejects both the American Left's embrace of socialism and the American Right's embrace of Donald Trump, and he implores our country to get back on the path of providing leadership to the Free World, which he notes was a bipartisan goal from 1945-1991. Kasparov asserts that during that period Democrats and Republicans disagreed about methods but not goals, but that since the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War the two parties no longer agree about goals, which has set America adrift and threatens our leadership role in the world by damaging our moral authority. 

I would add that President Biden's defining moment--the triumph of the Taliban--exemplifies the failure that Kasparov astutely identified, and that has been authored by both political parties for the past 30 years or so. Kasparov calls out the hypocrisy of both the Democrats and the Republicans: the Democrats blame President Trump for signing a deal with the Taliban (but ignore that the collapse happened under President Biden's rule) while the Republicans blame President Biden for the collapse of Afghanistan under President Biden's rule (but ignore that President Trump signed a deal with the Taliban). 

Hopefully, America will regain its footing both domestically and abroad, and once again strive for excellence instead of being mired in mediocrity, extremism, and divisiveness.

Petr Izmailov's Story is a Cautionary Tale About Marxist Theory in Practice

Have you heard of Petr Izmailov? I consider myself a well-informed student of history in general and chess history in particular, but I had never heard of Petr Izmailov until very recently. A new book titled Petr Izmailov--From Chess Champion of Russia to Enemy of the People: The Truth About My Father tells the story of a chess player who at his peak was among the 50 best chess players in the world (according to calculations made by Jeff Sonas, who invented the Chessmetrics rating system). The book's authors are Nikolai Izmailov (Petr's 87 year old son), and Grandmaster Mihail Marin, who provided annotations for Petr Izmailov's games.

Petr Izmailov won the 1928 Russian Soviet Federation Championship and thus qualified for the preliminary round of the prestigious Soviet Union Championship. Izmailov earned his master title by finishing =1st-2nd in his semifinal group, ahead of future World Champion Mikhail Botvinnik--who Izmailov defeated in their head to head encounter. However, even though Izmailov now had the right to participate in the Soviet Union Championship Finals, he did not play. Contemporary Soviet media accounts provide conflicting reasons for his non-participation, but there is evidence to suggest that the authorities did not consider him to be an appropriate Soviet champion (Izmailov came from a family of priests, which was not desirable in a country determined to destroy religion).

In 1936, the NKVD (Soviet secret police) arrested Izmailov. On April 27, 1937, he was convicted of crimes against the state and sentenced to death by shooting. The verdict was final and not appealable. Izmailov was killed the next day. His widow Galina was sentenced to eight years of imprisonment in labor camps, and Nikolai--who had not yet turned three--was sent to an orphanage, where he spent a few weeks before being saved by his grandmother, who raised him. Nikolai did not see his mother again until the mid-1950s.

Petr Izmailov was one of the victims of the Stalinist purges. Precise victim counts are unknown and probably unknowable at this point, but estimates range from several hundred thousand to over one million people murdered. 

In 1957, the Soviet Union "rehabilitated" Galina, and then she submitted an application to have Petr "rehabilitated" as well. In the book, Nikolai includes a copy of his father's "rehabilitation" certificate.

Not only did the Soviet Union murder Petr Izmailov, but for five decades his name was written out of the country's official chess history. He was also stripped of his master title, which was supposed to be a lifetime award. Galina passed away on February 27, 1987, at a time when Petr's name was still erased and consigned to the proverbial "memory hole."

In the late 1980s, a few articles appeared about Petr, and over the past several decades Nikolai assembled all of the available archival materials and games to publish a book in tribute to his father. One of the book's appendices is titled "Bullet Chess in Tomsk." Bullet chess is a form of chess in which each player has one minute to complete the entire game, but here the title refers to actual bullets: the bullets used to execute many of the best and brightest chess players from Tomsk (Petr Izmailov's home town), and from across the Soviet Union. 

From 1997-2013, Tomsk hosted an annual memorial tournament honoring Petr Izmailov. Over the years, some of the participants included Grandmasters Rustam Kasimdzhanov, Sergey Karjakin, Alexander Morozevich, and Ruslan Ponomariov. 

Nikolai recalls that at the first memorial tournament, the chief arbiter told him that he had overheard some spectators asking, "Who is Izmailov?" That question inspired Nikolai, who had already done a lot of research, to write the book. He concludes the Afterword by stating, "I don't know whether I really managed to answer the question of that chess fan I mentioned at the very beginning of this book: 'Who is Izmailov?' If I did, at least in part, then my work hasn't been in vain."

Socialism is based on fatally flawed Marxist doctrines, and the implementation of those doctrines leads to dire, evil consequences. That is not opinion or rhetoric: that is historically verifiable fact. As I wrote in The Danger of Marxism, "Without exception, every country that has tried to reach the 'higher stage of communism' ends up mired in a stage of despotism and misery. Capitalism is by no means a perfect economic system, but Marxism has proven to be an unmitigated disaster. The introduction of Marxist economic ideas into a country's policies and the introduction of Marxist historical critiques into a country's mainstream intellectual life foreshadow the end of prosperity and freedom for that country."

