Is Communism really dead?

Donate

Written by The Saker; Originally appeared at The Unz Review

The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 did mark the end of the longest experiment in Communism in recent history. Many saw this event as the proof that Communism (or Marxism-Leninism, I use these interchangeably here) was not a viable ideology. After all, if in Russia Communism was formally ended in 1991, the Chinese quietly shifted away from it too, replacing it with a uniquely Chinese brand of capitalism. Finally, none of the ex-Soviet “allies” chose to stick to the Communist ideology as soon as they recovered their freedom. Even Chavez’ brand of Communism resulted in a completely bankrupt Venezuela. So what’s there to argue about?

Actually, a great deal, beginning with every single word in the paragraph above.

Communism – the past:

For one thing, the Soviet Union never collapsed. It was dismantled from above by the CPSU party leaders who decided that the Soviet nomenklatura would split up the Soviet “pie” into 15 smaller slices. What happened after that was nothing more than the result of in infighting between these factions. Since nobody ever empowered these gangs of Party apparatchiks to dissolve the USSR or, in fact, to reform it in any way, their actions can only be qualified as a totally illegal coup. All of them, beginning with the Gorbachev and Eltsin gangs were traitors to their Party, to their people and to their country. As for the people, they were only given the right to speak their opinion once, on March 17, 1991, when a whopping 77.85% voted to preserve the “the USSR as a renewed federation of equal sovereign republics in which the rights and freedom of an individual of any nationality will be fully guaranteed” (see here for a good discussion of this now long-forgotten vote). There was no collapse. There was a coup or, even more accurately, a series of coups, all executed by traitors from the Party apparatus in total illegality and against the will of the people. Some will object that the fact that the Communist Party was full of traitors. But unless one can explain and prove that Communism systematically and somehow uniquely breeds traitors this accusation has no merit (as of Christians did not betray Christianity, democrats democracy or Fascists Fascism).

Second, is Communism a viable ideology? Well, for one thing, there are two schools of thought on that topic inside Marxists ideology. One says that Communism can be achieved in one country, the other says that no, for Communism to become possible a world revolution is necessary. Let’s first set aside the first school of thought for a while and just look at the second one. This will be tricky anyway since all we have to judge its empirical correctness is a relatively short list of countries. I already hear the objection “what? Ain’t Soviet Russia, Maoist China, PolPot’s Kampuchea and, say, Kim Il-sung’s DPRK not enough?”. Actually, no. For one thing, according to the official Soviet ideology, Communism as such was never achieved in the USSR, only Socialism. This is why the country was called the Union of Soviet SocialistRepublics. Communism was seen as a goal, Socialism as an unavoidable, intermediate, transitional phase. To say that Communism failed in the USSR is just about as logical as to say that a half-built building failed to provide a comfortable shelter. China, of course, has not “failed” to begin with, Pol Pot’s Kampuchea as probably a (horrific) attempt at building a truly Communist society almost overnight, but that by itself contradicts the Historical/Dialectical Materialist Theory of Marxism which states the need for a transitional Socialist phase. As for the DPRK, it’s ideology is not Marxism or Communism, but Juche, at most a distant relative. So no, these few examples are hardly representative of anything, if only because the form a sample too small to be relevant and because none of them qualify as “test case”.

Now coming back to “Communism cannot be achieved in one country” argument, let’s look at it from a pure red-white-n-blue kind of Merican ideological position and remember that the proponents of US-style capitalism like to remind us that Reagan’s arms race is what bankrupted the Soviet Union which could not keep up with it. Other proud American patriots also like to say that, well, the USA brought down the price of oil, making it impossible for the Soviets to continue spending and that thois fall in prices is what made the Soviet economy collapse. Personally, I find these arguments both stupid and ignorant, but let’s accept them as self-evidently true. Does that not show that the USSR collapsed due to external factors and not due to some inherent internal flaw?

Modern training (I don’t call it “education”) does not really emphasize logic, so I will rhetorically ask the following question: if we accept that Capitalism defeated Communism prove that Communism was not viable or that Capitalism is superior? To the many (alas) who will answer “yes” I would suggest that if you lock a hyena and a human being in a cage and force them to fight for resources, the human is most unlikely to win. Does that prove that the human is not viable or the hyena “superior”?

Marxism-Leninism clearly states that Capitalism is build on the oppression of the weak and that imperialism highest stage of Capitalism. We don’t have to agree with this argument (though I personally very much do), but neither can it be dismissed simply because we don’t like it. In fact, I would argument that disproving it should be a key element of any serious refutation of Communism. But to keep things short, all I will say is this: any person who has actually traveled in Asia, Africa or South America will attest that the Communists (USSR, China, Cuba) actually sent immense amounts of aid including raw materials, technologies, specialists, doctors, military advisors, agronomists, water-sanitation engineers, etc. In contrast, ask anybody in these continents what Capitalism brings, and you will get the same answer: violence, exploitation and the support for a local Comprador ruling gang. To anybody arguing with this I could only recommend one thing: begin traveling the world.

[Sidebar: So yes, using the hyena as a symbol of Capitalism in my allegory above is fair. As for the ‘cage’ – it is simply our planet. What I do think is wrong is equating Communism with a human being. But that at this point of our conversation is my own private opinion and not an argument at all. I have been an anti-Communist my entire life, and I still remain one, but that is hardly a reason for me to accept logically flawed and counter-factual anti-Communist arguments].

At this point in the conversation my typical Capitalist interlocutor would bombard me with a fully or short slogans like “dude, in every Communist society people vote with their feet, have you forgotten the Boat-People, the Marielitos or the folks jumping over the Berlin Wall?” or “every single country in Eastern Europe rejected Communism as soon as the Soviet tanks left – does that not tell you something about Communism?”. Usually the person delivering these slogans gets a special glee in the eye, a sense of inevitable triumph so it is especially rewarding to observe these before debunking all this nonsense.

Let’s begin with the feet-voting argument. It is utter nonsense. Yes, true, some people did run away from Communist societies. The vast majority did not. And please don’t give me the “their families were held hostage” or “the secret police was everywhere to prevent that”. The truth is much simpler:

On the “push side”: All the famous waves of people emigrating from Communist societies are linked to profound crises inside these countries, crises which have had many causes, including mostly external ones.

On the “pull side”: In each case, a powerful Western propaganda system was used to convince these people to emigrate promising them “milk and honey” if they ran.

I am sorry if I have to burst somebody’s naïve illusions, as somebody who has worked for several years as a interpreter-translator interviewing applicants for the status of political refugee I can attest that the vast majority of political refugees are nothing of the sort: they mostly are economic refugees and a few are social refugees, meaning that some personal circumstances made them decide that emigrating is better than staying. I have interviewed hundred of refugees from the Soviet Union and all their stories of political repression were laughable, especially to a person like me who knew how (the very real) political repression in the Soviet Union actually worked. To those who would claim that, well, Communism inevitably results in economic crises I would just refer to the discussion above about what, if anything, we can conclude from the few examples of Marxist societies in history.

[Sidebar: Unlike 99.99% of the folks reading these words, I actually spent many years of my life as an well-known anti-Soviet activist. I traveled to various ports where Soviet ships were anchored to distribute anti-Soviet literature, I made list of buildings where Soviet diplomats used to live to deliver anti-Soviet documents into their mailboxes, I helped send money to the families of Orthodox Christians jailed in Soviet prisons and labor camps, I arranged illegal contacts with Soviet citizens traveling abroad (truckers, artists, naval engineers, clergy, circuses – you name it). And there are things which I did which I still cannot publicly discuss. And while I never took part in any violent action, but I sure did everything I could in the domain of ideological warfare to bring down Communism in Russia. As a result, the (now-defunct) KGB had me listed as a dangerous provocateur and posted my photo in the offices of specific Soviet offices abroad (like the Sovhispan in Spain) to warn them about me. And let me tell you the truth – most of those Soviet citizens who disliked the Soviet system never even tried to emigrate. The issue here is not hostage families or the “almighty KGB’ but the fact that you love your country even when you hate the regime in power. Worse, most of those who did defect (and I personally helped quite a few of them) were mostly miserable once they came to the West, their illusions shattered in less than a year, and all they were left with was a ever-present nostalgia. For that reason, I personally always advised them not to emigrate. If they insisted, some did, I would help. But I always advised against it. Now, many years later, I still think that I did the right thing].

Finally, as to the Soviet “allies” in Eastern Europe their rejection of Communism is as logical and predictable as their embrace of Capitalism, NATO, the EU and the rest of it. For decades they were told that the West was living in peace and prosperity while they were living in oppression and misery, and that the evil Russians were the cause of all their unhappiness. The fact that, when given the chance, they then rushed to embrace the American Empire was as predictable as it was naïve. Remember, history is written by victors and only time will really tell us what legacy Communism and Capitalism will leave in Eastern Europe. What we do know is that even though the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan resulted in a horrible and vicious war, and even though the people of Afghanistan also appeared to fully embrace the “kind patronage” of the USA and its allies, things are now already beginning to change and that the years of secular rule and even the Soviet occupation are now being re-visited by an increasing number of historians and Afghan commentators who now see it in a much more nuanced way than they would have in the past. Just a simple comparison of the daily life of Afghans before and after the Soviet invasion or a comparative list of what the Soviets and the Americans actually built in the country tells a very different story (even the Americans today are still using Soviet-built facilities, including the now infamous Bagram air base). Careful for the logically-challenged here: I am not making an apology for the Soviet invasion here, all I am saying that the wisdom of “embracing the other side” cannot be judged in the immediate aftermath of a “switch” in allegiance – sometimes several decades or more are needed to make an balanced assessment of what really took place.

My point in all of the above is simple: the official imperial propaganda machine (aka “the media” and “the educational system”) has tried to present a simple narrative about Communism when, in reality, even a small dig a tad deeper than the superficial slogans immediately shows that things are much, much, more complicated than the crude and comprehensibly false narrative we are being presented with.

Communism – the future:

Here I will immediately lay down my cards on the table and state that I believe, and even hope, that Communism is not dead and that, in fact, I think that it still have a long and most interesting future. Here are a few reasons why.

First, the Communist ideology, as such, has never been comprehensibly defeated, if only because no other ideology comparable in scope and depth has emerged to challenge, nevermind refute or replace, Communism. For one thing, Communism is a *huge* intellectual building and just destroying some of its “top floors” hardly bring the entire edifice down. Let’s take a simple example: the Marxist slogan “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”. Marx did not really invent it, he just popularized it. Some sources say that the original author was August Becker in 1844, Louis Blanc in 1851 or Étienne-Gabriel Morelly 1775. Other say that it was Pierre-Joseph Proudhon but with slightly different version “From each according to his ability, to each according to his work”. This was the version accepted in the USSR as being applicable to the socialist transitional phase on the path to the full realization of Communism. Then, of course, there is the famous New Testament quote by Saint Paul “if any would not work, neither should he eat” (Thess 3:10) and the words of Christ Himself about “to every man according to his ability” (Matt 25:15). This all gets very complex very fast, but yet this is hardly an excuse to ignore what is one of the basic tenets of Marxism-Leninism. And there are many such key tenets because Communism cannot be understood, nevermind evaluated, outside a much broader discussion of Dialectical Materialism, itself an adaptation of Hegelian dialectics to historiography, all of which serve as a foundation for Historical Materialism which, in turn, offers a comprehensive critique of the nature of Capitalism. There is a reason why a good library on Marxism-Leninism could easily include a full floor dedicated solely to the teaching and criticism of Marxism-Leninism: this body of teaching is huge, and incorporates history, sociology, economics, philosophy and many other disciplines. Just Materialism itself includes a huge corpus of writings ranging from the Pre-Socratic philosophers to Nietzsche’s “God is dead” to, alas, Dawkins sophomoric writings. If we honestly look carefully inside Marxism-Leninism we will see that there are such philosophical pearls (or challenges, depending on how you look at them) on most levels of the Marxist-Leninist building. Before we can declare that “Communism is dead” we have to deal with every “floor” of the Marxist-Leninist building and bring down at the very leastall the crucial ones least we be (justly) accused of willful ignorance.

Second, the Communist ideology offers us the most comprehensive critique of the globalist-capitalist society we live in today. Considering that by now only the most deliberately blind person could still continue to deny that our society is undergoing a deep crisis, possibly leading to what is often referred to as “TEOTWAWKI” (The end of the world as we know it) I would question the wisdom of declaring Communism dead and forgetting about it. After all, informing ourselves about the Communist critique of Capitalism does not imply the adoption of the Communist solutions to the ills of Capitalism any more than pay attention to a doctor’s diagnosis implies a consent to one single course of treatment. And yet what our society has done is to completely reject the diagnosis on the basis that the treatment has failed in several cases. How stupid is that?

