Israeli high schools students can finally learn from two new textbooks (“Struggle and Decline, 1920-1945” and “Uprising and State, 1945-1970”) that the reason the Russian Communist Revolution ultimately failed “was the lack of crystallization of a proletariat and a bourgoise class”, and because “the peasant and the worker were not educated and failed to grasp the nature of the communist economy”. Had they been better “educated” and able to participate, Communism apparently would not have degenerated into a dictatorship, and could have saved humanity from the horrors of capitalism.

In fairness, according to the Ministry of Education’s new history program, the books (published by Li-Lach Press) do make an effort to be even handed. Their author, Shula Inbar, a history teacher, does not seem to consciously grind an ideological ax. She merely reflects the post-modernist fashion of giving “equal” presentation to “different narratives”. But she does so in the politically correct fashion and with the moral relativism that currently dominate the academic humanities and social “sciences”. She also tries so hard to be “non-judgmental” that the West, and especially Capitalism, seem more morally abominable than murderous Communism.

Inbar presents “The Cold War from different viewpoints”. She first describes “The Cold War from a Conservative (anti-Soviet) viewpoint”, explaining that most “American diplomats [sic] saw the conflict between Russia [sic] and the USA as inevitable because of the aggressive nature of the Kremlin which was rooted in its Communist Anti-Capitalist ideology.” But instead of explaining how Soviet aggression and expansionism made a helpful US (that provided it with massive aid) confrontational, the text suggests that the “conservative” (you know what that means!) attitude was paranoid and gratuitously Anti-Soviet, reflecting the bias of American “diplomats”.

The text becomes explicit when explaining “the Cold War from the Revisionist (corrected) [sic] viewpoint”, which “rejects totally the conservative Anti-Soviet viewpoint, accusing it of distorting Soviet reality and a misunderstanding of its needs [sic]. [Revisionists] claim that the Soviet Union cannot be blamed for the Cold War. The conflict with the USA stemmed from the social and political structure of the American regime. The American economy is mostly capitalist and therefore wishes to dominate foreign markets. The USA follows a policy of expansionism in order to satisfy the interests of American monopolies” etc. Then comes the clinching proof of American mendacity: “This is the basis,” the text proclaims, “of the open door policy of the USA, that promotes free opportunity in foreign markets, a Capitalist-Imperialist policy,” (how “free opportunity” enables the US to dominate markets is not explained). Anyone acquainted with the chronic deficit of the US balance of trade knows such a claim is utter rubbish. Until the last decade, US firms were notoriously laggard in opening foreign markets because they enjoyed a very open, lucrative and expanding internal market. But the hate-America mythmakers are not impressed with facts.

To preserve the appearance of “even-handedness” Inbar then follows with “The Post-Revisionist viewpoint (everyone is guilty)”. She does not even attempt to examine the veracity of the revisionist pro-Soviet propaganda. Guilt is “judiciously” ascribed “evenly”. Both sides “made serious mistakes”, her text proclaims, “and bear equal responsibility for the cold war” – the certainly imperfect USA (that nevertheless struggled to institute full civil rights) and the empire of Gulags that has exterminated (by conservative estimates) over twenty million people.

The ground for such perverse moral equivalency is set by Ms. Inbar when she first describes the Russian Revolution as a deliverance from “exploitative Capitalism” which Marx considered “a disaster to humanity generally and to man particularly”. She gives full vent to vile Communist propaganda, complementing it with five lengthy quotes from Lenin and Trotsky. She makes no attempt to examine or even balance this Marxist “narrative”, or to describe the astounding achievements of Capitalism in promoting welfare and cooperation; nor does she analyze the fact that all Socialist attempts to have government dominate the economy resulted (as they must) in bureaucratization, waste, corruption and tyranny. Of the two background quotes she adds that do not favor Communism, both by Prof. Jacob Talmon, one still compliments Lenin on his great sagacity and leadership and the second seems to excuse his horrendous rule by terror, described as “a small retribution for hundreds of years of oppression and exploitation.” (Similarly, when discussing the Vietnam War Ms. Inbar presents the US as murderous and corrupt, but says nothing about the horrors of Communism).

As a result of such “subtle” indoctrination of students with “progressive” (namely anti-American and Capitalist) attitudes, Israel has come to resemble a third world country not only in its autocratic political rhetoric and practice but also in its laggard economy and strife torn society.

Permalink: