Download a Permanent Printable PDF Version of This Article.
The Great Communist Lie is now so pervasive in our society that much of the message has become subliminal, gently interwoven as it is into our formal education, the “spin” on our news, our prevalent editorial commentary, our published literature, our entertainment, and nowadays even main themes in our public discourse and political argument. Today, it rarely if ever goes by the more honest, original name of Communism, but that is precisely what it is; and Communism is, precisely, a lie. It is a smooth subterfuge that most often does not even go by its own name.
What I hope to do here, again, is identify the Communist Lie for what it is. I’ve said it so many times it’s getting tiresome; all over this website it has been repeated in many ways, and some of you may be betting bored with it. However, the message and the pipe dream of the lie is so strong, so prevalent everywhere, so dominating of discourse, even without properly naming itself, that it bears repeating. So, for what it’s worth, here it is again:
Every single Marxist is an Ends-Justify-The-Means Liar.
No exceptions.That's why I created the MEJTML14 sarcastic "hover-link" so I wouldn't have to keep re-typing it over and over again when discussing Marxism in its many forms, and Marxists in their many variations. You show me a Marxist and I'll show you an ends-justify-the-means liar.
All Marxists are liars. Marxist have to be liars; being a liar is virtually a definitive characteristic of being a Marxist. It is a requirement. The ultimate goal of the Marxist is to move all of society toward or into Communism; that “worthy” goal is the supposedly noble “End” that justifies, in the mind of the Marxist, any “Means” at all that may be applied to achieve it. Historically, these “Means” have included mass deportations, mass movements of whole populations, and even mass murder. Again, let’s look at the three pithy sayings of the typical Marxist temporarily useful idiot, the future would-be Marxist bureaucrat, and the potential future Marxist dictator, all, on the road to ultimate supreme Marxist power:
I’m not making this up. Twentieth century European and Asian history is loaded down with records of Marxist collectivization and mass-movements of whole enslaved peoples on cattle cars to wherever “The Party” (but really, the Dictator) wanted them all moved. Untold millions were simply murdered to achieve the ends of Marxism, because, after all, you cannot make an omelet without breaking some eggs. These three sayings are as close as you can come to identifying a motivational collective ethos that drives atheistic and materialistic Marxism.
The Communist Lie: Level 1: Regarding nature and even existence of Communism itself.
Marx’s Communism - the state of authority-less, classless, government-less, state-less, border-less, perfect, utopian Worker’s Paradise - has never existed, does not now exist anywhere, cannot possibly exist, is quite impossible, and might even be taken as some kind of sick joke if it were not so tragic. The very notion of social movement toward Communism is a flagrant lie, for the destination never did, does not and cannot ever exist. The True destination is, exactly, Socialism, known also as The Dictatorship of the Proletariat, which is also a lie.
The Communist Lie: Level 2: Regarding nature of Marx’s invention of his “unpleasant but necessary” so-called “intermediary phase” that he called Socialism, or, the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.
The Marxian “evolutionary phase” of societal development, his dictatorship of the workers, or of the Party, was, is, and has been from the first one created to every other one that ever existed, an absolute Dictatorship, pure and simple. Whether under Lenin, or Hitler, or Stalin, or Mao, or Castro, or Ho, or any other so-called Communist or Fascist dictator, they were all the same, under somewhat different paint or skin or camouflage. They all were and/or are absolute dictatorships. The title of the dictator might have been Fuehrer or Premier or Chairman or Party Supreme Secretary or whatever – they were all the same. Only the personalities of the dictators differed.
They might have installed beneath themselves various governmental bureaucratic organizations, such as Politburos, Congresses or whatever, populated with rigidly obedient governmental assistants. These helpers ranged from relatively innocent idealistic useful idiots to zealous idealistic committed loony-tune fanatics, to the twisted, perverse criminal types who were heartless and ruthless enough to do the terrible things real dictators always need to have done. Again, you cannot make an omelet without breaking some eggs. Most usually, the useful idiot types just quietly disappear, being murdered or sent off into the gulag somewhere shortly after the dictator assumes full power, and after they served their purpose. Only the most ruthless survive and advance in the Marxist environment.
No matter how you dress it up under any window-dressing title or complex organization, whether titled Communist, Fascist, Nazi, Bolshevik, Marxist-Leninist, Stalinist, Socialist, or whatever, an absolute dictatorship is an absolute dictatorship. No one opposes the absolute dictator and remains both free and alive. Period.
The Communist Lie: Level 3: Regarding the completely false “history” of all Communist so-called “Revolutions.”
The term “Communist Revolution” as used in any past world history is false. It is true only in the second or third sense of the dictionary definition of Revolution, which is to say, a radical and complete change of government from what it was to something else. The first sense of the word, as found in any dictionary, involves a popular movement; an overthrowing and complete replacement of a government by the governed people. No Communist revolution was ever a popular movement of the people governed. Such a popular Communist revolution has never successfully occurred in all of world history.
In truth, the advance of the Communist agenda absolutely requires crisis; the greater the crisis the better. Marxism has never advanced except when it took advantage of some terrible crisis, or in a few cases when it advanced due to trickery, deception and subterfuge. Today’s Marxists know this; they purposely seek to actually cause terrible crisis, and they simultaneously seek to grossly deceive the populace.
The Russian Communist “Revolution” never had more than about fifteen thousand committed, ready-to-die-for-the-cause “Revolutionary” fighters before Lenin seized power and butchered up the Czar and his family, eliminating the possibility of going back to the previous form of government. There was no going back from that point; it was either stay in power, or die. Fifteen thousand represents an incredibly small force in a country as huge, vast and populated as Russia. If the whole thing had not occurred during the horrible distracting national crisis of World War I it never would have succeeded. It was no popular movement. The ordinary Russian citizen had no idea what was going on until it was all over and too late to do anything about it.
During the terrible WWI and following Russian historical period that Robert Conquest called War Communism that followed the Russian political coup, or takeover, the loyal Russian opposition had no leadership and therefore no coherent strategy or even sense of cohesive organization, since all of their government and leadership had been wiped out. This is why they lost. Again, if Russia had not been preoccupied by desperate crisis – fighting for life against a deadly foreign enemy in World War I – the Russian Communist “Revolution” could not and would not have succeeded at all.
The Chinese Communist “Revolution” also occurred during a desperate national crisis, when China was fighting for her very life against the Japanese Empire during World War II. It quickly developed into a three-way conflict, between fragmented Nationalist forces, the growing army of Mao and the forces of the Japanese Empire. In the semi-feudal organization of WWII China, Chinese forces were divided into semi-autonomous armies of war lords with feudal hierarchies reminiscent of medieval European nobility. Mao managed to “convert” more of these forces than did General Chiang Kai-shek for those fighting for the Chinese Nationalist cause. It was a three-way fight, which Mao ultimately won because of the divided attention of the Nationalist fighters.
Once again, just as in Russia, a crisis helped the Communist cause. If China had not been distracted and had to split her forces to fight Mao and still fight for her very life against a deadly foreign invader in a desperate war, the Communist “Revolution” in China could not and would not have succeeded.
Every other country that came under the Iron Curtain of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact Nations, and under the Bamboo Curtain of the new Chinese Communist empire, was the victim of military conquest, pure and simple. They were invaded and conquered by massive forces. Every land “liberated” from Nazism or Fascism became a part of the Communist camp, by absolute military force. The people had nothing whatsoever to say about it. No previous government was allowed to re-establish itself, and no government organization other than a typical Socialist dictatorship, subservient either to Moskow or to Peking, ever came into existence in any of these lands.
I remember what happened in Cuba very well; I was an idealistic youngster then, and Castro appeared to be quite a heroic figure to me. His seemingly desperate situation in the mountains of Cuba while seeking to oust the gangster Batista and establish Democracy in Cuba was inspiring. He was backed by virtually the whole of the American media; I followed it closely, read every word of it and paid very close attention to all of it.
When he actually won, and all the gangsters fled, and he immediately announced to the world that he was a Marxist-Leninist, you could have knocked me over with a feather. I couldn’t believe it. But, here’s an even more surprising thing – at least it was surprising to me – the media, our media, never changed it’s tune, never missed a beat, continually and consistently remained in Castro’s corner and portrayed him as a heroic Cuban patriot and an all around wonderful and glorious new leader on the world stage.
The Communist Lie: Level 4: Regarding the true nature of Social Democracy; or, almost Socialism, or partial adoption of Socialist theory.
The semi-Socialist, or typically European combination of Marx’s Socialist theory with some form of semi-representative government that we’re talking about here is exemplified by countries like France, Germany, most of Western Europe, and even the United Kingdom. These governments came to be semi-Socialist over about a hundred years of successful Marxist disinformation, which began as a mere elite-class, pseudo-intellectual fad, later fed and expanded by the output of a deliberate Communist disinformation conspiracy, to virtually permeate and dominate the ongoing social dialogue in all of Western Culture. It masquerades as a more moral social goal, while successfully demonizing the straw-villain “exploitation” of Capitalism and of authoritarian government.
This branch of the Communist lie got its biggest boost from the combination of two falsehoods. First, the belief that “Socialism” is something other than dictatorship; that is represents another way, a perhaps better economic social organization that favors the worker and the lower class. Second, the predominantly interventionist economic theory authored by John Maynard Keynes, seen as needed to “curb” the greed and exploitation tendencies of increasingly demonized Capitalism and the unhindered open market place. Keynes believed, falsely, as it turned out, that the Great Depression was caused by a general failure of laissez-faire (hands off) free market Capitalism. It was, indeed, caused by the direct government interventionist actions of Presidents Hoover and Roosevelt; the market itself had never failed. We talked about this in the 2008 Financial Crisis page in a little more detail.
World class economists like Friedman, Von Hayek, Von Mises and others strongly state that any intervention in laissez-faire Capitalism will do injury to it, and prompt it toward perverse performance, meaning, failure. The more it is interfered with, the more it will fail. Generally, when a government starts down this trail, each interference-induced failure prompts the government to more and larger interference, causing even more failure. The inevitable end of this process is, the completely controlled economy. Another name for a completely government planned and controlled economy is Socialism. As we have already seen, another name for Socialism, and the most honest one, is, exactly, dictatorship.
Unless the French and the Germans and the English and most Western Europeans do something to stop the process, they are all headed into eventual dictatorship. This mildness, or, not so badness, view of Socialism is patently false. There is nothing nice about complete dictatorship, most especially when it comes about via the path of Marxism. History proves it.
The Communist Lie: Level 5: Regarding the true nature of so-called Demand Side (Communist inspired) versus Supply Side (Free Market inspired) economic theory, as practiced in America.
In a nutshell, Supply Side economics promotes creating or modifying or eliminating government regulations with the intent of encouraging people to go to work, and encouraging business to get started or to grow to create more jobs. It concentrates on controlling only the supply of money to control inflation. Money supply is increased, according to Friedman’s monetarism, in accord with population increase, but not to exceed about two and a half percent per year. We’re talking about the rate of printing American money here, to exceed the amount that is destroyed every year. Under Supply Side everything else floats and finds its own price level in the free market according to the natural laws of supply and demand.
When free to do so, consumers search for goods and services that they want or need; in a like manner, when free to do so, businesses compete with each other to provide those goods and services. Prices of goods and services are established, and changed, by changes and fluctuations in current demand and available supply. Timeliness, quality and price drive consumer demand; consumer demand drives business production, quality, distribution, retailing, wholesale and retail cost, and so forth.
This same process includes labor; businesses compete for good laborers at all levels. When there is a high demand and a low supply for a certain kind of laborer, the price (pay for that laborer) will naturally increase; when there is a glut of a certain kind of laborer or there is lessened demand for them, the price (pay for that laborer) will naturally decrease accordingly.
In a nutshell, Demand Side economics promotes taxes, regulations and legal restrictions that encourage people to not go to work, or to work minimally, and that penalize or discourage private enterprise from getting started, expanding or growing, which means a reduction in number of available free market jobs. It includes government encouragement of unionization, minimum wages, government caps or other restrictions on higher wages and bonuses paid by private enterprises, legal requirements of employer-paid insurance, legally mandated private employer provided benefits such as maternity leave, etc.
Demand Side seeks to make (or actually, direct) demand by controlling supply in order to force society into a certain preferred behavior. For instance, taxing, regulating and legally restricting production of coal in order to reduce or even shut down and eliminate the entire American coal industry so that electric energy will be produced in some other way, regardless of how much real demand there might be out there for government demonized and restricted coal. When coal is no longer available, it is hoped, someone somewhere might go into the windmill business, because it might become a more economically feasible business in the absence of competition from clearly more available and more competitive coal power.
We had an example of Demand Side prevalence during the Jiminy Carter Stagflation years. We had an example of Supply Side prevalence during the Ronald Reagan Boom years. Then, we had a milder turn from Supply Side back toward Demand Side when George Read My Lips Bush I became President, publicly renounced Reaganomics as “Voodoo Economics”, raised taxes and promptly put us into another recession, paving the political road for the Clinton victory.
Essentially, Supply Side means control money supply, leave interest alone, reduce government wherever possible, reduce both taxes and government spending, free business and free labor as much as possible, restrict business only so far as to restrict monopoly or price/wage fixing collusion and any other fraudulent or unfair market practices. The goal is to encourage myriad competitive sources of supply of goods and services.
Essentially, Demand Side means tax, spend, grow government, control private enterprise, create regulations to direct and control demand (by restricting supply) for goods and services in order to governmentally control what gets produced, in what quantity and in what quality. The goal is to restrict the market place in order to provide what is deemed by government to be in the best interest of the government and/or the people and/or the environment, depending on the administration of the moment.
Many deceptions and treacherous lies are used to grow the government and its reach; each one of these incidents in truth merely further interferes with free market natural forces and prods Capitalism toward failure. Lie after lie is hammered into the public consciousness to achieve this “End.” See the Eco-Nazism Movement link for some of the most gross examples.
This Communist lie convinces the people that government knows best, that the Free Market can get “out of control,” and that only big government can solve major economic problems which are deemed to be far too complex for mere citizens to even understand, and often the problems are so huge and the costs so high that no entity other than central government may properly address them. In point of fact, in every such incident, the government itself is the problem, rather than the solution, and what is needed for resolution is for the government to step aside and get out of the way of free market natural forces, and allow nature to take its course.
Where are we going; What may we expect: What do the current manifestations and current versions of the Great Communist Lie have in store for us?
As I write these words (Thursday, March 19, 2009) Obama and a thoroughly Democrat Congress are purposely and deceptively driving America into deeper and deeper economic crisis while openly advancing different branches of the Communist lie agenda. The “reach” of central government is being extended to first touch, then control, every mundane aspect of citizen life. From Socialized education, to Socialized medicine, to Socialized resolution of such problems as childhood obesity, illegal alien insecurity here, too many guns out there, not enough union members in America, etc., etc., etc.
People are beginning to see through the deceptions and become angry, and it is not good for Marxism when popular opinion begins to turn against it. Besides treachery and deception, the other favored weapon the Communist lie uses to greatest effect is very serious crisis; when a serious, national survival type crisis does not present itself, it may be purposely caused. The Ends justify the Means. Obama, like Lenin, and Hitler, and all other such potential dictators, would benefit greatly from a major, even catastrophic crisis.
Even major riots in the streets might not be enough for him to truly benefit yet; it might take something much bigger. The problem he faces is whether the military, as it now stands would actually do what he would order them to do, before he had an opportunity to properly “purge” the top ranks. Not likely. Yet. A major terrorist attack would do nicely. An atom bomb obliterating New York City might do nicely. It would have to be something big enough for Obama to declare Martial Law and suspend the Constitution, for national security purposes. He could then silence all public opposition with the stroke of a pen, and begin the process of taking all authority, in increasingly daring and oppressive stages.
I look for deception after deception and major crisis after major crisis between now and four Novembers from now, when the voters will speak again, provided the Republic itself survives that long. In the case of the hypothetical atom bomb disaster spoken of above, the mushroom cloud would not have dissipated before Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Fox News were shut down. In that horrible scenario, the military would immediately react and obey, at least until the shock wore off, which might be too late. All opposition from all quarters might just “disappear.” Look at Communist history.
If the Communist Lie succeeds: What will America look like: What will life be like if the Communist lie succeeds?
The so-called classless society of the Communist utopian dream is, of course, false. Historically, “Communist” nations, satellites, unions or empires have wound up with a rigid class structure. There is, of course, the dictator, who stands alone; then there is the “Party,” those closest to and most trusted by the dictator. A slightly lower class includes the working assistants or bureaucrats who follow the orders of the Party and oversee the populace; last, and least, there is the populace.
This, while not the same, is more similar to medieval Feudal Society than it is to anything else. The only “class” that is absent is the ecclesial order. It is thus a society without a religion and therefore without a morality. If you look at Cuba you see a semi-feudal example. Fidel acts exactly as though he were the lord of a domain, which is, after all, precisely what he is. He selects his own heir apparent, his brother Raul, to succeed him on his throne, which is the same thing he might do if he were the suzerain of a European duchy.
What to do: How do we resist this trend: How can we keep America and her Constitution intact?
It ain’t gonna be easy, and it might not be pretty. Expect (and therefore raise hell about) the Dems to use their vast array of Communist grass-roots organizers like ACORN to do the next census, gerrymander districts to favor Marxist politicians and rig the next election. Expect (and therefore raise hell about) a Marxist grab for our guns and gun rights. Expect (and therefore raise hell about) open attack on our religion, in various forms, from institutionalizing sodomy, abortion, infanticide, and so forth. The Marxists hope Catholic hospitals will close, so that they can quickly nationalize them, as a crisis solution to a burgeoning national health-care problem. They hope to see major financial and industrial centers to fail, so they can quickly nationalize them, as a crisis-solution to a burgeoning national economic problem.
Look around. The government is already dictating to private commercial enterprises rules of doing business, private salaries, private bonuses, and even changing terms and/or abrogating standing private contracts, in direct violation of Article 1 Section 10 of the United States Constitution. I’m telling you, these people will do anything. Here it is again, for whatever it’s worth:
Votes have consequences. Pay very, very close attention to what your supposed Representatives not only say, but do. Get informed and involved in politics, and get the rest of your family informed and involved. Don’t stand by and let this happen.
Keep a tight grip on your guns, and pray the Rosary.
Hover-Link Footnotes: For the convenience of those readers using devices that lack a mouse, these footnotes are provided for all webpages, in case any webpage contains any hover-links. (If you don't have a mouse, you can't "hover" the mouse over a link, without clicking, to just to see the related Acronym appear.)
Return to Latest News page
Return to HOME PAGE
Respond to This Article Below The Last Comment
Date: Sat May 28 14:36:05 2011
Location: Petrosani, Hunedoara District, Romania
I didn't read the whole article, but I've been surprised by the fact that you named Hitler a communist/socialist while you claim to be an expert. Hitler was not a radical communist nor a socialist, as he advocated extremist nationalist principles (which are totally contrary to communism), and ruled over a country with a Keynesian economy. Nazi Germany, as every fascist state which existed until 1945, was nothing but an elitist, capitalist, nationalist and racist dictatorship, and shouldn't be confused with the socialist dictatorship of the USSR by a person who writes political articles...
On another aspect, I would like to say that the utopian characteristics of an entirely Marxist society are evident for almost everybody, but just the fact that an idealization of socialism could not work, it doesn't mean that the society should stop any kind of progress towards it! Regulating markets is a very important issue for the safety and the well being of the people, (there were almost no state regulations on private enterprises during the 19th century, and the massive poverty encountered in the urban centers, the wages which obligated entire families to work for surviving and the flourishing businesses based on slave labor were pretty good indicators that a non-regulated market is a horrifying dictatorship of the bourgeoisie...) and trust me: the way from regulating markets to real socialism is very long! Radical thinking is most of the time irrational and brings bad results, and this applies to economics as well, since Communism or a 100% Free Market are both epic failures which never work, but the only real question is whether it is better to have more socialist or capitalist leanings within an economical system...
I found it also an undocumented affirmation from you to say that socialism is compulsory a dictatorial system, as even the communist manifesto stated that "the workers should control the means of production and the state should only be the tool of the working class in order to seize power", and most of the communists adhered to democracy and individual freedoms before the Bolshevik revolution! There is no incompatibility between socialism and multi-party political systems, and the theory "the end justifies the means" was heavily criticized by influential socialist groups like the Trotskyites, so I am inclined to think that socialism will appear in much more democratic forms in the future...
Date: Sun May 29 07:40:48 2011
From: Vic Biorseth
First, I do not claim to be an expert; you just take me to be one.
Second, I didn’t name Hitler a Communist/Socialist, I simple called him what he called himself, which was a Marxist.
The name of Hitler’s political Party was the Nationalist Socialist Worker’s Party. He was no Capitalist.
The only economic difference between the Nazi-Fascist brand of Marxism and the Bolshevik-Communist brand of Marxism was that the former totally controlled the owners of Capital, and the later simply nationalized all Capital. In both variants, the people were ruled by one absolute totalitarian dictator.
The only socio-political difference between the Nazi-Fascist brand of Marxism and the Bolshevik-Communist brand of Marxism was that the former was a nationalist movement that sought world control by a superior nation and race, and the later was an internationalist movement that falsely claimed to seek the end of all sovereign nations as well as the end of all private property to achieve a perfect utopia.
Nazi-Fascism and Bolshevik-Communism represent the major Right – Left argument within Marxism. Both despise Capitalism and human liberty, and thus both see America and any entity remotely similar to America as the ultimate mortal enemy of Marxism. Within the confines of Marxist thought, American Constitutionalism is neither Right nor Left – it is simply the system that must be destroyed so that Marxism may advance.
In any so-called Communist or so-called Socialist country, the workers control nothing. The workers are controlled. That is totalitarianism. Worker control is a lie. Communism has never existed, cannot ever exist, and represents impossibility. Socialism, as Marx described it, is an “evolutionary” stepping stone on the path to classless Communist utopia, and as such, it is quite impossible and thus attempting to achieve it is quite stupid.
So-called “Democratic forms” of Socialism are doomed, for the Democracies recommended by the likes of Marx, Lenin, Stalin, etc., were “pure” Democracies, which, of course, are quite impossible. Everyone cannot vote on everything. Such a Democracy is simply a planned product intended for failure. The “in the know” people who push it know that, and they have an ulterior motive. Social Democracy is a Marxist trick.
To say that just because all Socialist experiments since the invention of Marxist Socialism have failed is no reason to stop trying Socialism is stupid to the point of imbecility. One definition of insanity is to keep repeating the same failed action again and again hoping for a different outcome. It is akin to the demented man beating his head against the wall hoping to make it feel better.
Perfection is not of this world, but the next. Perfection, like human rights, are not man-made.
Saturday, February 02,
Converted Page to SBI! Release 3.0 BB 2.0.
Date: Sun Feb 03 21:22:30 2013
You did not fully answer Victor above. It seems clear that "Communism or a
100% Free Market are both epic failures which never work" so why should the Free Market get the favored treatment, especially since so many "Social Democracies" have free and happy populations?
Date: Mon Feb 04 06:58:15 2013
From: Vic Biorseth
There is no record of "100% Fee Market" failure anywhere in all of recorded history. In fact, if you search for even the existence of a 100% Free Market, the closest you would come would be the USA, in different areas of the country and different periods of time.
To whatever extent the 100% Free Market is interfered with either by corruption or by state control, to that same extent does it stop being a 100% Free Market. A controlled market is not a free market. It becomes more of either a criminal enterprise or some form of pure Statist or government-controlled enterprise.
Interference with the free market prompts it to, first, no longer be a free market, and, second, to eventual failure. Only free markets succeed.
As to free and happy populations, take a look at the oblivious American moron vote, or the so-called "low information voters." They neither know nor care what's going on around them politically. They are much more interested in the latest goings on with various celebritwits, for whom they form the adoring retinues of celebritards. I suspect it is the same with the "free and happy populations" of some European Social Democracies.
Karl Marx provided the revolutionary path to organized state control of all economic and citizen freedom that is prevalent in the world today, whether it goes by the title of Communism, Fascism, Nazism or any wild variation among them. The variations war with each other over which of them presents the best lie. The important thing is this: it is all a lie. There is no truth in any of it. Those who believe or pursue any of it are either fools, or evil.
Date: Sat Sep 13 2014
From: Vic Biorseth
Changes pursuant to changing the website URL
and name from
Thinking Catholic Strategic Center to
Catholic American Thinker.
Pulled the trigger on the 301 MOVE IT option June 1, 2014. Working my way through all the webpages. .
Date: Wed Nov 05 12:20:25 2014
From: Daniel Talbot
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
I am truly offended that you have offered this incredibly biased analysis and have the gall to present it as scholarly. Your take on Marx is deplorable, you really should read his actual writing, as opposed to the slander you seem to be working off of. As far as Adolf Hitler being a Marxist, that proposal is at best laughable. Take a look at Anton Drexler, Hitler's hero. The word Socialist used in conjunction with other political buzzwords to form a name doesn't insinuate political persuasion. What you are correct in is that there has never been a proletariat revolution, ever. Vangaurdism flies in the face of Marxism, and has allowed the abuse of the word communism to the degree that people today no longer associate the "Hippy" commune with the principle at all, when in reality, they more truly represent Marx's vision than Stalin, Mao, or any of the others even wanted to. Fidel Castro announced his communist affiliation after the revolution was won. It has been used as a hobby horse and a means to an ends, yes, but those ends have never truly been anything but concentrated power, which is closer to fascism. Get it straight, Vic. For my part, I question what system Jesus Christ would prefer, one that was cutthroat and relied on competition, or one where everyone was required to do their part, and everyone was taken care of. Vaya con dios, amigo.
Date: Wed Nov 05 2014
From: Vic Biorseth
I'm so sorry that you're so offended, poor dear. However, I do not pretend to be a scholar, nor do I purport my website to be scholarly; you did that. Per your suggestion that I should read his actual writing, here is a fairly famous sample of it: Communist Manifesto.
Re Adolph Hitler being a Marxist, here's a little quote for you to ponder:
I simply call him what he called himself. I suppose you think he was a Republican? Try reading the Refuting Marx page, and the rest of the Marxism Pages, and maybe you will learn that International Communism and National Socialism/Fascism are merely two sides of the same Marxist coin. Crony-Capitalism is the first seed of National Socialism/Fascism.
American variants of Marxism have been massaged by Saul Alinsky organizing, Cloward-Piven strategy, Noam Chomsky anarchy, Progressivism, Liberalism, Democrat Party Marxocratism, Obamunism, etc., but the main thing is that all of them are variations of typically Marxist Collectivist and Redistributionist crapola. (As Machiavellian window-dressing; the real goal is the eventual forcible overthrow of all existing social orders, as Marx said in his Manifesto.)
For the record, Jesus Christ never called for any bloody revolution to overthrow Caesar, nor did He espouse any form of civil government whatsoever. When asked if He were a King, He told Pontius Pilot that His Kingdom was not of this world. I guess you missed that, as you've missed ever other important point made here.
Sorry again for your offense and your poor little hurt feelings.
Date: Mon Mar 09 20:10:50 2015
From: blue squid
Location: South Beloit, Il, USA
Thanks for your writing I got a lot out it. I've been very interested in the communist subject for a year once I learned that the Russian Revolution was not Russian or a Revolution. It was a take over by the Jewish Bolsheviks.
Even more complicated is that the Bolsheviks were funded by a Jewish banker from NYC, Jacob Schiff. There's a relationship between communist and rich capitalist.
But no, Marxism is what Hitler hated most and was afraid to be Bolshevised by atheists.
So it was interesting to hear from you that all communist countries were forced against their will.
Date: Tue Mar 10 2015
From: Vic Biorseth
The Russian Revolution was Marxist. The Jews had nothing to do with Bolshevism other than the fact that many Jews were fooled by it, like everyone else. If you found some relationship between Communism and some Capitalists, keep looking, and you will find even more and greater relationships between Capitalists and National Socialists (Nazis) and other Fascists. After all, Fascism is the mixture of Crony Capitalism and Marxism.
Fascism arose, among ideological Marxists, as a reaction against Worker's Revolts inspired by Communist agent provocateurs. Fascists (or Nazis) sought to take over these revolutions by outsiders and make them their own take-overs or revolutions. They were all Marxists, i.e., anti Capitalists, except as they could use Capitalists.
The only reason Stalin and Hitler (Communism and National Socialism) became mortal enemies is that Hitler violated their mutual non-aggression pact and attacked Russia. That's the kind of thing Marxists do.
Keep reading, Blue. Go through the Marxism Pages.
Date: Tue Feb 23 10:35:27 2016
From: Indonesian Christian
Here in Indonesia, we have a dark history dealing with the Reds, in 1965 there was a coup attempt allegedly committed by them, the 30 September movement. In that chaos Soeharto seized power and massacred suspected communists (not all of the victims are communists!) and use the Cold War tension to silence his opposition. He is Western friendly.
Today left-wing/progressives are opposition forces but have no influence in the parliament. They mostly spread their views on blogs, social media, and alternative media, mostly with the label of "People" ("kerakyatan" in my language)
Their main causes are environmental protection, indigenous rights, land reform (potentially dangerous), labor issues, and most of them are also feminists, even supporting Sexual Revolution ("save abortion", and LGBT rights). They also vehemently believe the 30 September coup was done by Soeharto, supported by the American CIA. In Occupy movement they also active (even this movement have no significant impact on my country's politics)
Now, what do you think of becoming anti-communist even with this part of history that my country keep "in the dark"?
It's good to discuss about it. God Bless you.
Date: Wed Feb 24 08:13:42 2016
The communist state rewards all kinds of slackers and lazy loafs. Charity should be voluntary as in I choose to give. When government gets into forced charity it distorts the real meaning of charity. If private charities are reckless with their funds they will fail, but if they are prudent and insist that they are a helping hand only and not a guarantee of a way of life maybe, just maybe people will get it that they are responsible for their actions and choices. Why should hardworking people support slackers and the lazy and immoral? Helping those who are truly handicapped or desperately ill is acceptable for taxpayers to supplement, but it has to be certain that these are genuine.
Date: Sun Mar 20 17:11:30 2016
Location: North York Canada
There are two distinct definitions of the word "capitalize". One has to do with the concept of property rights and a primary method of accounting for "depreciation" when determining the net profitability of a business which owns "capital" assets. The 2nd definition means to "take advantage" of a situation and "capitalize" on an outcome. Historically those people who referred to themselves as "Communists" were actually the 2nd type of "capitalist". Historically most of the people who refer to themselves as "capitalists" are often very socially minded. If they are not somewhat socially minded they are usually not very successful in business, as all people dislike being taken advantage of, and that includes "employees" and "customers". In any age, some political activists are willing to commit any type of atrocity to achieve their political objectives. Others are less or unwilling to do so. I believe Hitler was elected by the German population, initially as as a political leader who would bring an end to the scourge of capitalistic (type 2) leaders in Russia who had been referring to themselves as "Communists" as a means of achieving a very capitalist (type 2) political outcome. What they actually were has been written in the story of their abject political and economic failure, and the wholesale slaughter of anyone who challenged their devastating lies. Russia and China both continue to pretend that they are socially progressive, but their wealthy citizens export their monetary capital to offshore locations from where they re-invest into Western Europe and N.America precisely because they know and understand their own moral depravity and they know all the details of the cowardly crimes they have carried out in the name of "communism". Cuba is just a distant echo of the larger crimes perpetrated by an earlier generation of "capitalists" (type 2) who referred to themselves as "communists" in order to achieve their dishonest but capitalist (type 2) objectives.
Date: Mon Mar 21 2016
From: Vic Biorseth
Taking the strictly semantic interpretation of the words, I agree. Especially as Adam Smith described the natural law emergence of the Free Market, or Capitalism, wherever men enjoy the right to private property and the right to improve their own condition; what our Declaration calls Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. But my interpretation of Communism is more strictly Political, from Marx's own definition in his Manifesto. It is a planned, socially engineered and unnatural economics.
One other point; Hitler was never elected to office. He was appointed Chancelor to resolve a serious crisis, when no Party had anything near a majority of votes.
Date: Mon Oct 31 21:20:22 2016
Would an ant colony be a good natural example of a purely communist state?
Never be lukewarm.
Life itself demands passion.
He who is indifferent to God has already forfeited his soul.
He who is indifferent to politics has already forfeited his liberty.
In America, religion is not mere window dressing and citizenship is not a spectator sport.
Do not allow our common destiny as a whole people to just happen without your input.
Catholic American Thinker
Free E-zine Subscription
You will receive immediate email newsletters with links to new articles as they are published here. Your email is perfectly secure here; we use it only to send you the
Catholic American Thinker
and nothing else.
The Purpose of this group of links is to provide a repository for articles exposing the purposeful deadly fraud behind all of Marxian theory.
The Marxism Pages
Marx's Communist Manifesto was a masterpiece of deceitful rabble-rousing incitement to class warfare and revolution against the status quo. But it produced nothing of value to human kind, in the fields of economics, political arrangements, social science or anything else. This was just another evil man with a solid following of other evil men and hordes of convinced useful idiots.
The Marxism Pages: The Destruction of Western Civilization From Within. The Marxism Pages, on the Western Cultural transformation from Judeo-Christianity into Pure Materialism.
Another right-column gathering of material, this time refuting Marxist theory. Articles refuting Marxism are linked to in the right column of this webpage.
Refuting Marxism and sub-theories of Socialism and Communism, as Scientism. If Marxism represents any sort of true Scientific Theory then there must be a preponderance of evidences supporting it. Show us any of it.
Definition of Marxism: Total control of means of production, including workers. The definition of Marxism describes the social, economic and governmental philosophy of Karl Marx, co-author of the Communist Manifesto.
The intellectual elite embrace Marxism and reveal their own true stupidity. It is astounding that any philosophy so obviously fatally flawed as Marxism could ever have gained such wide support and alliance throughout the world.
Against the great Communist Lie; the old, current and newer forms. Our argument: The whole “Communist Dream” is a lie; the history of “Communist Revolution” is a lie; virtually everything about Communism is just a big elaborate flagrant categorical lie.
American Colonial Communism lasted less than 3 years; reality destroyed it. From the Mayflower Compact through an economic disaster of Socialism to Capitalistic Liberty, our first Colony triumphed.
Communist Manifesto; Democrat Party Platform: What’s the difference? The current American Democrat Party follows the Communist Manifesto almost exactly. Here it is.
Catholic Communism: Similarities between Church Hierarchy and Pure Bureaucracy. Mises said that Communism equals Bureaucracy; the Church is a bureaucracy, therefore we have Catholic Communism. True?
Marxism Socialism Communism – what’s the difference between them all? Marxism Socialism Communism are all mistakenly held to be different things, but they are one and the same.
Definition of Communism: Marx's theoretical classless utopian society. The Marxian definition of Communism involves the theoretical, perfect, classless society with common ownership of all economic "means of production."
The term Marxist defined: Marxism today has overtaken many earlier terms. Re the term Marxist defined in contemporary usage. The term Liberal doesn’t mean what it used to mean either.
It’s Liberty versus Marxism and Islam, which cannot coexist with Liberty. Liberty versus Marxism and Islam: the epic contest of this historic era.
Can we outlaw Marxism in the USA and still be a free thinking society? I say we can and should outlaw any ideology that seeks the elimination of Constitutional America.
The Marxism of Obama: Marching America into another Socialist dictatorship. Describing the self-documented Marxism of Obama which is still not widely recognized among the American citizenry. Obama “change” is Socialism, pure and simple.
Marxist Fundamentals clearly describes the threat to America that we now face. A timely and timeless submission by Professor Libor Brom; Marxist Fundamentals describes the most successful destroyer of liberty since 1776.
Warning all bourgeoisie: Obama will destroy the middle class. Take fair warning all bourgeoisie, i.e., members of our vast middle class: the Marxists despise you and intend to conquer you once and for all.
On Evil and Nonsense: Look closely at Nonsense, and find Evil at its root. Evil and Nonsense: deny evil and you deny right vs. wrong; which is to deny common sense, which is to invoke nonsense.
Three fatal oversights of the top conservative cognizanti: Glenn, Rush and Sean. Beck, Limbaugh and Hannity are on the right track, but just nibbling around the edges of who the enemy is.
In support of American Nationalism and American Patriotism. American Nationalism and American Patriotism have been demonized long enough.
Are our federal bureaucracies all malignant outgrowths of Marxism? Any extra-Constitutional government agency is likely to be a malignant outgrowth of Marxism.
Leftist Useful Idiocy of Marxism: a time bomb planted deeply in Western Culture. Leftist Useful Idiocy idealizes impossible man-made utopian perfection at the expense of the Western culture sense of telling right from wrong.
Progressive-America: From Constitutional Republic into Democratic Socialism. Progressive America aims at ending the rule of subsidiarity and ending individual liberty.
If you can't find the page you're looking for, try the