by Armando Simón (April 2019)
Are We Making A New World?, Paul Nash, 1918
One might have thought, after the collapse of the Soviet Empire and the horrific revelations of the Gulag, the Pol Pot killing fields, and the Cultural Revolution’s Red Guards, that Marxism was one less nightmare that humanity had to worry about. Unfortunately, this is not the case. In some European countries such as Italy and France, Russia and Greece, the Communist parties command a large following (part of the problem is recent economic crises—during the Great Depression the Communists and Fascists proliferated). Several years ago, the Occupy Wall Street movement was glorified by the media hivemind.
If, after all the facts are known, there are still individuals here and there who also admire The Third Reich and its Nazis, the same is to be expected of The Evil Empire or any of its copycats (though some certainly do so simply for shock value). There are some important differences, however. First, aside from Jews and Communists, nobody really takes the so-called neo-Nazi threat seriously and, although they may become alarmed over a report that there is a “growing” threat because membership in a particular neo-Nazi party in a particular country may have gone up from twenty to twenty-five, the majority of people simply shrug their shoulders. The Jews’ reaction is perfectly understandable but, with the Communists, the theatrical hysteria is simply a method of recruitment as they market themselves as the bulwark against a Fourth Reich (conveniently forgetting that from 1939 to 1941, the Nazis and Communists became allied for the purpose of carving up Europe between them—but that fact is part of That Which Must Never Be Mentioned). The second difference is that Marxism is the opium of the intellectual and because these Marxist and proto-Marxist intellectuals are deeply entrenched in universities, in the film industries and in various media outlets, they have once again become a real danger as they resume their tactics of falsifying historical facts, suppressing anything (from literature to art to news to historical facts) that they disagree with and promoting totalitarian ideology through indoctrination, so that they are, once again, poisonous.
One of the interesting things about the new Marxists is that very few seem to have actually read Das Kapital. Ronald Reagan once famously quipped that a Communist is one who has read Marx and Lenin while an anti-Communist is one who understands Marx and Lenin.
Another characteristic of these individuals, one pointed out by both Arthur Koestler and Conway Zirkle but long overlooked by the rest of us, is that, for Marxists, Marxism is a religion. In spite of claims that Marxism is scientific and decisions by Marxists are objective, the religious character of the doctrine is obvious. For example, God is replaced by History, and Marxists speak of the “judgment of history” upon political, social, artistic, and scientific decisions (history seems to have already rendered judgment on Marxism, but Marxists do not appear to be overly concerned). A red flag should go up if anyone accuses a politician of being “on the wrong side of history.”
Their willingness to accept the dictates coming down from The Party, no matter how absurd (witness the Stalin show trials and the alliance between the Nazis and Communists, for example) is similar to the willingness of the Islamic fanatics to believe equally absurd fatwas (such as the decrees that soccer shorts for men or tomatoes are un-Islamic).
And just as fundamentalist Muslims, Jews, or Christians will pull quotes from their holy writings to “prove” a point
—so did Marxists pull quotes from Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Kim, or Che to promote a certain issue. Sometimes this cherry-picking of quotes became truly absurd; during the Cultural Revolution, surgeons would read from Quotations from Chairman Mao prior to surgery; Lysenko would quote Stalin or Marx to “prove” a scientific argument.
Communists are generally completely ignorant about even the most basic concepts of economics. Marxists tend to be lawyers, philosophers, historians, journalists, authors, sociologists, political science majors, i.e., intellectuals adept at arguing sophistries, that black is white and up is down, in short who are proficient at verbal games. George Orwell described the Marxist intellectuals that he knew as half gangster, half gramophones. A distinction must be made between intellectuals on the one hand and scientists and artists on the other (incidentally, very, very few reputable scientists or artists have been Marxists; totalitarianism is ipso facto the antithesis of creativity). Mention basic economic terms like the Pareto efficiency, Cournot duopoly, or Marginalist theory and Marxists will stand there, open mouthed, with a glazed look on their faces. Indeed, it is no accident that the Nobel Prize for Economics has never gone to a Marxist. Yet, these same individuals will insist that they will set the economy of their country right, if only power is handed over to them. And if one pays attention to what they say—really pays attention—their economic program consists simply of, “First, we’ll kill all the rich people and take their belongings. Then, we’ll kill the middle class and take their belongings. And that will solve all of society’s problems.”
And that is the extent of their economic plan. Which is precisely the reason why Marxists have consistently wrecked the economy of their countries and starved the population. Furthermore, note that while preaching an egalitarian society, their implementation involves not in bringing up everyone to an adequate thriving standard of living, but in bringing everyone down to the worst possible standard of living (except for themselves, of course, the Nomenklatura).