Supporters of socialism fall into two broad categories: those who know the truth but believe that "in order to make an omelet (a socialist utopia) you have to break a few eggs (repress, arrest, or kill all opponents)," and those who are "useful idiots" who are unwilling or incapable of understanding the implications and underpinnings of Marxist theory.

Idealistically hoping to make the world a better place is no excuse for failing to learn and apply the lessons of history. If you don't know what happens when a country puts Marxist theory into practice, then read George Orwell's 1984, Arthur Koestler's Darkness at Noon, and Alexander Solzhenitsyn's The Gulag Archipelago.

If you want to understand this on a personal level--to understand how this devastated one family, and left a young boy without a father--then read Nikolai Izmailov's tribute to the father he never knew but always missed and never forgot.

Yes to Teaching History, No to Teaching Critical Race Theory

In The Misguided Argument Against Bans on Teaching Critical Race Theory, Max Eden declares, "A good rule of thumb for evaluating political debates: If the strongest argument from the sharpest writers in the most prestigious newspaper op-ed page is predicated on a claim that takes 30 seconds to fact-check as false, then that side probably has the weaker case." Eden then proves his assertion by pointing out how a New York Times Op-Ed misquoted the language from a Tennessee bill to buttress their pro-Critical Race Theory beliefs:

The Tennessee bill simply does not say what they claim: that schools may not teach lessons that make students feel uncomfortable. It says that schools may not teach lessons that include or promote the concept that students should feel uncomfortable simply due to their race. It would not prohibit teaching about Jim Crow just because some white kids might feel bad after learning undisputed facts. It would prohibit teaching Robin DiAngelo, or similar authors, who make the racist and demoralizing argument that "white identity is inherently racist."

These four co-authors make their living, in large part, through the written word. Why direct the central argument of a New York Times op-ed against a transparent straw man of their own construction?

Perhaps because it is so difficult to oppose "CRT bans" forthrightly. Most of the common clauses in these laws prohibit the kind of state-sponsored racism that parents instinctively know has no place in schools: teaching students that "one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex," that "an individual, by virtue of the individual's race or sex, is inherently privileged, racist, sexist or oppressive, whether consciously or subconsciously," or "ascribing character traits, values, moral or ethical codes, privileges or beliefs to a race or sex or to an individual because of the individual's race or sex."

These laws would prohibit schools from emulating Illinois' Evanston/Skokie school district, which taught that "whiteness is a bad deal," that white students should consider "what it means to be white but not [be] a part of whiteness" and where CRT-inspired educators routinely insist that it is their mission to disrupt and dismantle "whiteness."

Here's a thought experiment: Imagine that in rural areas of blue states, public schools started teaching that "blackness is a bad deal," that black students should consider "what it means to be black but not [be] a part of blackness" and educators started to insist that it is their mission to disrupt and dismantle "blackness."

If you are not familiar with Critical Race Theory, it is not difficult to find the source material and understand its Marxist, anti-democracy, anti-freedom, and anti-American underpinnings. Here is a good summary from Critical Race Theory: An Introduction, a 2001 book from Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic: "Unlike traditional civil rights, which embraces incrementalism and step-by-step progress, critical race theory questions the very foundations of the liberal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism and neutral principles of constitutional law." 

I graduated from law school and passed the Ohio bar exam, which means that I am quite familiar with both the strengths and limitations of our justice system. I know from firsthand experience that our system is flawed, but that it is also the best such system in the world. I do not want to replace it with a system based on a Marxist theory that seeks to undermine "the liberal order...legal reasoning...and neutral principles of constitutional law." Those sound principles that Critical Race Theory seeks to subvert and destroy are what separates this country from such failed and failing states as the Soviet Union, Iran, North Korea, Syria, and Cuba. 

Proponents of Critical Race Theory recklessly assert that without Critical Race Theory we cannot have a fair and honest reckoning with our past. That is false, but very much in keeping with the narrow, binary thinking of the proponents of Critical Race Theory: according to them, everything is either racist or antiracist, so if you oppose Critical Race Theory then you must be a racist who refuses to acknowledge evil acts and suffering that are woven into U.S. history. I reject such binary, simplistic, and incorrect thinking.

I fully support teaching about--among other things--the horrors of slavery, lynching, and Jim Crow laws, plus the struggles of the Civil Rights Movement to overcome those horrors. What I don't support is the dissolution of the rule of law (abandoning "legal reasoning" is the first step in that direction) or reverse racism that asserts that White people are inherently racist while Black people are eternally victims of racism, nor do I support distorting the arc of U.S. history: no sensible person would deny that American history includes some horrific actions and events that must be carefully studied, but the notion that America is founded on racism and/or is irredeemably racist is demonstrably false, which can be proven by simply taking an honest look back in time. Go back to 1864, and slavery was legal in many states; go back to 1964, and Black people were still fighting for basic civil rights--but fast forward from 1964 to 2008, and this country elected a Black President, something that would have seemed unimaginable not too long ago. The point is that tremendous progress has been made precisely because America is not an inherently evil country. Equating America with totalitarian states, or even having the gall to falsely assert that those states are better than America, is an inversion and perversion of historical truth. 