Third, the corpus of Communist and Marxist-Leninist teachings is not only immense, it is also very diverse. Leninism itself is, by the way, a further development of Marxist ideas. It would be simply illogical to only focus on the founding fathers of this ideology and ignore or, worse, dismiss their modern followers. Let’s take a simple example: religion.

It is a well-known fact that Marx declared that “religion is the opium of the people”. And it is true that Lenin and Trotsky engaged in what can only be described as a genocidal and satanic amok run against religion in general, and Orthodox Christianity especially, while they were in power. For decades rabid atheism was a cornerstone of the Marxist-Leninist ideology. And yet, if you look at the various Marxist regimes in Latin America (including Cuba and Venezuela) you rapidly see that they replaced that rabid atheism with an endorsement of a specific type of Christianity one could loosely describe as “Liberation Theology”. Now, for a hardcore Orthodox traditionalist like myself, Liberation Theology is not exactly my cup of tea (full disclosure: politically, I would describe myself as an “People’s Monarchist” (народный монархист) in the tradition of Lev Tikhomirov, Feodor Dostoevsky, Ivan Solonevich and Ivan Ilyin). But the point here are not the inherent qualities of the Liberation Theology (or lack thereof) but the fact that Latin American Marxists have clearly ditched atheism. And whether they did that out of a deep sense of spiritual rebirth and renewal or out of cynical power politics consideratons is irrelevant: even if they had to cave under pressure, they still did something which their predecessors would never have done under any circumstances. So now instead of denouncing religion as reactionary, we have leaders like Hugo Chavez declaring that “Jesus Christ was an authentic Communist, anti-imperialist and enemy of the oligarchy”. Sincere? Possibly. Important? Most definitely. I submit that if such a central, crucial, tenet as militant atheism could be dropped by modern Marxists they are probably willing to drop any other of its part they would conclude are wrong (for whatever reason). To conflate 21st century Communists with their 19thcentury predecessors is unforgivably stupid and ignorant.

Fourth, modern Communism comes in many original and even surprising flavors. One of the most interesting one would be the in the form of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Of course, modern Iran is hardly a copy of the old German Democratic Republic. Ramin Mazaheri, the Paris correspondent for Press TV put it best when he wrote “Europe came to socialism through industrialization, theory and war, but Iran came to socialism through its religious and moral beliefs”. And make no mistake, when Mazaheri compliments Iran on its “socialist” achievements, he does not oppose the notion of socialism to the one of communism (Mazaheri is a proud and self-avowed Communist) nor does he refer to the “caviar Socialism” of the French Left. Instead he refers to “socialism” as a set of underlying values and principles common the the Marxist and Islamic worldviews. It is often forgotten that one of the main ideologues of the Iranian Revolution, Ali Shariati, was clearly influenced by Socialist and even Marxist ideas.

Iran, by the way, is not unique in the Muslim world. For example, the writings of Sayyid Qutb 1906-1966 contain plenty of ideas which one could describe as Marxist. I would even argue that Islam, Christianity and Confucianism all include strong elements of both universalism and collectivism which are typically associated with Marxist idea, especially in contrast to the kind of bloated hyper-individualism underlying the Capitalist worldview (which I personally call “the worldview of me, myself and I”). Sure, the modern doxa wants to label all forms of Islam as retrograde, medieval and otherwise reactionary, but in truth it would be far more fair to describe Islam as revolutionary, social and progressive. But let’s not confuse the nonsense spewed by the Zionist propaganda machine at those poor folks still paying attention to it with reality, shall we? Surely we can agree that the worst possible way to try to learn anything about Islam would be to pay attention to the US Ziomedia!

Communism – the challenge:

It is not really surprising that the Americans, who have not defeated anybody or anything in a very long time, might be strongly inclined to adopt the notion of having won the Cold War and/or having defeated Communism. In a country were adult and presumably educated people can declare with a serious face that Obama is a Socialist (or even a Communist) such nonsense will very rarely be challenged. This is a reflection of the poor state of education of a nation which fancies itself as “indispensable”, but which has no real interest in understanding the rest of the world, nevermind its history. We can now make fun of the putatively dumb Commies, their “scientific Communism” and their university chairs of Marxism and Leninism, but it remains undeniable that in order to understand the Communist propaganda you needed to have a minimal level of education and that this propaganda exposes you to topics which are now practically dead in western societies (such as philosophy or history). When I see the kind of nonsense nowadays which passes for political science or philosophy I can only conclude that the once proud western world now lacks the basic level of education needed to understand, nevermind refute, Marxist ideologues. And that is a crying shame because I also believe that Marxism and Communism are inherently both very attractive and very toxic ideologies which must be challenged and refuted.

[Sidebar: What I personally think about Marxism is not really the topic today, so I will limit myself to saying that like all utopian ideologies, Marxism promises a future which cannot ever happen. True, this is hardly a sin unique to Marxism. Amongst modern ideologues Hitler should be commended for his relative modesty – he “only” promised a 1000 year long Reich. In contrast Francis Fukuyama promised a communism-like “end of history”. This is all par for the course coming from atheists who are trying to simultaneously reject God while (unsuccessfully) imitating Him: a utopian society is what Satan offered to Christ during the temptation of Christ in the desert (Matt 4:1-11) and also the reason why some Jews rejected Him for offering them a spiritual kingdom rather than then worldly kingdom they were hoping for. Right there there is plenty enough, at least for me, to reject this and any other ideology promising some kind of “heaven on earth”. In my opinion all utopian ideologies are inherently and by definition Satanic].

Can the huge corpus of the Marxist/Communist ideological building be convincingly refuted? I think that it can and, assuming mankind does not destroy itself in the near future, that it eventually will. But that will require an effort of a completely different nature and magnitude then the collection of primitive slogans which are currently hurled at Marxism today. In fact, I also believe that Orthodox Christianity already has refuted Marxism by preemption, many centuries before the birth of Karl Marx, by denouncing all its underlying assumptions in the Scripture, the writings of the Church Fathers, the sayings of the Desert Fathers, the Lives of the Saints, its liturgical texts and icons, but in our post-Chrstian society that refutation is accessible only to the tiny minority of those who are exposed to it and who are educated enough to understand it (a good example of such a person would be Fedor Dostoevskii).