Now, I would like to put Marxist theory to the test. All reputable theories, in order not to be discarded, cannot be disproven. That is, a truism of all scientific theories—and, remember, Marxism claims to be scientific—is that it must be put to the test and if even one fact, one experiment, goes against the theory, that theory must, perforce, be discarded. This is axiomatic in science. Once again, I cannot overemphasize this principle.
The core proposition of Marxism is that the imposition of Marxism improves the lives of human beings. Now, let us look at the record.
Communist dominion was established in Russia, China, Mongolia, North Korea, Vietnam, Hungary, Laos, Cambodia, Cuba, Estonia, Poland, Ukraine, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Albania, Germany, Lithuania, Romania, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Latvia, Armenia, Uzbekistan, Tadzhikistan, Tibet, Kazakhstan, Grenada, Turkmenistan, Ethiopia and Kyrgyzstan. 28 countries. 28 case studies. 28 experiments.
Each location had its own customs, history, languages, geography—none of which are supposed to matter, anyway, according to the doctrine.
In every single instance, the standard of living—in every level of society—plummeted. It did not improve the lives of the people.
In every single instance, while proclaiming itself to be truly egalitarian, a privileged aristocracy—what in Yugoslavia Djilas called The New Class and in Russia was called the Nomenklatura—came into being, composed entirely of members of the Communist Party. While many Ukrainians and Chinese and Cambodians and Ethiopians and North Koreans starved to death with their skin barely covering their skeletons, the new class feasted on fish, fruit, meats and all sorts of imported delicacies.
In every single instance, Marxists wrecked the economy and the production of consumer goods plummeted in both quantity and quality. Long lines of people, stretching for several street blocks, waited for their turn to purchase a shirt, or a pair of shoes, or rolls of toilet paper, or a can of powder milk. This was a daily occurrence. The Communist aristocracy, mind you, never waited on lines, but obtained as many items as they wanted from stores that catered exclusively to the Marxist aristocracy. In the particular case of Cuba, the scarcity of consumer goods has always been blamed on the American embargo, but this is simply an excuse given by the government and its foreign sycophants; the Communists were directly responsible (as they were directly responsible in every single instance). In the case of Cuba, it is conveniently forgotten by their apologists that although one country has an embargo with Cuba, every other country in the world does not.
In every single instance, the Communists wrecked agriculture to the point that a rationing system had to be introduced (for the people, not for the Communist aristocracy). In Russia, China, North Korea and Cambodia, the famines became so intense that some of the people resorted to cannibalism. Neither the cannibals nor their food thought that Communism had improved their lives.
In every single instance, the rule of law vanished as the Party members murdered thousands, and tens of thousands, sometimes simply on a rumor. Property was either stolen, or destroyed. As Che Guevara stated, “To kill a man we don’t need proof of his guilt.”
In every single instance, with the exception of Yugoslavia, citizens were forbidden to travel, not only outside the country, but inside the country as well. Previously, and significantly, only serfs had had this restriction.
In every single instance, an all-pervasive militarism became the order of the day, so that even children were prepared to be thrown into battle as cannon fodder in order to protect the Communist aristocracy. Slavenka Draculic pointed out that women in Communist countries were in a humiliating situation because the government demanded the production of more and more tanks, but never even gave a thought to sanitary napkins for women.
In every single instance, a cult of personality sprang up (Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Che, Tito, Castro, Hoxha, Kim, Ceausescu, etc.), so that the psychotic dictator was deified to absurd lengths.
In every single instance, a vicious, repressive, secret police was created in order to suppress and control the people.
In every single instance, the people were spied upon constantly by the Communist government.
In every single instance, history and historical facts were deliberately falsified, often to an absurd degree.
In every single instance, film, art and literature were grotesquely warped as fanatical mediocrities dictated both style and content, the nonadherence of which resulted in executions.
In every single instance, science was distorted as mediocrities imposed their quackery and put forth a “Marxist biology,” a “Marxist psychology,” a “Marxist astronomy,” a “Marxist medicine,” a “Marxist chemistry,” etc., based on the sacred writings of Lenin, Marx, Stalin, Lysenko, etc. Similar happened in Nazi Germany with “German medicine,” “German physics,” “German psychology,” etc.
In every single instance, workers were ordered to “volunteer” to work extra hours, usually at no pay, or face execution while being told that workers had never had it so good.
In every single instance, theft and corruption were endemic as the people learned that since the government owned everything, the only way to survive was to steal from the government. Prostitution also skyrocketed for the same reason. This increase in prostitution and theft is particularly significant because Marxist orthodoxy decreed that the only reason that theft and prostitution existed in capitalist countries was because of the inequality between social classes.
