The Diplomad has a great analysis on his blog today about the end of the USSR and how Marxism lives on in the liberal elite activist of today
The Don of International Marxism, the USSR, is dead — killed by Ronald “Elliot Ness” Reagan. For roughly the past fifteen years, we, thankfully, have lived without the threat of global nuclear annihilation that the USSR’s Marxist vision posed. With the Soviet demise, international Marxism as we knew it for nearly the entire 20th century also died. Unfortunately, however, the forces that fathered and nurtured Marxism did not die: envy, resentment, and fear of competition and failure remain with us, alive and well.
The USSR’s end forced the envious, resentful, and fearful and their leaders to adapt, transform, fracture and downgrade a belief system that had “explained” everything into less-satisfying sub-sets, each focused on a particular topic: most prominently, feminism, environmentalism and the rapidly growing one of “international law.” Despite their seemingly different concerns, all these sub-sets shared much in common, to wit, at their core lay anti-capitalist, anti-American and increasingly anti-Semitic emotions disguised as analytical constructs. Over the past fifteen or so years, we have seen these different strands re-meld into what we now call the Anti-Globalization Movement (AGM).
Having served and visited extensively in Central and South American countries with large “indigenous” populations, I can freely state that the region’s “indigenous” cultures largely ceased to exist hundreds of years ago; “indigenous” culture today means rural poverty. As the saying goes, “I was born at night, but not last night,” so even I understand, therefore, that calling to protect “indigenous culture” really means seeking to preserve rural poverty; to keep people poor, sick, illiterate, and isolated from the great and small wonders of our age. It means helping condemn them to half lives consumed with superstition, disease, and of watching their puny children struggle to live past the age of five. It’s a call to keep certain people as either an ethnic curio on the shelf for the enjoyment of European and North American anthropologists or, equally vile, as exploitable pawns for the use of political activists.
The foreign activists are particularly loathsome; they invent and distort history, introducing distinctly 20th and 21st century concepts into the study of pre-Colombian cultures and their remnants. Worse, these activists seek to manipulate poor people for their own political agenda, and often get them killed in pursuit of “liberation theology” or some other fashionable cliche. They overwhelm and corrupt legitimate “indigenous” activists with money, trips, attention, and promises of fame. In exchange, the once-legitimate local activist becomes a servant of Americas Watch, Amnesty International, etc, required to produce ever more dire stories and accusations.
Just a select few quotes there but wow, what a great read and analysis. What would the reaction be from these activists? You all know what it will be…”we are trying to save these poor poor people from the evils of America and capitalism”…While in the end they condemn them to die poor while they go off to their next cocktail party rambling on and on about how much good they are doing in the world.