Why should Christians support Marxism, which is hostile to God?

Consider the following:

Jesus was clear about communism

The Sheep and the Goats

31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink?38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

The Parable of the Good Samaritan

25 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

26 “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”

27 He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’[c]; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[d]”

28 “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”

29 But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”

30 In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. 31 A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. 32 So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. 34 He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. 35 The next day he took out two denarii[e] and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’

36 “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”

37 The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”

Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”

Blessed are the poor

Luke 6: 20–26

“Blessed are you who are poor,
for yours is the kingdom of God.
21 Blessed are you who hunger now,
for you will be satisfied.
Blessed are you who weep now,
for you will laugh.
22 Blessed are you when people hate you,
when they exclude you and insult you
and reject your name as evil,
because of the Son of Man.

23 “Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, because great is your reward in heaven. For that is how their ancestors treated the prophets.

24 “But woe to you who are rich,
for you have already received your comfort.
25 Woe to you who are well fed now,
for you will go hungry.
Woe to you who laugh now,
for you will mourn and weep.
26 Woe to you when everyone speaks well of you,
for that is how their ancestors treated the false prophets.

Come now, you rich, weep and howl for the miseries that are coming upon you. Your riches have rotted and your garments are moth-eaten. Your gold and silver have rusted, and their rust will be evidence against you and will eat your flesh like fire. You have laid up for treasure for the last days. Behold, the wages of the labourers who mowed your fields, which you have kept back by fraud, cry out; and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts. You have lived on the earth in luxury and in pleasure; you have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter

James 5: 1–6

For Catholics:

“It is when the Communists are good that they are dangerous.”

That is how Dorothy Day begins an article in America, published just before the launch of the Catholic Worker on May Day in 1933. In contrast to the reactions of many Catholics of the time, Day painted a sympathetic, if critical view of the communists she encountered in Depression-era New York City. Her deep personalism allowed her to see the human stories through the ideological struggle; and yet she concluded that Catholicism and communism were not only incompatible, but mutual threats. A whole Cold War has passed since her reflection, and a few clarifying notes are now worthwhile.

Communists are attracted to communism by their goodness, Day argued, that unerasable quality of the good that can be found within and outside the church alike, woven into our very nature. It might have been an easier thing to say back in 1933, when American communists were well known to the general public for putting their lives on the line to support striking workers, but it was also the kind of thing that could land you in a lot of trouble, not least in the Catholic Church.

By affirming the goodness that drives so many communists then and now, Day aimed to soften the perceptions of Catholics who were more comfortable with villainous caricatures of the communists of their era than with more challenging depictions of them as laborers for peace and economic justice. Most people who join communist parties and movements, Day rightly noted, are motivated not by some deep hatred toward God or frothing anti-theism, but by an aspiration for a world liberated from a political economy that demands vast exploitation of the many for the comfort of a few.

But in her attempt to create sympathy for the people attracted to communism and to overcome a knee-jerk prejudice against them, Day needlessly perpetuated two other prejudices against communism. First, she said that under all the goodness that draws people to communism, the movement is, in the final analysis, a program “with the distinct view of tearing down the church.”

Then, talking about a young communist in her neighborhood who was killed after being struck by a brick thrown by a Trotskyite, she concluded that young people who follow the goodness in their hearts that may lead them to communism are not fully aware of what it is they are participating in—even at the risk of their lives. In other words, we should hate the communism but love the communist.

Though Day’s sympathetic criticism of communism is in many ways commendable, nearly a century of history shows there is much more to the story than these two judgments suggest. Communist political movements the world over have been full of unexpected characters, strange developments and more complicated motivations than a desire to undo the church; and even through the challenges of the 20th century, Catholics and communists have found natural reasons to offer one another a sign of peace.

A Complicated History

Christianity and communism have obviously had a complicated relationship. That adjective “complicated” will surely cause some readers to roll their eyes. Communist states and movements have indeed persecuted religious people at different moments in history. At the same time, Christians have been passionately represented in communist and socialist movements around the world. And these Christians, like their atheist comrades, are communists not because they misunderstand the final goals of communism but because they authentically understand the communist ambition of a classless society.

“From each according to ability, to each according to need,” Marx summarizes in “Critique of the Gotha Program,” a near echo of Luke’s description of the early church in Acts 4:35 and 11:29. Perhaps it was Day, not her young communist neighbor, who misunderstood communism.

Dorothy Day: What Catholics don’t understand about communism

Dorothy Day

It is true that Marx, Engels, Lenin and a number of other major communists were committed Enlightenment thinkers, atheists who sometimes assumed religion would fade away in the bright light of scientific reason, and at other times advocated propagandizing against it (though not, as Lenin argued, in a way that would divide the movement against capitalism, the actual opponent). That should not be so scandalous in itself. They are hardly alone as modern atheists, and their atheism is understandable, when Christianity has so often been a force allied to the ruling powers that exploit the poor. Catholics have found plenty of philosophical resources in non-Christian sources in the past; why not moderns?

Despite and beyond theoretical differences, priests like Herbert McCabe, O.P., Ernesto and Fernando Cardenal, S.J., Frei Betto, O.P., Camilo Torres and many other Catholics—members of the clergy, religious and laypeople—have been inspired by communists and in many places contributed to communist and communist-influenced movements as members. Some still do—for example in the Philippines, where the “Christians for National Liberation,” an activist group first organized by nuns, priests and exploited Christians, are politically housed within the National Democratic Front, a coalition of movements that includes a strong communist thread currently fighting the far-right authoritarian leader Rodrigo Duterte.

Closer to home and outside of armed struggles, Christians are also present today in communist movements in the United States and Canada. Whatever hostilities may have existed in the past, some of these movements are quite open to Christian participation now. Many of my friends in the Party for Socialism and Liberation, for example, a Marxist-Leninist party, are churchgoing Christians or folks without a grudge against their Christian upbringing, as are lots of people in the radical wing of the Democratic Socialists of America.

The Communist Party USA has published essays affirming the connections between Christianity and communism and encouraging Marxists not to write off Christians as hopelessly lost to the right (the C.P.U.S.A. paper, People’s World, even reported on Sister Simone Campbell and Network’s Nuns on the Bus campaign to agitate for immigration reform). In Canada, Dave McKee, former leader of the Communist Party of Canada in Ontario, was once an Anglican theology student at a Catholic seminary, radicalized in part by his contact with base communities in Nicaragua. For my part, I have talked more about Karl Rahner, S.J., St. Óscar Romero and liberation theology at May Day celebrations and communist meetings than at my own Catholic parish.

In other words, though some communists would undoubtedly prefer a world without Christianity, communism is not simply a program for destroying the church. Many who committed their very lives to the church felt compelled to work alongside communists as part of their Christian calling. The history of communism, whatever else it might be, will always contain a history of Christianity, and vice versa, whether members of either faction like it or not.

Communism in its socio-political expression has at times caused great human and ecological suffering. Any good communist is quick to admit as much, not least because communism is an unfinished project that depends on the recognition of its real and tragic mistakes.

But communists are not the only ones who have to answer for creating human suffering. Far from being a friendly game of world competition, capitalism, Marx argued, emerged through the privatization of what was once public, like shared land, a process enforced first by physical violence and then continued by law. As time went on, human beings themselves would become the private property of other human beings.

Colonial capitalism, together with the assumptions of white supremacy, ushered in centuries of unbridled terrorism on populations around the world, creating a system in which people could be bought and sold as commodities. Even after the official abolition of slavery in the largest world economies—which required a costly civil war in the United States—the effects of that system live on, and capitalist nations and transnational companies continue to exploit poor and working people at home and abroad. For many people around the globe today, being on the wrong side of capitalism can still mean the difference between life and death.

What Motivates a Communist?

Communism has provided one of the few sustainable oppositions to capitalism, a global political order responsible for the ongoing suffering of millions. It is that suffering, reproduced by economic patterns that Marx and others tried to explain, and not the secret plot of atheism (as Day once argued), that motivates communists.

According to a report by Oxfam released in 2018, global inequality is staggering and still on the rise. Oxfam, which is not run by communists, observed that “82 percent of the wealth created [in 2017] went to the richest one percent of the global population, while the 3.7 billion people who make up the poorest half of humanity got nothing.”

While entrepreneurs like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos are investing in space travel, their workers are grounded in daily economic struggle here on earth. In Mr. Musk’s Tesla factories, workers suffer serious injuries more than twice the industrial average, and they report being so exhausted that they collapse on the factory floor.

An undercover journalist reports workers urinate into bottles in a U.K. Amazon warehouse for fear of being disciplined for “idle time,” and the company has a long list of previous offenses. In Pennsylvania, Amazon workers needed medical attention both for exposure to the cold in the winter and for heat exhaustion in the summer. These hardly seem like prices worth paying so a few billionaires can vacation in the black expanse of space. As one Detroit Tesla worker put it: “Everything feels like the future but us.”

For communists, global inequality and the abuse of workers at highly profitable corporations are not the result only of unkind employers or unfair labor regulations. They are symptoms of a specific way of organizing wealth, one that did not exist at the creation of the world and one that represents part of a “culture of death,” to borrow a familiar phrase. We already live in a world where wealth is redistributed, but it goes up, not down or across.

Though polls show U.S. citizens have become increasingly skeptical of capitalism—one Gallup survey even reports that Democrats currently view socialism more positively than capitalism—that attitude is not widely popular among electoral representatives. A revival of socialist hysteria typified the response to Bernie Sanders’s inspiring 2016 primary bid and the electoral success of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Rashida Tlaib, members of the Democratic Socialists of America, a party co-founded by a former Catholic Worker, Michael Harrington. Republican and Democratic politicians have made it abundantly clear that whatever their differences, they both agree that in U.S. political culture support for capitalism is non-negotiable, as Nancy Pelosi told a socialist questioner during a CNN town hall.

Communists are not content with the back-and-forth of capitalist parties, who point fingers at one another while maintaining, jointly, a system that exploits multitudes of people, including their own constituents. Communists think we can build better ways of being together in society.

Contrary to the fear that communists simply want everyone’s “stuff,” the abolition of private property, for which Marx and Engels called, means the abolition of privately owned ways of generating wealth, not taking the clothes off your back or your dad’s tie collection. As the popular saying in communist circles goes, communists do not want your toothbrush. Some of the standard proposals in the programs of communist parties include things like providing free health care, abolishing private profit from renting property and the creation of truly democratic institutions in which politicians are not millionaires and are subject to recall.

In fact, although the Catholic Church officially teaches that private property is a natural right, this teaching also comes with the proviso that private property is always subordinate to the common good. So subordinate, says Pope Francis in a truly radical moment in “Laudato Si’,” that “The Christian tradition has never recognized the right to private property as absolute or inviolable, and has stressed the social purpose of all forms of private property.”

Something like this is paralleled in “The Communist Manifesto,” when Marx and Engels underscore that abolishing private property means abolishing not personal property, or the kinds of things an artisan or farmer might own, but the amassed property held by the rich, which divides human beings into antagonistic classes of people—in other words, the kind of private property that most of us do not have.

“You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property,” Marx and Engels say to their bourgeois detractors. “But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths.”

[Matt Malone, S.J.: Why we published an essay sympathetic to communism]

Instead, they write that property should be transformed. In a passage not too far from Pope Francis’ bold sentence above, Marx and Engels say: “When, therefore, capital is converted into common property, into the property of all members of society, personal property is not thereby transformed into social property. It is only the social character of the property that is changed. It loses its class character.”

What communists desire is an authentically common life together, and they think that can only happen by relativizing property in light of the good of everyone. Radical indeed, but certainly not all that shocking to people who remember when the Virgin Mary sang that God has filled the hungry with good things and sent the rich away empty (Lk 1:53).

Dorothy Day and Christian Communism

Dorothy Day seemed to recognize the deeper motivations for communism later on, changing her judgment of good communists to suggest perhaps there is also good communism. Her article in America was written at the beginning of the Great Depression. Twenty years later, Fidel Castro and comrades founded the 26th of July Movement. That effort in 1959 ousted Fulgencio Batista, whose regime was infamous for torturing or killing thousands of Cubans while enjoying support from the United States.

Reflecting on the Cuban revolution in The Catholic Worker in 1961, Day offered a complex perspective on the persecution of some Catholics following the revolution. Nevertheless, she wrote, “It is hard…to say that the place of The Catholic Worker is with the poor, and that being there, we are often finding ourselves on the side of the persecutors of the Church. This is a tragic fact.”

Day reminded her readers that Castro emphasized he was not against the church or Catholics as such (he knew Catholics in the revolution, after all) but against those factions within Cuba that would prefer to cling to the old regime, built on the oppression of Cuba’s people. Castro had not only permitted priests and nuns to stay in Cuba, Day wrote, but affirmed that the church endured through monarchies, republics and in feudalist states. “Why cannot she exist under a socialist state?” she asked. She noted many Jesuits would stay in Cuba to work in parishes and added that the Jesuits already had experience living through periods of persecution and suppression.

Dorothy Day: What Catholics don’t understand about communism

Dorothy Day

But Dorothy Day was not open only to the begrudging possibility that the Cuban church might not be wiped out by socialism. She went further: “We are on the side of the revolution. We believe there must be new concepts of property, which is proper to [humanity], and that the new concept is not so new. There is a Christian communism and a Christian capitalism.

“God Bless the priests and people of Cuba. God bless Castro and all those who are seeing Christ in the poor,” she said. A year later, Day visited Cuba to see the revolutionary society for herself. In a series of dispatches to The Catholic Worker, she reported glowingly, albeit not without noting the many problems the young society had to solve, problems she hoped could in fact be solved with a little communist ingenuity.

Spanning over a century now, communists—Christians and non-Christians—have fought against a violent capitalist economy, putting their lives and freedoms at risk, enduring character assassination, imprisonment and war. Whether or not one is convinced by the communist hope of abolishing private property, it is undeniable that communists have provided a real, material challenge to a global system that the most powerful world governments have every intention of perpetuating. The loss of a mass communist movement, due in large part to an aggressive legal and political persecution by the United States and other governments, has made organizing opposition to capitalism itself a difficult task; but even in its absence, a majority of millennials reject capitalism.

As Marx and Engels put it in “The Communist Manifesto”: “In place of the bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.” It is with that hope for free development, beyond the competition of capitalists, that many Catholics, myself included, count themselves among the communists.

So Dorothy Day was right when she said it is when the communists are good that they are dangerous. Communists are pursuing the good when they are dangerous; they are opposing an economic system based on avarice, exploitation and human suffering, afflicting the comfortable and comforting the afflicted. And in a world beholden to an economy of death, one that is crippling our “common home,” as Pope Francis tells us, and asserting itself as the end of history, we must also add: It is when the communists are dangerous that they are good. [1]

Footnotes[1] The Catholic Case for Communism

Why do people prefer communism over Nazism?

Probably because people with a normal level of human empathy and moral consciousness realize the following:

  1. That Nazis kill people for who they are, which is something one cannot choose. Nazis exterminated 6 million Jews, and millions of disabled people, gypsies, Slavs, and other “undesirables.” By contrast, communists killed people for what they did. Of course there are some exceptions. One must consider the historical context of pre-WWII Russia, along with Operation Trust, the planned coup, and the mindset after the horrors of the Russian Civil War.[1]
  2. Communist is against anti-Semitism. Nazism is highly anti-Semitic.
  3. Nazis performed painful, brutalizing, and cruel human experiments on adults and children. The “Angel of Death,” Dr. Mengele, performed horrifying experiments on twin children. [2]
  4. Nazi racism was only matched (and inspired) by U.S. Southern racism, which was some of the most virulent and brutal racism in the world. In fact, some black POW’s from the Korean War chose to move to Red China instead of return “home” to the American South, which was dominated by the KKK, lynchings, police brutality, and Segregation. [3] The Nazi miscegenation laws were actually modeled after U.S. miscegenation laws. How the Nazis Used Jim Crow Laws as the Model for Their Race Laws
  5. Generalplan Ost was the German plan for the starvation, shooting, and mass extermination of millions of Slavs, Jews, and others in the Soviet Union after the Germans conquered it.

Clarence Adams, a black American POW, chose to stay in Red China after being captured during the Korean War as a soldier for the U.S. military. The disgusting and dehumanizing racism he faced at home and in the military convinced him to try something new. So he did. He met a Chinese woman, got married, and had children. He lived there until the Cultural Revolution, at which time he moved back to the U.S.

Footnotes[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQzikjZP9a8[2] Was Hitler the most evil person in history[3] Why an American POW chose Mao’s China over home

Should the Communist Victims Memorial be torn down because it is based on revisionist lies?

Absolutely. You cannot “memorialize” something that never happened. Communists never killed 100 million people. That number was based upon a work of propaganda disguised as serious work, called “The Black Book of Communism.” There were multiple authors to the book. After release, the book was widely criticized by serious scholars.[1] Even the fellow co-authors of the work admitted that the “100 million” number was untrue.[2]

Second, the purpose of the statue is also to demonize China, which is totally unwarranted. Further, the Tianneman Square incident was not a wholesale mass slaughter of innocents.[3] Rather, actual protesters dispersed after the police told them to clear the area.[4] It wasn’t long after that violent thugs began to set fires, attack police, and try to induce mayhem. The police dealt with them appropriately.

As for the USSR “death toll,” it is far less than 100 million:

2.76 million. This list is here, with sources: death toll 2.pdf

This is the death toll of the actions of the USSR.

  1. The Holomodor was not intentional and should not be counted. Alexander Finnegan’s answer to What is the history of famines and starvation in Russia 1850-present day?
  2. All the other numbers you are used to hearing have been shown to be inflated and exaggerated, many fabricated.
  3. This document is based on reliable research from respected authors and official figures.
  4. The Black Book of Communism has been shown to be a fraud. Alexander Finnegan’s answer to What is the most biased book you’ve ever read?
  5. This includes the Great Purges, the NKVD Polish repressions, the transfer of various populations that resulted in death, the gulags, etc. Alexander Finnegan’s answer to Why did Stalin kill the kulaks?
  6. Gulag numbers are here: number of gulag.pdf 1,053,829 died in the gulag. But it must also be remembered that this includes people who died from natural causes. The death toll went up during WWII because everyone in the nation was on food rations so there was no starvation, but sick people and older people sometimes succumbed out of the stress. There were also outbreaks of diseases that caused deaths. Solzehnitsyn Lied pdf.pdf,
  7. The Great Purges included 777, 975. But this includes a large number that were sentenced to execution but it was never carried out. The Great Purges were not as top down as one might guess.
  8. Alexander Finnegan’s answer to Was Joseph Stalin a successful leader or an oppressive dictator?

As for Chinese communism:

…Mao’s policies as a whole greatly extended Chinese life expectancy.

Both before and after the Three Bad Years, it was much lower than similar poor countries. During the crisis it was about average, peaking at 25 per thousand.

25 per thousand was normal for poor countries in the 1960s, and lower than some.

The estimates ‘cook the book’, not giving the full picture.

See China’s ‘Three Bitter Years’, 1959 to 1961.

Source: Gwydion Madawc Williams’s answer to Did the Great Leap Forward really kill millions of people, or is it just propaganda?

The supposed terror of Mao’s rule is total propaganda. In fact the supposed “famine” that he caused turned out to be a period of hunger, and the numbers extolling his supposed 45 million killed are unsubstantiated lies. Most of it comes from bitter members of the CCP who found themselves purged for embracing capitalism and had to do some service work in the country to learn the value of not being antisocial. Mao did not execute his political enemies. He believed in rehabilitation and service work. That is why President Xi’s father and Deng Xiaoping himself were not killed and Deng would eventually become the leader of China.

The only landlords that got hurt were the ones who took up arms and violently resisted the land reforms. Landlords that caused deaths or had collaborated with the Japanese invaders would face a trial and if found guilty could be executed.

Source: How Mao Greatly Strengthened China

This man has just been given land as part of the land redistribution.

Land was given to peasants, who previously were essentially serfs

On collectives food was more abundant than before


Massive irrigation projects improved the land

Fantastic series of photos of everyday life in Maoist China: Everyday Life in Maoist China

When the land reforms were announced Mao anticipated there would be resistance from the landlord class, as any privileged class is unlikely to just happily give up their riches for the well being of others. But landlords had the option to abide by the law and be fine. Estimating resistance is not a death sentence. In fact landlords that complied were given land to till and welcomed into the community. They were not exterminated.

Source: The Land Reform — china.org.cn

Land is redistributed more equitably

I double checked the Wikipedia account of Mao’s land reform measures, and the citations refer to rabid anti-communist books that are filled with lies. I shouldn’t be surprised. The story of Mao in the West is filled with outright lies.

You rarely hear it but the reality was that even though slavery was officially abolished, the practice continued before Mao stopped it. The Dalai Lama had slaves up until 1959. But for Mao this would continue.

Source: White Paper on Tibet’s March Toward Modernization

Source: Gwydion Madawc Williams’s answer to Is it true that landlords in China still owned slaves before Mao initiated land reform?

The Mao as mass murderer lies began, interestingly, 20 years after his death with cooked numbers. But in the West these lies are entrenched.

Monthly Review | On the Role of Mao Zedong Exploring the lies about Maocum monster

Monthly Review | Did Mao Really Kill Millions in the Great Leap Forward?

Gwydion Madawc Williams’s answer to What happened to those who opposed Mao Zedong?

Footnotes[1] http:// Ghodsee, Kristen (2014). “A tale of” Two Totalitarianisms”: The crisis of capitalism and the historical memory of communism” (PDF). History of the Present. 4 (2): 115–142. doi:10.5406/historypresent.4.2.0115. JSTOR 10.5406/historypresent.4.2.0115[2] http://Chemin, Ariane (1997-10-30). “Les divisions d’une équipe d’historiens du communisme [Divisions among the team of historians of Communism]”. Le Monde.fr (in French). ISSN 1950-6244[3] Tiananmen Square, 1989 — Revisited[4] Tiananmen Square, 1989 — Revisited

Beware of propaganda…

Beware of Propaganda (on Quora)

I’m sorry but I can take no more. I understand the role of psyops and the use of social media for propaganda purposes. The Russians are boss at it. Do I care? No. Influencing people and elections is what nations do. I think Dima Vorobiev is doing a bang up job for Mr. Putin and the Russian government. Good for him. At least there is some style to it. Hell, I even laugh sometimes as Dima plays with Westerners like a cat plays with a mouse.

Then the CIA decided to get into the game. Checkout the account by “Misha Firer.” Not surprisingly he gets thousands of new followers each week. Must be nice to have the Quora algorithm artificially tuned to your posts. Anyway, I wouldn’t doubt he is a real person from Moscow. Great. Either he is “writing” the posts with assistance, or doing it full time, but you can guarantee ALL of it is going to be anti-Russian and plays into all the Western stereotypes about Russia and Russians. As you might guess, his conclusion is that it is hell on earth.

Read this one: Misha Firer’s answer to How was it to grow up in the Soviet Union?

or this one: Misha Firer’s answer to How bad was the healthcare in the Soviet Union?

or this: Misha Firer’s answer to What do you know about Russian literature and what have you read?

Check out this one about the Soviet Union being nothing but a “penal colony” where everyone was drunk, even at work and people were right on the edge of suicide damn near each moment:

He doesn’t even give Russia credit for defeating Hitler and the Nazis. Even the most self hating Russians wouldn’t do that:

He also has a few “helpers” in the comments section, who help give credibility to his “writings.” Lovely.

Tell people what they want to hear and they think you are a genius. There is no way this account is not associated with some American propaganda arm. No way.

Why do people blame Stalin for the Holodomor even though it was the Kulaks who tried to counter his “collectivized farming” policy by seizing the crops of lower-peasants and burning entire livestocks?

Many reasons, and all of them have to do with politics and nothing to do with facts. The reality is that the kulaks were not the sole reason for the Holodomor, but a substantial reason for it.[1][2] Drought, a higher birthrate prior to the famine, and inefficient farming methods also played a large role.[3][4] Of course famines in Russia were not exceptional—they were the norm, going back hundreds of years, especially during the Tsarist period. [5] It wasn’t until collectivization under Stalin that the famines ended. [6] Food security came with Putin’s adoption of large scale, technology driven farming methods.

Soviet workers discover grain hidden by kulaks to be sold on the black market at exorbitant prices while people starved.

The Holodomor as deliberate was a fiction of propaganda, fashioned by Goebbels, to invoke Ukrainian nationalism ahead of the German invasion.[7] It worked. Thousands of Ukrainian Red Army soldiers abandoned their duties and became the willing soldiers of Hitler.[8] In fact, many of these were used by the Nazis to commit the most despicable acts of violence against Jews, as many were virulently anti-Semitic.[9] Poland and other bordering Russian nations were pro-fascist and right wing, and that is why Stalin wanted to bring them into the Soviet Union—to tame them and to prevent them from collaborating with the West to amass troops and missiles at the borders.

Hans Frank and Dr. Hofstetter of SS Galizien enter a Ukrainian Greek Catholic church prior to the installation of volunteers in Sanok, 1943.

Askaris admiring their work murdering Jews

Excerpt from a report by a member of the battalion about shooting “all Jews which were met” in Vinnytsia region[10]

The Simon Wiesenthal Center contends that between June 30 and July 3, 1941, in the days that the Battalion was in Lviv the Nachtigall soldiers together with the German army and the local Ukrainians participated in the killings of Jews in the city. The pretext for the pogrom was a rumor that the Jews were responsible for the execution of prisoners by the Soviets before the 1941 Soviet withdrawal from Lviv. The Encyclopedia of the Holocaust states that some 4,000 Jews were kidnapped and killed at that time.[20] It further states that the unit was removed from Lviv on July 7 and sent to the Eastern Front.[11]

Out of spite at the loss of their comfortable bourgeois existences, the kulaks ensured the death of many. Often they hid grain that was supposed to be collected and rationed so everyone could have some. Instead, they sold “their” grain on the black market at exorbitant prices.

There are many analogies between the kulaks of yesterday with the American bourgeoisie and their willingness to seal the fate of hundreds of thousands of people to make profits off the labor of their workers by sending them into the open economy during a COVID-19 pandemic. They put their interest in profits above the lives of people. This is why socialism hates capitalism so much. It is why socialism cannot permit capitalism to exist. It must be smashed. Individual morality and whether the kulaks were greedy or spiteful is not the Marxist Leninist question. The kulak system enabled their behavior.

In 1929, Joseph Stalin said:

We are fifty or a hundred years behind the advanced countries. We must make good this distance in ten years. Either we do it, or they will crush us.

Speech “The Tasks of Economic Executives” (4 February 1931) Stalin said this in 1931, at the beginning of the rapid industrialization campaign. Ten years later, Nazi Germany invaded the Soviet Union.

He couldn’t have been more prescient. Had he not pushed for collectivization, then industrialization could not have been achieved on time. Had that not happened, then Hitler had his own plans, including the Hunger Plan, which planned on starving most of the genetically “inferior” people in the Soviet Union and enslaving the remainder. But for Joseph Stalin and his iron will in smashing the kulaks, the Nazis would have likely prevailed in Europe.

Alexander Finnegan’s answer to What is the history of famines and starvation in Russia 1850-present day?

Why Stalin killed the kulaks

Footnotes[1] https://stalinsocietypk.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/another-view-of-stalin1.pdf[2] How true are the claims that “the Kulaks burned large amounts crops and killed their livestock in order to resist collectivization, and these actions were what led to the famines in the Soviet Union in the 1930s”?[3] Natural Disaster and Human Actions in the Soviet Famine of 1931-1933[4] How true are the claims that “the Kulaks burned large amounts crops and killed their livestock in order to resist collectivization, and these actions were what led to the famines in the Soviet Union in the 1930s”?[5] Droughts and famines in Russia and the Soviet Union – Wikipedia[6] Alexander Finnegan’s answer to What is the history of famines and starvation in Russia 1850-present day?[7] Fraud, Famine and Fascism[8] Askari – Wikipedia[9] Collaboration in German-occupied Poland – Wikipedia[10] Nachtigall Battalion – Wikipedia[11] Nachtigall Battalion – Wikipedia

What do you think of Marxist Leninists on Quora? Are they always right?

I am proud of them. I am thankful to them:

  1. For their courage. Courage to face scorn, ridicule and hatred every day. And they do it voluntarily. Nobody is paying them to be on Quora. They do it because they have heart.
  2. For their openness. Few people have the guts to look at their entire worldview and ask “Is this true? Did my parents, teachers, and pastor get it wrong?” Talk about cognitive dissonance. But they do it. They muck through the pool of sewage against Marxism Leninism, against Lenin, against Stalin, and Mao Zedong while others shake their heads in smug defeat and walk away.
  3. For their love.

4. For their grit. For writing answers with hundreds and thousands of views but 3 upvotes. For fighting to defend Comrade Stalin, not to convince people to become communists—the ones who won’t listen to the truth about history wouldn’t have become communists anyway—but out of a sense of comradeship. The injustice of the propaganda war against the USSR and Stalin, Lenin and others doesn’t sit well with them, even if convincing the world is a Sisyphean task.

5. For their patience. Patience in knowing that real change will never come from a bourgeois ballot box, but working each day to build communism in the long term. Patience to hold on, never knowing when the time will be ripe for revolution, and humbly accepting their larger place in making things happen. They don’t get the consolation of believing that real change might come from simply building a communist “brand” that will convince enough voters to elect their candidate. Patience in accepting that if reason and rationality won elections and brought change then there wouldn’t be a Republican President—ever. Patience in knowing that the bourgeois election system would never permit a socialist candidate who might really disrupt the power of the oligarchs to take office. Whether it be stuffing ballot boxes, manipulating super delegates, or even assassination, the bourgeoisie won’t ever peacefully give up their power.

6. For their realism. For knowing that we have less than 12 years to stop using fossil fuels or climate change will be the end of civilization as we know it. For accepting that historically, no libertarian socialist society has lasted more than a few years. For seeing how the Green New Deal was crushed by Democrats, not just Republicans. For knowing that the Paris Commune of 1871, Revolutionary Catalonia, and others were smashed and massacred by anti-socialist forces. For accepting that libertarian socialism, the Democratic Party, and others cannot save us, and that only a Marxist Leninist revolution has been able throughout history to push out the capitalists and build a long term socialist society. For knowing that this position will mean hate, ridicule and scorn, and may one day even cost one’s life, but holding it anyway. Because it is right.

I am incredibly thankful for my Marxist Leninist comrades. I consider them true friends. And I am grateful we can share ideas and work together to destroy capitalism, one day at a time.

Are they always right? No. Who is? But are they more right than wrong? Absolutely.

When I started law school the professor asked us:

“How do you eat an elephant?”

The answer:

“One bite at a time.”

What is the role of “free speech” in Marxist Leninist nations?

To properly understand the nature of this question, first we must examine the implications of Glasnost for the Communist Party and the fall of the Soviet Union:

Glasnost proved to be an equal disaster.

“What happened in our country is primarily the result of the debilitation and eventual elimination of the Communist Party’s leading role in society, the ejection of the party from major policymaking, its ideological and organisational unravellling, the formation in it of factions, careerists’ and national separatists’ penetration of the leadership of the party and state as well as the party and power structures of the republics, and the political conversion of the group headed by Gorbachev and their shift to the position of elimination of the Communist Party and the Soviet state.” Id.

“It’s worth pointing out that Gorbachev never put much meat on the bones of ‘democratisation’. With hindsight, it’s obvious that his use of the term reflected an ideological concession to western capitalism; that he had come to believe that the Soviet Union should aspire to the political norms defined in Western Europe and the US. Such thinking neglects a number of factors that should be well understood by any Marxist:

  1. ‘Free speech’ in the advanced capitalist countries is essentially a piece of attractive icing beneath which lies a bitter cake of plutocratic repression. Via its monopolisation of the mass media, the ruling class dominates the field of ideas almost comprehensively. There is a level of debate and criticism, but only of a few individual policies and not of systemic features of capitalism. As Chomsky famously put it: “The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum”.27
  2. The political freedoms available in the west are much constrained owing to the correlation between wealth and power. Ordinary citizens have the right to vote, but their choice is nearly always restricted to two or three pro-capitalist, pro-imperialist parties, between which there is little substantive difference (so rare is the appearance of a meaningfully different option within mainstream politics, that when it happens it sends the ruling class into a frenzy of confusion, as is being witnessed at the moment with the rise of the Labour left under the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn). Actual power is monopolised by the wealthy, and challenging it can be extremely dangerous, as is evidenced by the treatment of Irish Republicans that have served time in Britain’s colony in the north of Ireland, or the many longstanding black, Puerto Rican and indigenous political prisoners in the US who have spent decades behind bars on account of their struggle for equality and human rights.
  3. In a context of ongoing class struggle waged by the working class of a socialist country against its internal enemies (those that want to restore feudalism or capitalism) and its external enemies (the leading capitalist countries that will inevitably work to destabilise a socialist country), a level of political repression is an unhappy necessity; this is elaborated in the article on ideological deterioration28 in relation to Khrushchev’s denunciation of Stalin. The needs of the few – to get fantastically rich – can’t be allowed to compromise the needs of the many to enjoy a dignified, peaceful and fulfilling life.” Id.

“Szymanski describes “a few basic assumptions of Soviet society” that were not debated in the press: socialism as a system, communism as a goal, and the leading role of the Communist Party. “These issues are considered to have been settled once and for all and public discussion of them is considered by the regime to be potentially disruptive of popular rule.” This is consistent with Fidel Castro’s famous formula: “Within the revolution, everything; against the revolution, nothing.” These basic assumptions of socialism can be compared with the basic assumptions of capitalism: the supremacy of private property; profit as the major engine of economic activity; exploitation of labour as the source of profit. Id.

“Dissidents and anticommunists were appointed as editors of newspapers and magazines, and were given carte blanche to use their publications to openly attack the basic ideas of socialism and the whole nature of the Soviet system. “Liberal intellectuals were named to run Ogonyok, Sovetskaya Kultura, Moscow News, Znamya, and Novy Mir… The top political leadership had actually given editors, journalists, writers, and economists freedom to write as they wished, using the mass media as their vehicle.” Id.

“Added to all this was the fact that Gorbachev and his allies decided to end restrictions on foreign propaganda, for example putting an end to the jamming of Radio Liberty– a generously-funded propaganda arm of the CIA, focused on spreading anticommunist lies around the socialist countries of Europe. So Gorbachev’s idea of “improving socialism” was in fact based on bulldozing its structures and legacy.

The attack on the party went so far that Fidel Castro, in December 1989, at an event commemorating the 2,000-plus Cubans who died in the course of their heroic internationalist duties in Angola, was moved to remark:

It’s impossible to carry out a revolution or conduct a rectification without a strong, disciplined and respected party. It’s not possible to carry out such a process by slandering socialism, destroying its values, discrediting the party, demoralising its vanguard, abandoning its leadership role, eliminating social discipline, and sowing chaos and anarchy everywhere. This may foster a counter-revolution – but not revolutionary change… It is disgusting to see how many people, even in the Soviet Union itself, are engaged in denying and destroying the history-making feats and extraordinary merits of that heroic people. That is not the way to rectify and overcome the undeniable errors made by a revolution that emerged from tsarist authoritarianism in an enormous, backward, poor country. We shouldn’t blame Lenin now for having chosen tsarist Russia as the place for the greatest revolution in history.” Id.

Gorbachev then began a full scale assault on reducing the power of the CPSU, the communist party, in an attempt to consolidate his own power. But by weakening the party he left there no gatekeepers of communism in the society. The party had always been the heart of the worker’s revolution and the keepers of the spirit of Marxism. Once it was destroyed the system was doomed.

In China they did the opposite. There was no criticism of the party. All attempts were made to preserve the power of the communist party. There was no trashing Mao or the founders of the government. There was no obsession with supposed crimes committed by the leaders. Economic reforms were slowly rolled out, and with careful deliberation and consultation with economic planners and members of the party. Serious attempts to reduce corruption and maintain ideological purity were made. Market reforms were introduced, but the economy remained primarily a planned economy. The government controls over 75% of the businesses and has party cells in most. Plans are made to develop future industries, such as high tech, solar energy, A.I., robotics, automation, and others.

Money was put into improving the educational system. The reforms were enormously successful. The economy has grown so quickly that it will overtake the U.S. by 2032. The standard of living for all Chinese people has risen.[1]

A Marxist Leninist state is a socialist bridge toward achieving full communism. We lack the technological ability to eliminate most forms of labor. Our levels of automation are limited. Scarcity of resources still remains a reality. In capitalist societies the real power lies with those who own the means of production. Wealth is power. Wealth is freedom.

In the U.S. and other bourgeois democracies there is no effective “freedom of speech” because there is self censorship built into the structure of the system. In fact, the corporate mainstream media has tight informal restrictions on free speech.

There are unofficial “filters” by which the prevailing values of the capitalist system are promoted. Therefore, there is no need to censor anything. In fact, it is more believable when it is not censored. Nothing seems more authentic than someone tells you something they actually believe.

“Manufacturing Consent,” a documentary about the Chomsky Herman propaganda model

The other issue is concision and drawing the boundaries of discussion ahead of time. This is important.

Most of this was described by Noam Chomsky and Ed Hermann in Manufacturing Consent.

  1. The mainstream media is owned by a few very large multinational corporations. These corporations are interconnected with other areas of the economy.
  2. These mainstream media outlets are not going to voice opinions which hurt the business of their owners.

3. Advertisers pay for individual programs. If something is said that offends the advertisers, such as something that will cause a public outcry, then advertisers pull their support, and a show will be cancelled.

4. Journalists and media personalities are hired based on their adherence to the underlying assumptions of the corporate system. For example, a reporter who is a hard core communist or Islamic extremist is not going to be hired, because they might say things that offend people and the advertisers. So this filter acts as a way to keep dissent away.

5. News shows are called “content.” They exist to keep people watching them so advertisers can market their products. Real news isn’t important so much as getting people to view the ads. So the media gravitates toward stories that get attention, such as violence, fearmongering, anger, and things that are entertaining.

6. Your average person goes to work and comes home. He or she isn’t interested in checking the foreign press, double checking sources, and seeing independent media. He or she passively listens. If the source is something like NPR for liberals or Fox News for conservatives, they go along with it. They have “trust” in that news source. But watching the stuff that they are saying and checking it shows how unreliable, propaganda filled, and sensationalized it actually is.

In fact, a study was done that showed that viewers of Fox News were actually less informed than those who didn’t watch.

And this is not to say that Fox News is the only bad one and others are ok. Far from it. Recently the BBC was covering the coup in Venezuela. They reported the large crowds as being “anti-Maduro supporters.” In fact, all other media outlets revealed that the protesters were out because it was a national holiday commemorating their freedom. NPR during the 2016 election was predicting the morning of the election that Hillary Clinton had a 78% chance of victory. They were even guessing who the cabinet picks might be.

All media has some bias.

Chomsky also talked about a thing called “concision.” This means that because there is only so much time between commercials on news programs to squeeze in content, they could only have guests that spoke about things which contained conventional wisdom because explaining real alternatives would take too much time.

Another failed technique is the media using “balance.” This means having two opposing viewpoints, even if the opposing viewpoint is not considered valid. This is designed to give the viewer the idea that the journalism is fair and balanced. But it really just legitimizes views which are not equal to what is actually true. Consider climate change. The vast majority of scientists believe climate change is real. Yet the news media presents the views of some skeptics who in real scientific circles aren’t taken seriously.

Actually getting the truth is a lot of work. You have to look at several sources, including the foreign press, independent media, and synthesize all this information to find the truth. It is not something most people want to do with their busy lives. But the danger is that they will become propagandized and ill informed. And this leads to a serious erosion of our democracy. Voters must be aware to vote for the right people and push their elected representatives in the right direction. If not, dangerous demagogues with simple answers to complex problems can exploit them. These people becomes Presidents, and this can be a dangerous situation.

Sadly, in the U.S. the political parties also act as filters to promote candidates that serve the needs of the capitalist military-industrial complex. The media often ignores independent candidates, so voters then ignore them. Then you have an ignorant populace picking candidates for the wrong reasons while the rich elites laugh all the way to the bank.

In Summary

China seems to do a very reasonable job of maintaining the right balance between protecting the masses against Western bourgeois propaganda and promoting lively debate.

In the U.S., “freedom of speech” only applies to the prosecution by the government against a person for violating “free speech” laws. Private actors like social media companies—i.e. Facebook, Twitter, etc. provide no “freedom of speech” whatsoever. Private employers can also restrict certain forms of speech in the workplace, as they are not governmental actors. Corporations are unelected, unaccountable, private tyrannies. They are hierarchical private power structures which control the U.S. economy. Large corporations and the oligarchs of the U.S. own and operate the entire system.

In the U.S. and Western capitalist nations journalist and public speech which threatens the power of the elites is punished very harshly. For example, the persecution of Julian Assange, Chelsea Manning, and Edward Snowden has been shameful.

Western “democracies” also have very harsh informal punishments for anyone who is caught saying something offensive in public. For example, the celebrity Roseanne Barr had a few too many beers and posted some offensive racist jokes. Her lucrative television program was cancelled and she was immediately blacklisted. The career of Michael Richards, former “Seinfeld” character “Kramer” found his career destroyed after he lost his temper while being heckled during a stand up comedy performance. Chris Matthews, a journalist on TV for decades with his own show was also forced into retirement for making the wrong offhand comments on air. The owners of the U.S., the corporations, don’t want to associate themselves with anything which might reduce their profits and harm their “brand.”