For the foreseeable future Communism has a very bright and long future, especially with the ongoing collapse of the Anglo-Zionist Empire and the subsequent debate on the causes of this collapse. Living in the United States one might be forgiven for not seeing much of a future for Communism, but from Southeast Asia to the Indian subcontinent and from Africa to Latin America the ideals, values and arguments of Communism continue to have an immense appeal on millions of people. When Donald Trump, during his recent UN speech, presumed to have the authority to lecture the world on Socialism he really only showed that ignorance is no impediment to arrogance and that they really usually go hand in hand. If his intention was to speak to the domestic audience, then he probably made a few folks feel good about themselves and the political system they live in. If he truly was addressing a foreign audience, then the only thing he achieved was to reinforce the worst anti-American clichés.

For the time being, the spectre of Communism will continue to haunt much of our planet, especially in those parts were education and poverty are high. In the basically illiterate but wealthy world Communism will remain pretty much as it is today: universally ignored and therefore unknown. But when the grand edifice of Capitalism finally comes tumbling down and its victims rediscover the difference between propaganda and education – then a credible modern challenge to the Communist ideology will possibly arise. But for the time being and the foreseeable future Communism will remain not only alive, but also quite undefeated.

Donate

SouthFront

Do you like this content? Consider helping us!

  • LR captain

    honestly you can have the best system in place. But if the guy in charge is an idiot it will fail.

    • RTA (Bob or Al)

      Well, thank goodness you are not talking about my UK; we have a women in change who is an idiot.

    • Ivanus59

      But if you have a bad system, the guy in charge can be the best and most honorable or fair person on the planet but it will still fail.

    • Arthur Smith

      Guys in charge were not idiots, but greedy scoundrels seeking to privatize their work privilages.

  • Vitex

    Crypto-marxism. When you continue to destroy Christian thought and ideology, the family, morality, gender etc. from inside. Talmudic in origin, satanic in inspiration.

    • Mahmoud Larfi

      So according to the slogan above regarding “Marxism”, places where one should witness the most destruction to spirituality, family values and morality are countries like Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela…

      • Vitex

        I take your point. But most of those countries are Marxism-lite really. None of that hard-core “religion is the opiate of the masses” Stalinism. NK is a personality cult, not marxism per se. Socialism, popular uprisings – those tropes have been so widely-shared that they are part of modern consciousness.

        • Arthur Smith

          Religion IS persecuted in NK, they are very strict even toward russian orthodox priests that wouldn’t undermine government’s authority (too much).

          • Vitex

            Illuminating.

    • Kell
  • LR captain

    here is my opinion on some things. as a Canadian

    Political parties are stupid, because if one party backs one man then it is so much easier to corrupt that one party instead of paying off the majority of the elected. Do not give me that (well nothing would be voted on ) these people should not even be deciding what the industry regulations are. (they won popularity contest and most likely don’t know chemicals make up dish soap.

    The senate is just a waste of money all they are, is bunch of friends from the former prime-ministers. They should be replaced by a house of ministries. (three representatives from each ministry that are technocrats) I think a university qualification should be required. (especially in determining what warning labels go on the bottle.) Trust me on this that some companies do try and block those warning labels.

    The individual people that elected should only be able to do what they promised to do. Manly control the taxes and political relations. (a good min would be 10% while a good max should 15%) In short each representative that is elected can decide how much this town would get in government benefits. ( (8% min goes to feds while 2% percent is returned as benefits) this way town A does not have to pay for town B’s welfare junkies.

    Bankers should not be getting soo much time off while we have to work. (radical idea incoming) I think there should be a token week. similar to what they did in WW2 were things were rationed to what everyone needed. so there would tokens for basic food. Fuel etc. Basic utilities like water phone power are free. plus things going to the movie to a national parks, museums would be free. This would last for 1 week. Since no transactions would be taking place. That means all accounts can be frozen while the bankers/government can actually do their job and sort out economy.

    now the token week would not make much sense without this part. But screw wall street investors should be in jail. let the government and bankers use the token week to find out witch town would be the best one to give grant to. so the people can vote on one of three businesses plans (made by the technocrats) ranging from a small company to a local bakery with the workers also electing their first manager via union vote. Since the the town is really the owner. (yeah voting on what your future job and boss will be, Neo-cons might have a hard time telling you that is a bad idea)

    these would be all new companies (not a just a new factory added to an existing one) the more competition there is between companies the more effort is put into the product. Plus the prices would also be lower due to the same reason. So there would be a limit on of around 10,000,000 dollars with an over flow of 1,000,000 worth of good produced by a company. this would lead to medium sized companies at best. That could only produce enough for the country if its an luxury item or most likely a large city/province if it is a staple like bread/milk.

    loans could still be taken out by the government or town. from the banks put there is a limits on how many and how much put in place. (this was the same idea proposed by some US lawmaker after the credit crisis but these were blocked by the banking lobby.) the main purpose of the bank is take funds that are not being used to further grow economy.

    There would be down side to this economic growth through. The value of everything is getting lower thus deflation would occur. So there already counter to the inflation effect of printing currency. (but only a small one) so neo-con’s would not invest in it because there is no guarantee of putting it into economic slavery.

    the only way to get rid of this economy would be via color revolution. witch would be kind of hard when the government checks all the banks accounts once a year. (no student loans are going to be repaid in full with in a week with out some one noticing.

    Then there in is out right war.

  • Mish

    I always admire The Saker’s honesty. It is a harrowing thought, though, that most of what he knew about the Soviet Union he learned from Solzhenitsin, the lying man on CIA payroll. The fall of the Soviet Union was a succession of betrayals, the first being Khrushchev’s, who conflated Communism (the goal) with material prosperity. “Goulash Communism,” as Fromm called it. On the plane of “material prosperity” the SU had no chance competing against capitalism. I think that if we had had the presence of mind to fully and officially re-embrace Orthodox Christianity, the Union would have survived. We were given ample time to do this, and God was on our side in the Great Patriotic War. When we failed (and instead set material wealth as our goal), the Lord allowed us to become “devil’s food,” thrown in the teeth of capitalism. (I’m referring to the fall of the Soviet Union). No, communism is not dead, and neither is the Soviet Union. With mistakes corrected, it will be back.

    • garlic

      Yes, we have God and Lenin on our side!

      • Mish

        Yes, we do. Are you jealous? You should be…

    • SG
      • Arthur Smith

        For us in Russia, Solzhenitsyn is a dead skunk.

      • Mish

        When Solzhenietzsche said this, he was NOT living in Russia anymore. I, on the other hand, am in Russia, and i can testify S. is NOT mandatory reading for school kids. Some schools are at liberty to add him as recommended reading, though, if they are so inclined.

        • Arthur Smith

          Yeah, I was in 9th grade in 2009, we had no classes at all about the skunk. If not in the last 3 grades, certainly he wasn’t in younger.

      • Arthur Smith

        Ahaha, just got home and checked the video you included.
        Guess what? It uses a song by Janna Bichevskaya – a known freak, sectant and xenophobe.
        Congratulations, you made your propaganda post even shittier than it already was because of Solzhenitsyn.

        • Vitex

          Hmm… you do sound a bit like a troll there Arthur. Solzhenitsyn left Russia because the communists expelled him. I don’t think they liked him challenging their tropes about the Great Patriotic Revolution

          • Arthur Smith

            What part of my comments this is supposed to refute? Also some people deserve to be trolled – especially propagandists using Janna Bichevskaya songs.

            I have no illusions about the soviet era, having 3 grandparents out of 4 coming from persecuted families, but the scum Solzhenitsyn grotesquely exaggerating our history is no better than those completely disregarding the casualties.

          • Vitex

            I can’t be trolled on Janna Bichevskaya because I don’t know her, so since no-one says different I’ll assume she’s awful – see I trust you already. Solz has to have made some enemies with what he wrote. I’m sure there was a stage when his skin was on the line that he took some very strongly anti-Russian positions. Does that make everything he wrote false? Or is it merely vexing to the average Russian? Some of it is certainly vexing to the average Jew. I’ve had to revise an awful lot of history recently myself because it’s all a lie – perhaps there’s a bit of that happening.

          • Arthur Smith

            I’m not against “everything he wrote”, being an orthodox christian myself. Having “anti-russian” (regime-wise?) positions isn’t a problem for me as well. What makes russians despise him is 1) his made-up “statistics” 2) disregarding a multitude of positive changes made by the soviet project 3) his unscrupulousness in choice of allies against what he considered evil 4) reductionistic ethno-nationalism and other Vlasovian filth, like declaring sympathies to Franko.

            Also, I’ll add from myself that he just whines too much about consequences of what’s mostly his own side’s fault – a behavior strongly incompatible with core russian philosophy. He and other vlasovians try to cover their own much more hideous past by posing as a victim of “evil communism” or “russian-hating jews”, which was much more fundamentally organic for russian civilization. They are imposters, trying to rewrite the whole russian history and replace much troubled, but real Russia by an artificial construct with no future and a past full of lies. It doesn’t matter if they tell a few truths along the way.

            Simply put, no one ever sides with modern historical mainstream russians by appealing to the exaggerated version of “the repressions” – only to a small hate-poisoned minority. There were casualties, some of them were unwarranted, but to make them a tool of undermining Russia’s future is “empiety to the dead”. My family lost a lot (willingly and not) for us to have “the soviet heritage”, including some unique treasures along with many sorrows – it is our history and no one has the right to violate it, not even out of good intentions.

          • Vitex

            You just got my vote for the best and most eloquent defense of anything that I’ve seen on here. I am from a “pariah state” – South Africa – so I understand about mixed history and being caught on the wrong side as we all, inevitably, are. Having Jewish blood makes me careful about anti-semitism, but not completely constrained by it. I’m a protestant Christian so someone could point out the uncomfortable relationship between protestants and Freemasonry (most of the colonial “founding fathers” were Freemasons, and most of them were evil bastard land-grabbers). But it’s a compelling point – we cannot start to revise history without realizing that we’re inextricable woven into it, and it will always be unpalatable, more or less. And we’ll always be subjective about it, because we are.

    • Arthur Smith

      Stalin abandoned (not betrayed) Marxism-Leninism first once it became clear there won’t be world revolution without sacraficing Russia to fuel that.

      • Mish

        It was Trotsky who pushed for world revolution. Stalin was all for revolution in one country only. Stalin never abandoned or betrayd Marxism-Leninism.

        • Arthur Smith

          Sure, but in this case Trotsky was more orthodox.

          • Mish

            Orthodox how? Orthodox jew? Maybe he was. Orthodox revolutionary? Maybe so, but it was time to end the revolutionary turmoil part and organize human life somehow in a tolerable way. Plus everyone knew a big war was coming soon. Trotsky was in the way big time with his unstoppable revolutionary zeal…

          • Arthur Smith

            >it was time to end the revolutionary turmoil part and organize human life somehow

            Of course, but many marxists in other countries wouldn’t understand, waiting to get some warmth from burning Russia.

          • Mish

            I don;t know why you are saying this. Sorry! What do we care? They would have had to light their own fire though to succeed

          • Arthur Smith

            Because there are vanilla marxist purists for whom those who kicked out Trotsky are heretics and traitors :D

            > They would have had to light their own fire though to succeed

            By the time they already failed and waited for Russia to do the work for them.

            Personally, I’m with Nicolai Somin anyway, so don’t care for marxism orthodoxy either:
            http://chri-soc.narod.ru/

          • Mish

            Being with Somin is a respectable place to be

  • Florian N

    “Let’s begin with the feet-voting argument. It is utter nonsense. Yes, true, some people did run away from Communist societies. The vast majority did not.” – Yes, because they stated building a wall xD

    Communism in sowjetrussia had never been communism or socialism, it was a dictatorship( and not it was definitely not a proletarian dictatorship) by an political elite and a planned economy.
    Capitalism on the other hand gives people the freedom to do what they want, but only the strong win. That’s why so many people are unhappy because nowerdays hypercapitalism only supports the companys.
    So we need to find something that combines both. Western Germany did that quiet well but since the first oil crisis they more and more went to normal capitalism.

    Sorry but this article is useless, it is an left-wing utopia like communism ever had been, like Marx knew himself : Humanity is not ready for communism.

    • RTA (Bob or Al)

      There is no difference between true communism and true fascism with the small exception of the numbers of leaders that run the show.

      The problem nowadays anything or anyone is called a commie or a fascist, so the real meaning is lost for the majority of the people.

      • Florian N

        There is a difference between Fascism and communism. They have a different ideology also their origin is different. But you are right both are really close and we have really different leading styles of the leaders, that’s why we got Stalinism, Leninism, Nationalism Maoism and so on.
        I agree totally with your second point. The people do not really know what they are talking about when they talk about communism or fascism.
        We in Germany laugh when the US people call Bernie Sanders commie because he wants more health care.
        I think the problem is that many people are not interested in real facts anymore, they want easy answers or just be against the establishment. Great example for this is Trump, a billionaire who says that he wants to help the poor people and America but wants to make tax reduction for poor people on about 2% and for rich on about 20% with their companies. But he just repeats the phrases that he knows everything and makes everything great and every other thinking guy is “Fake News”.
        In Germany, we have the same with the AFD, a political party that is not Nazi because if it was then it would be banned. But everyone keeps saying AFD is Nazi because AFD is far right. And aswell the AFD just keeps repeating the “easy answers” and everyone against them is “Fake”.

        • RTA (Bob or Al)

          I honestly think that is an excellent comment; thank you.

          The Adf have been stigmatised by the powers that be, just as UKIP were in the UK, and to a certain extent so were FN in France (however Penn’s Father did not help matters there).

          As for “I think the problem is that many people are not interested in real facts anymore, they want easy answers or just be against the establishment.”…… I agree with the wanting of easy answers, but I disagree with the “not interested in real facts” … I think it is more down to ignorance than anything else.

          Here is another one of my stupid questions as I am on a roll today – “WHY are you on this web site, but your neighbour is reading the MSM paper ?”.

          • Florian N

            Thank you.^^
            Yes, I mean I do not like the view of these right-wing parties like FN or AFD (I do not know rather is UKIP right-wing? I just know that they do not want to be in the EU),
            but I do see them as a chance to make politics more again to be “res publica” and not just the bad form of a democracy (tyranny of the majority). Not because they have answers but they started discussions and discussions are the main thing democracies life about.

            Some people say there are no stupid questions but only stupid answers. ^^
            Hmm, I’m not against MSM, do not know why I should be against them. So I do watch them. My problem is that if I say MSM is shit and then go online on RussiaToday I’m just on the opposite, now I have a pro-Russian view. So for me, it would be useless to only be on one side of this whole mess.^^ (Also I do not believe in this whole conspiracy theories on some sides but I like them for me funny comments of the people)
            The most important reason for me to be on this side is that it shows the process in the conflict of the middle east. In “MSM” you do not get stuff like maps or so because they are rather uninteresting for most people. They only talk about humanitarian disasters and when a big city like Aleppo or Mosul is conquered by one or another side.
            So I’m that’s why I’m here.
            But maybe I’m just kinda gifted by the MSM in Germany because we have many state media channels on TV so we have many different views on political issues.

            Why are you here?

          • RTA (Bob or Al)

            Florian, you stated “right-wing” in a negative context, This is just a label given to opposition parties. Of course you have the nut jobs as you do with the left…… but these are my views.

            For me I doesn’t matter which side you support (to an extent), it matters if you can read the facts.

            The MSM is shit.

          • Florian N

            I was just naming the right-wing because we were talking about it. If we talk about left-wing parties than I use the therm left-wing.^^

            Yes and I’m trying to only go by the facts.

            Why do you say MSM is shit?What is MSM for you, only state media or also private media? And what media are you using instead?

          • RTA (Bob or Al)

            A picture paints a thousand words;

            https://i.ytimg.com/vi/r_YhkHFloLA/maxresdefault.jpg

            You can also trace them to be the ultimate owners of global news and media sites.

            For me, the MSM is as it indicates the Mainstream media in Europe, the US and elsewhere. They manipulate facts or if something is important enough actually lie or misguide the readership.

            What do I read ?; many, many different sites from many different Countries + of course have a look at the UK papers to check up the latest on Kim Kardashion.

          • Florian N

            These are all just private Media. Sure these all are in like “big families” and every family tries to show their point of view. Actually, I do not even get one of these in Germany, because I would have to get a private licenze.^^
            I personally do not only do sides on the internet because the internet is as well full of lies and bullshit. I have never seen a side or other media which is at least 80% neutral.
            With these big companies, you can do the same with every sector if it’s about war material, food or other stuff. I do not like it but well I have to work on it to remove this hypercapitalism even if it’s just a bit.
            Well if media talks about Kim Kardashian it is dead for me. xD

      • Vitex

        You may have a point :)

    • George King

      I have a question in regards to “Capitalism on the other hand gives people the freedom to do what they want, but only the strong win. That’s why so many people are unhappy because currently hyper capitalism only supports the companies”.

      I do not know all the details but maybe you can fill in the blanks for me. I really believe that the EU (unelected bureaucracy) is the demise of what previously addressed “hyper capitalism only supports the companies” in the German laws where workers were 51% of the board of directors and made decisions not only on profit and direction but also in the consideration of the citizens of Germany. This is in direct contrast to principals of the unelected representation of the EU Bureaucracy!

      If we look at time lines this becomes very clearly a factor in your “So we need to find something that combines both. Western Germany did that quiet well but since the first oil crisis they more and more went to normal capitalism”.

      I won’t get into a comparison of one form of ideology versus another because that is putting the cart in front of the horse. What must be addressed is how we got here despite differences in ideology, that it is the elephant in the room that needs to be addressed.

      The iron law of oligarchy is a political theory, first developed by the German sociologist Robert Michels in his 1911 book, Political Parties. Michels’ theory states that all complex organizations, regardless of how democratic they are when started, eventually develop into oligarchies.
      Michels stated that the official goal of representative democracy of eliminating elite rule was impossible, that representative democracy is a façade legitimizing the rule of a particular elite, and that elite rule, which he refers to as oligarchy, is inevitable.

      He went on to state that “Historical evolution mocks all the prophylactic measures that have been adopted for the prevention of oligarchy.

