I still remember when David Horowitz told me that Michael Moore is a Leninist. Bejamin Shapiro’s column just happens to make the same argument. Excerpt (I highly recomment reading the whole thing):
When war broke out in Europe in 1914, and the czar committed to Russian involvement, Lenin saw his chance: He could seize power by undermining czarism through anti-war activity. "[B]ut for the war," he wrote, "Russia could have gone on living for years and decades without a revolution against the capitalists." Lenin encouraged soldiers "to turn their guns on their officers" and stated that military disaster should be exploited to "hasten the destruction ... of the capitalist class."Meanwhile, Lenin also labeled colonialism an intrinsic evil of the capitalist system. Lenin said in "Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism" that "imperialist wars are absolutely inevitable under such an economic system ... Capitalism has grown into a world system of colonial oppression and of the financial strangulation of the overwhelming majority of the population of the world by a handful of 'advanced' countries."
Lenin's goals, then, were: 1) to undermine the legitimacy of the ruling czarist system, 2) to do so through anti-war activity, and 3) to undermine capitalism by denouncing it as exploitative.
Lenin had an "excuse" for undermining the czarist system of government – it was dictatorial, even if Lenin and his successors would end up as far more brutal dictators than any of the czars.
Michael Moore has no excuse. America is a republic, and Moore is a threat to the republic.
He appears to pursue Lenin's goals. After dropping out of University of Michigan-Flint to pursue political activism, Moore started the Flint Voice, an alternative newspaper that became the Michigan Voice. Soon, he edited the radical-left Mother Jones magazine, where he was fired, supposedly for backing the communist Sandinista rebels.
Now he is a big backer of the terrorists in Iraq.
Recent Comments