Informed people already know the Marxist and antisemitic underpinnings of Critical Race Theory. There is a reason that proponents of Critical Race Theory do not want to speak now about Derrick Bell, the founding father of Critical Race Theory; it does not take much research to get to the heart of what he believed (among other things, Bell was a Louis Farrakhan admirer who declared that there is a "context" explaining why Black antisemitism is OK), and to realize why Critical Race Theory proponents decided that he cannot be the face of a movement that seeks to transform (destroy) America. 

Bell was blunt and honest about what he believed, but today's Critical Race Theory proponents are savvy enough to understand that most Americans would disagree with a blunt and honest statement of Critical Race Theory principles.

No, Critical Race Theory proponents have figured out how to elevate to popularity individuals who are more adept at couching their radical goals in language that is superficially less threatening and offensive--but the Marxist and antisemitic underpinnings are still there. There are other negative elements to Critical Race Theory as well, as Asian Americans have found out to their dismay both in terms of being attacked on the street and also in terms of facing quotas at institutions of higher learning reminiscent of the quotas that used to be held against Jews in the early part of the 20th century. Many of the same people who stir up Black antisemitism also stir up anti-Asian racism based on the notion that Asian-Americans are not really a minority deserving protection but in fact participants in White oppression of Black people.

Informed people also know where Critical Race Theory leads if we permit it to become a dominant ideology: just read Orwell's 1984, Koestler's Darkness at Noon, and Solzhenitsyn's The Gulag Archipelago--or study how the revolutionaries in Russia, Cuba, and other countries who claimed that their goal was to promote freedom and equality ended up creating brutally oppressive totalitarian regimes. Put more simply for those who do not have the time, inclination, or ability to process all of the reading material mentioned above: there is a reason that some countries build walls to keep people in, while America has to patrol her borders because so many people from around the world will risk their lives to try to experience the freedom that too many of us who were born here take for granted. Self-proclaimed "progressives" intoxicated by Critical Race Theory and other flawed conceptions of society have confused themselves to such an extent that when they march to promote gay rights they shout antisemitic slurs demonizing Israel, the only country in the Mideast where gay people have any rights.  When the people who claim that they support freedom and equality for all are marching in the streets chanting antisemitic slogans, our country is teetering dangerously close to the calamity that befell Russia prior to the creation of the Soviet Union.

The Danger of Marxism

What does it mean if a person supports Marxism? Why should that be a cause for concern?

The January 1997 issue of Midstream contains some incisive analysis of Marxism in a George Jochnowitz article titled "Marxism—The Real Danger." Jochnowitz wrote that Karl Marx and his The Communist Manifesto co-author Friedrich Engels "dreamed of a world that embodied all the values of the primitive, tribal society--of the Noble Savage." 

Marx envisioned a world without merchants and commerce, and a world with no experts, professionalism or inequality. Marx believed that capitalism would disappear in favor of a "higher stage of communism," after which the apparatus of the state would collapse and people would be free to do whatever they want to do. 

Anyone who thinks about the real world implications of those sentiments understands that Marx is not describing a Utopia, even if a childlike mind may find such empty slogans to be superficially wonderful.   

Jochnowitz declared:

This dream is not simply impossible; it is a nightmare. Its ugliness comes from its rejection of the human desire to know more and more, which involves specialization; from its denial that people want to move from the country to the city and not vice versa; from its blindness to the fact that disagreement is inherent in human nature and necessary if society is to change and face new problems. Moreover, believing that this impossible situation is one's goal is dangerous because it involves a commitment to believing a lie and a consequent abandonment of rationality. In order to protect the lie, the state must be designed to eliminate the freedom to examine the philosophy underlying this lie.

Jochnowitz explained what happens when Marxist theory is put into practice:

In a world whose history is the story of cruelty, nations ruled by the Communist Party stand out among the most vicious. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, Mengistu, Ceausescu—it can't just be a coincidence…

The Marxist vision of the future implies the realization of a society without disagreement and therefore the end of history. That is why thought reform is considered a desirable and realizable goal. Those societies that have attempted to reshape human nature have been noted for their ruthlessness. All of the cruelty of the Communist states, all of the evils committed by Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot are implicit in the Marxist idea of the withering away of the state…

Communism under Mao was very much like feudalism. In both these systems, the overwhelming majority of the population is equal and powerless. At the top, there is a tiny, highly structured class. In medieval Europe, this was called the nobility, and consisted of titled ranks (duke, earl, etc.), with the king, who rule by divine right, at the top of the pyramid. In China, those at the top are called cadres. Like the nobility, they are ranked, not by title but by number. There are 23 degrees of cadres. And at the top was the absolute ruler, Chairman Mao. In both systems, there was a faith that could not be questioned, since heresy was punishable by death.

Without exception, every country that has tried to reach the "higher stage of communism" ends up mired in a stage of despotism and misery. Capitalism is by no means a perfect economic system, but Marxism has proven to be an unmitigated disaster. The introduction of Marxist economic ideas into a country's policies and the introduction of Marxist historical critiques into a country's mainstream intellectual life foreshadow the end of prosperity and freedom for that country.