      According to Michels all organizations eventually come to be run by a “leadership class”, who often function as paid administrators, executives, spokespersons, political strategists, organizers, etc. for the organization. Far from being “servants of the masses”, Michels argues this “leadership class,” rather than the organization’s membership, will inevitably grow to dominate the organization’s power structures. By controlling who has access to information, those in power can centralize their power successfully, often with little accountability, due to the apathy, indifference and non-participation most rank-and-file members have in relation to their organization’s decision-making processes.

      Michels argues that democratic attempts to hold leadership positions accountable are prone to fail, since with power comes the ability to reward loyalty, the ability to control information about the organization, and the ability to control what procedures the organization follows when making decisions. All of these mechanisms can be used to strongly influence the outcome of any decisions made ‘democratically’ by members.

      Do you not see where the ideology regardless is subject to “The Iron Law of Oligarchy”?
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_oligarchy

      • Florian N

        So what should we do?

  • Pareggiamoiconti

    things are actually quite simpler: communism is a contradiction to the intrinsically individualistic nature of human beings. therefore it never worked, and will never work.

    by negating private property, communism obliterates the fundamental drive to individual engagement, commitment and effort, inevitably resulting in widespread poverty, regression and famine

    communism is an abstract creation assuming that people could be changed (“rieducated”) to fit the ideology, so that violence is inevitably required to manage “deviations”
    unfortunately, violence is inherently inefficient

    we should all hope it stays well buried in the trash bin of history

    • garlic

      Ah, it comes out: the Saker’s a self-avowed “People’s Monarchist.” He wants the tsar back! No wonder now that he never pisses about how bad the tsar was! But at least, here, he almost begins to start giving communist ideology a fair critique. Of course, he fails, because if he were to actually be fair, he would find that socialism is not only better than capitalism, but actually the only way out of this mess created by the real psychopaths, the corporate neo-feudalists with all the money (i.e. the rich, which you don’t have to be Jewish to be).

      But, it’s true, socialism is not inevitable, if only because it’s unfortunately quite possible that the world will be destroyed in another world war concocted, once again, by greedy psychopaths (who keep muttering “communism is so violent!”). It’s worth remembering at this point that WWI was ended SOLELY by mutinies of the soldiers and people, in Russia, Germany, and elsewhere, most of whom had turned decisively to communism.

      Most of the commenters here, constantly pissing about how “bad” communism (i.e. socialism) was, never seem to mention the infinitely greater suffering caused by capitalism, which is what breeds socialist thinking in the first place. The goal of communists and socialists was, and still is, is to end exploitation and oppression for everyone everywhere, and to do so scientifically. This is why feudalists and capitalists (a.k.a. fascists) hate communism. Because socialism, in a word, is progress. When the new productive capabilities unleashed by capitalists (the ones since the industrial revolution) are socialized, and people are finally placed over profits: then you have socialism, and only then do you have peace.

  • RTA (Bob or Al)

    I got as far as “For one thing, the Soviet Union never collapsed. ” …..

    • Mish

      well, congrats on your reading disability and… just disability

      • RTA (Bob or Al)

        Thank you kindly.

        You state you are Russian above, but from experience they not usually as rude or arrogant as you.

        Tell me why my aforementioned comment was wrong please, I am intrigued.

        • Mish

          Well, you stopped reading after that? because this statement, “The SU never collapsed…” seemed counterintuitive to you? If i’m wrong, and you were simply reporting your reading progress as you went along, then i offer a retraction.

          • RTA (Bob or Al)

            Lets us cut to the chase; you tell me, what happened to the SU ?.

          • Mish

            So did you read all of the Saker’s piece or not? Or did you stop at that statement because it seems so “absurd”? He can tell you better than i could. I agree with what he says in that regard. The Saker is a perspicacious and painfully honest analyst.

          • RTA (Bob or Al)

            No I didn’t read it, but I suppose I better had now.

  • Barba_Papa

    Communism killed more people then fascism, yet the very accusation that somebody is a fascist is enough to destroy careers. Yet people can still present themselves as communists and get a free pass. Of course when you do point out the atrocities carried out in the name of their ideology they pull out the no true communist arguments. No, the USSR, China, Pol Pot and NK are not true communist countries, they’re socialist. It is in their name. Well, guess what, they committed all those atrocities in the name of communism, to bring about communism. They’re yours. You own them. Now fuck off and give me my old traditional social democracy back. The one that gave the Western world unprecedented welfare after WWII and a good balance between wealth and income. Before it got ditched in favor of neo-liberalism in the 80’s.

    • Ivanus59

      You didn’t even read any of this. You’re only ‘argument’ (it’s not an actual argument lol) here is “communism killed 11432114234124 people”.
      You think if you throw those ridiculous numbers in our face that you don’t have to challenge the theory of communism or socialism. Which is what the whole point of this article is, this is why communism isn’t defeated, because you neo-nazis or zionists and all other flavors of imperialist footsoldiers don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about.
      When I want to say that for example nazism is evil, I never say “Nazism killed millions of people!!” (even though it did), instead I say that it’s an idea which is based and rooted in hate and irrational, flawed romanticism of an emotionally disturbed man who instead of keeping emotional disturbances away from his “ideas” instead allowed them to completely shape his “ideology”.

      • Barba_Papa

        So anybody who disagrees with your vision for the Red Future is now a neo nazi or a zionist? That tells me everything I need to know about you. Have fun living in your communist utopia, which is now about as real as the flat earth society, UFOlogists and believers in Atlantis. I’ll take my chances with capitalism moderated through social democracy over those who think they can remake man to their ideal image. Even if they have to do it so over the dead bodies of millions.

        • Michael Qiao

          capitalism, communism, 2 sides of the same coin

        • garlic

          So, you dislike so-called murder when it’s done for making the world a better place, but you condone murder when it’s done for the profits of a few already-rich psychopaths (because it’s more “realistic”).

          • Barba_Papa

            You’re fond of putting words in other people’s mouths. Did I say I endorse Western wars for profits? Methinks if I did I wouldn’t even read Southfront.

            The point is, if you have to murder people to make the world a better place, then guess what, you’re not making the world a better place, you’re making it a worse place then it already is. And that is why communism is bad. Because it makes it followers think that it is okay to do whatever it takes for the greater good. That is the road that leads to hell. The road that leads to the atrocities of fascism, the inquisition, communism, and ISIS. That is why I prefer social democracy. Because while the world is a shitty place that could be improved, its better to do that slowly via the ballot box, then to use violence to take short cuts.

