Es un enlace inactivo

Recently I find myself thinking of Mao’s oft-quoted concept that one has no right to speak if they have not investigated the subject matter. I find so many liberals commenting on the affairs who, quite simply, lack even a cursory understanding of history. I’ve come to see most liberals as egoists at this point: everyone thinks they have something to say even when their education and knowledge on the matter is limited to an extreme degree. Having thoughts are one thing, but if you do not know what the Nullification Crisis is, or your historical understanding precludes any thought from before 1900 than I quite simply do not wish to hear what you have to say.

It reminded me of an interesting article (albeit I ought to state that the article has anti-Soviet ridiculousness in it) I read not too long ago in The New Yorker. (https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-historians-under-attack-for-exploring-polands-role-in-the-holocaust) which seems to indicate Poland’s and the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum have completely downplayed and attempted to suppress, through legal means, any historical discussion of any Polish individuals who contributed to and helped the Nazis.
The museum, following this article put our statements attacking the author and claiming any discussion of Polish collaborationism during the Holocaust downplayed German responsibility. So, in the end, the Auschwitz-Birkenau Museum might not be exactly what one would hope (or even, to some extent, expect) when it comes to historical memory of the Holocaust.

I think that the truth is that people would just as easily become scared on anything that was the same. I mean, as Juliet said, "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” If the substance of it is the same, propaganda against the name would just as surely be propagated (not to mention confusion regarding the usage of a different name).

History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks) states that “The Marxist Party is a part, a detachment, of the working class. But the working class has many detachments, and hence not every detachment of the working class can be called a party of the working class. The Party differs from other detachments of the working class primarily by the fact that it is not an ordinary detachment, but the vanguard de-tachment, a class-conscious detachment, a Marxist detachment of the working class, armed with a knowledge of the life of society, of the laws of its development and of the laws of the class struggle, and for this reason able to lead the working class and to direct its struggle. The Party must therefore not be confused with the working class, as the part must not be confused with the whole. One cannot demand that every striker be allowed to call himself a member of the Party, for whoever confuses Party and class lowers the level of consciousness of the Party to that of ‘every striker,’ destroys the Party as the class-conscious vanguard of the working class. It is not the task of the Party to lower its level to that of ‘every striker,’ but to elevate the masses of the workers, to elevate ‘every striker’ to the level of the Party.” (https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1939/x01/ch02.htm)

I see this as most likely arguing against the idea that we should change our terminology because people are scared of it. Rather than that, it is preferable to alter the public’s reaction to the concept of socialism in the first place. Deciding to use a term like ergatocracy is much more confusing and would only lead to then that being the term that was feared. A different term used would also make all education and research far far more difficult as most texts would not refer to this term. I, for one, just don’t think another term is the solution to fear regarding socialism.