The brilliance of the Western bourgeois “democratic” system is that most of the journalists are true believers. If they were they wouldn’t have been promoted to their positions. The narrative of Western “democracy” moves the entire system forward. And that narrative is born of the capitalist system and the modes of production. The belief systems of the bourgeoisie become the basis for the belief systems of the whole system.

Is it whataboutism?

No. The reason I mention the nature of Western “democratic” free speech is that the modes of production really determine the nature of public speech. If you permit unbridled public speech in a Marxist Leninist state you are going to see a weakening of that system. In a capitalist system “free speech” is an afterthought because self censorship, corporate control of media, wealth inequality, and other informal “filters” protect the capitalist system and enable the narrative to continue effectively while the people remain soundly propagandized against socialism and even voting for their own interests.

A Marxist Leninist system should be as such:

“Szymanski describes “a few basic assumptions of Soviet society” that were not debated in the press: socialism as a system, communism as a goal, and the leading role of the Communist Party.

“These issues are considered to have been settled once and for all and public discussion of them is considered by the regime to be potentially disruptive of popular rule.”

This is consistent with Fidel Castro’s famous formula: “Within the revolution, everything; against the revolution, nothing.” These basic assumptions of socialism can be compared with the basic assumptions of capitalism: the supremacy of private property; profit as the major engine of economic activity; exploitation of labour as the source of profit.”

Footnotes[1] Alexander Finnegan’s answer to Has Russia been able to fully pull away from communism?

Is Barack Obama the most influential President in U.S. history?

Absolutely not.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt, “FDR,” served the longest number of presidential terms. He became President during the height of the Great Depression, which lasted years and devastated the American people. The poverty was crushing. Meanwhile, fascism arose in Italy, Germany, and Spain. Imperial Japan was ready for war. The implications of FDR’s choices had a monumental effect in determining the post war world.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt

The Great Depression

FDR was up to the task. Despite being a paraplegic from polio he created the New Deal to repair the nation’s infrastructure and put people back to work. As Britain was about to fall to the Germans the U.S. entered WWII after Pearl Harbor.

Pearl Harbor

FDR also approved the development of the atomic bomb, which would forever change the face of total war.

The meeting of the Allied leaders at Yalta during WWII—Churchill, FDR, and Stalin.

Barack Obama was President during the 2008 Great Recession. His stimulus program helped prevent another depression. His major policy achievement was the Affordable Care Act, which greatly increased the number of Americans with medical insurance, saving lives.

America was in crisis during the Obama period. But Obama’s main legacy was to continue the neoliberal capitalist system which he had inherited. He also expanded the role of the imperial presidency. Obama engaged in thousands of drone strikes around the world. The U.S. also supported the disastrous coup in Libya, upending the Quaddafi government and causing Libya to be a failed state.

Quaddafi was leader of Libya for 40 years, and was the wealthiest and most successful African nation until it was destroyed.

In Libya there are public slave auctions thanks to the U.S. backed coup which killed Quaddafi. Some people even find it hilarious:

And if you aren’t convinced yet, consider the Presidency of Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln’s leadership and strength held the nation together during the bloody American Civil War. There would be no United States but for Lincoln’s leadership.

Abraham Lincoln

Brigadier General Gregg with his staff, near Fredricksburg, 1862. Colorized.

They didn’t. Only Pol Pot’s regime was guilty of this. And based on his actual deeds it is clear Pol Pot wasn’t actually a Marxist Leninist, aka “communist,” either.

Lenin and Stalin radically increased literacy and provided free universal education. Stalin himself encouraged the building of engineering schools so the Soviet Union could industrialize, modernize, and arm itself against a potential German or Japanese invasion. You don’t lead the Space Race by exterminating all of your educated people.

Mao Zedong and his revolution also increased literacy and provided universal education. Mao also wanted to modernize as quickly as possible to defend the nation against imperial attacks. The purpose of the Cultural Revolution was to increase the public engagement of the masses, educate the youth about socialism, and enable the oppressed peasants to vent their frustrations with the former landlords who had oppressed them. They didn’t “kill all the educated people.”

Castro, Ho Chi Minh, and other communist revolutionary leaders were friends of education, not enemies.

Perhaps you are thinking about the U.S., which sponsored Operation Condor, a CIA operation which enabled right wing dictators to round up, torture, and exterminate working class intellectuals, communists, Catholic priests, and other opponents to the U.S. enabling neoliberal capitalism throughout Latin America to maintain its economic domination of “it’s backyard,” as the Monroe Doctrine so goes. Or maybe the political imprisonment of Julian Assange, a journalist who has exposed the horrors of the U.S. empire.

This is how the U.S. treats its dissident journalists:

The U.S. of KKKA is the Evil Empire. No question.

Are most people justified that communism scares the hell out of them?

No, they’re not. They have been taught to fear the communist bogeyman for a reason—because it serves their capitalist masters.

Communism never killed 100 million people.[1] Most of the propaganda developed against communism and the Soviet Union was first developed by Goebbels and the Nazis.[2] Communism took a semi feudal, agrarian, illiterate peasant nation and within 40 years it had defeated Hitler, dramatically raised the living standard and life expectancy, became the second largest industrial economy and a superpower, and was leading the Space Race. In China, Mao Zedong had also taken a semi feudal, agrarian, illiterate and drug addicted, superstitious peasant nation and unified it, ended slavery, drove out the Japanese, and laid the foundation for modern China.

66% of Russians regret the breakup of the Soviet Union.[3]

Footnotes[1] Alexander Finnegan’s answer to What is the most biased book you’ve ever read?[2] Alexander Finnegan’s answer to How true is the claim that most Cold War propaganda about the Soviet Union is regurgitated directly from Nazi propaganda?[3] Russian nostalgia for Soviet Union reaches 13-year high