          • Arthur Smith

            Where do you think wellfare of your “old traditional social democracy” comes from if not from plundering other regions? Your whole “civilized Europe” started due to influx of riches, stolen from Constantinople.

      • Kell

        He’s a Holodomor denier!
        Seize him!

        • Vitex

          Say what?? Surely you mean “holoCAUST?”

          • Mish

            It’s the ukie thing. Ukies are jealous of the Jewish grand geschaeft with the hollowcoast, so they have fabricated their own hollowcaustic thing: the Hollowedmore. It’s about Soviet people giving them nothing to eat, allegedly, in the early 1930s.

          • Vitex

            While i’d like to agree it wasn’t only Ukranian Christians who got butchered… it was Russia-wide

          • Mish

            This Ukie version of hollowcoast, Hlodomor or whatever, is about people starving not butchered. And nothing to do with christians. They claim Russia purposely starved them. In fact, there was famine in those years throughout central and southern European Russia

          • Vitex

            I think every nation on earth has a good “hard luck” story eh

      • Vitex

        I’d check your facts about Nazism killing “millions”. Particularly if you’re talking about the holocause. http://www.pauleisen.com

    • garlic

      The only reason “traditional social democracy” was able to “give” anything to the western world after WWII was because the ruling class didn’t want their people getting any closer to socialism. Therefore, they tossed them a bone.

      • Barba_Papa

        No, we’re currently getting a bone. Without any meat. Until the 1980’s wages and wealth both increased equally in Western society. That was the time when a family could live comfortably on a single income. Cue neo-liberalism and we now live in a society where the rich keep on getting richer, wages haven’t increased in a decade and a family needs 2 incomes just to make ends meet.

        • Arthur Smith

          Too bad you didn’t invent any other way of economic growth than endless expansion with sucking juices from periphery, but the globe is fully covered.

  • Ivanus59

    I liked this article. You have a mostly objective approach to the issue. Obviously is written by someone who has a lot of experience, and a good grasp of the situation and idea and also put a lot of effort into translating his thoughts into this article.

  • Michael Qiao

    Let’s have a fascist Russia

    • Amon -Ra- DeArmond

      we already have!!
      REEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!

      • Michael Qiao

        It’s not fascist when there are still communists in Russia

        • Amon -Ra- DeArmond

          communists with no power,USA has more reds at this point than Russia

          • Michael Qiao

            That my friend is true (i.e neocons)

          • Arthur Smith

            You are right that Russia is fascist now, but majority of population is very nostalgic for USSR.

          • Mish

            Fascist? Are you insane? This is a rhetorical question… The US harps on being an exceptional nation and murdering other nations’ people by the million, yet Russia is fascist? You have any idea what fascism means?

          • Vitex

            Antifa eh. It’s like Berlin in the 30’s in the USA

  • Bison789

    What is the best thing about communism?
    ..
    ..
    ..
    ..
    ..
    ..
    ..
    IT DOESN’T WORK!

    • Don’t read butthurt replies

      IF IT DIDN’T then why US GOV always try to stop it, IDIOT lol.

      • Bison789

        I did not deny that it existed just Sayin it isnt working out..

        • Don’t read butthurt replies

          Because of the US GOV obviously IDIOT. Look at Cuba IDIOT, it obviously worked there. Just imagine if there wasn’t an embargo on Cuba.

  • Rodney Loder

    When Mao Zedong died 41 years ago communism was heading for insolvency because wealth would flow out into the then Third World, Neocolonialism had wealth flowing in via expropriation, Che Guevara 1965 Congo DR is a good example, but we lost because Christianity had me Jesus Christ operatial on the battlefield and as a component of psychological war, that was the ovet reason, the real reason was Communism as a working market economy was able to disseminate wealth, Capitalism can only concentrate wealth, but the draw back to Communism was that Patriarchal Society was doomed to failure not so much in China because of Chinese Culture, but everywhere else so Communism needed Christianity and vice versa.
    When the Christians became Talmudic thugs Allah sacked them as the Chosen People and opted for my Salafist Brothers.
    About the future Malthusianism will hit pretty soon due to Climate Change, Demographic development, the end of the Techno Industrial Age and the Concentration of wealth, consequently because the Soviet Union was destroyed by Allah to save Patriarchal Society Resources and Primary Products will never be given their true value only the leadership of the Soviets could have caused that because of their inherent resources, even after resources are exhausted as the highest capacity of supply and demand finance will probably still rule, so that is the Culmination of Capitalism as described by Marx the starvation of surplus workers it’s just that he didn’t envisage the surplus worker being entirely overseas, but the point is that Capitalism is here to stay, changing it in the West is untenable in the East it’s insane.

    • Vitex

      Thanks Rodney, it’s all clear now :)

      • Rodney Loder

        Thanks for the feed back, perhaps I could deepen you understanding slightly by explaining why in Heaven the call my predicament “the curse of the second last Prophet” really some say in the hereafter I’m more representative of Fate than a full on Prophet and my job is to capture the narrative and control the Holy Ghost on behalf of the Missing Fate, the problem is because Allah consumed satan and some say because of that very fact Allah is not all that fussy about finding the Missing Fate and ending the impediment, it’s happened exactly like that in every previous universe , when the second last Prophet is hot in the trail along comes a beautiful woman and he forgets about it, I think that’s why Allah gave me such a handsome morphology, but I would never forget even if, I think everyone knows the rest.

        • Vitex

          Excellent Rod, you’re on a roll :)

          • Rodney Loder

            It’s not me Vitex it’s the authentic preamble of reality that came to fruition as consequential existence materializing as matter, it’s a long story but having been witness to it myself I know quite a bit about it, well it wasn’t really me, not then but it is me now if you can understand that the missing element fostered itself into the narrative I presented as Scripture, I think that happened because I was following the Correct Line, basically there was a mistake not a first sin, the first sin is only a cover up to hide the mistake, I got on to it by continually asserting that substance is in fact a disemplaced emotion of reason, when it should be a rationalised emotion of reason, that’s where my power lies I’ve become representative of Fate.

  • Kell
    • Solomon Krupacek

      buuuuulllllsssshhhiiiittttttt!!!!!!

  • Arthur Smith

    http://eu.eot.su/about/manifesto/
    An example of what russian communism evolved into in the last half-century.

    Also for those fluent in russian – social platform prototype:
    http://eot.su/node/22567