In several countries, specifically Russia, Latvia, Estonia, Tibet, Lithuania and Cambodia, a horrific genocide took place at the behest of the Communist Party. The victims of this genocide, of course, did not think of themselves as better off under Communism.
In several countries, specifically East Germany, Poland, Hungary, Tibet, Cuba and Czechoslovakia, popular uprisings against the repressive Communist regime took place, which were put down through military means by the new aristocracy.
In East Germany and Romania, the governments revived the policy of slavery in that it literally sold individuals to the West.
Now, let us look at how Marxists have approached basic human rights.
Freedom of speech—abolished. Freedom of the press—abolished. Freedom of religion—abolished. Freedom to own a home—abolished. Freedom to own property—abolished. Freedom to travel—abolished. Freedom of assembly—abolished. Freedom to criticize the government—abolished. Freedom to read books and view films of one’s choosing—abolished. Freedom to grow food for oneself—abolished. Freedom to have privacy—abolished. Freedom to own a weapon—abolished. Freedom to have free elections—abolished. Freedom to educate one’s children without indoctrination—abolished.
Freedom to maintain one’s family—abolished. Freedom of workers to unionize—abolished.
In reviewing all of the above, we see then, that, historically, far from improving the lives of the people, Marxism actually has had a catastrophic effect on the lives of human beings. Further proof is the indisputable fact that in every Marxist country, the ruling class restricted emigration of the population. The Berlin Wall was, in fact, erected to prevent this mass exodus of the people, which was referred to as the “people voting with their feet.” Those who tried to escape but failed usually paid with their lives.
This is in stark contrast to the assertions of Marxist intellectuals and their writings. It is also true that one Marxist dictator may have repudiated the policies of another Marxist dictator (e.g., Stalin, Khrushchev, Hoxha, Mao, Ceausescu, etc.) as not being really what Marx and Lenin had envisioned, and being “revisionist” or “deviationist;” they then instituted policies which they believed were more in line with the sacred doctrine—only to come to the very same results, time and again. Modern day British, German, American, French, Greek, or Dutch intellectuals may claim the same, but one can rest assured that if given the chance to rule over us the end result would be identical.
Notice also that although non-Communist, autocratic, governments may have adopted some of the policies above (e.g., no elections or free press, or right to own weapons), none have adopted the entire repertoire that is so typical of Marxist regimes. And if we further look at both modern day capitalist and socialist European, North American, South American and Asian democratic countries, the contrast is even more stark and a citizen from these countries—who is not an intellectual—would have to have a death wish to follow any Marxist politician, intellectual, or organization.
Now, to paraphrase Slavoj Zizek, if you are a Marxist, you have to face these facts; you may not want to, but you have to. And, if you are a Marxist, you have to reconcile these facts with the ideology; you may not want to, but you have to. You cannot call yourself a Marxist and be taken seriously if you do not do so, because people will simply laugh in your face. Now, most Marxists do, indeed, ignore these facts and they closet themselves with other Marxists and play their verbal one-upmanship with each other by throwing around Marxist jargon, but no one else listens to them. Others take the truly bizarre alternative that none of the above took place; like the Holocaust deniers, they simply deny that anything wrong occurred. They simply refuse to believe any of the above facts. Not surprising since Marxists have a long record of distorting historical facts.
Now, considering how Marxists have infiltrated universities to undermine both scholarship and the society that they live in through indoctrination of naïve students, how do we get rid of this problem? After all, they will portray themselves as martyrs if we eject them and they will miraculously discover the concept of free speech and free press. The solution is actually very simple. Since Marxism has pretensions of being scientific whereas in reality it is a pseudoscience on a par with phrenology, mesmerism, parapsychology, legislators should enact laws that university professors who advocate/teach pseudoscience will not be subsidized by the state. After all, why should we waste our resources on professors who teach the science of phrenology, or Marxist history, or parapsychology, or Marxist sociology? A university is a place of learning, not of indoctrination with falsehoods.
I would like to conclude with one last illustration. I mentioned how Marxist doctrine claims to be “scientific.” There is one very basic characteristic of true science which is called a control group and although I have contrasted the policies of Communist regimes with those of normal societies, and I could detail the numerous differences between East and West Germany, a more modern picture will have a deeper impact than just words (“one picture is worth a thousand words”).
North and South Korea are two small countries, geographically identical, yet look at the contrast between them.
 I am speaking here of a true Nazi/neo-Nazi and not what is usually considered to be a neo-Nazi by a European or American leftist. A European or American leftist will automatically call anyone who disagrees with him on any topic a Fascist or a neo-Nazi; the topic may be anything from immigration control to foreign policy to crime control to holding detrimental opinions about any of their other sacred cows. This blurring is due to leftists’ penchant for distorting language and for hysterical demonization of anyone who disagrees with them.
 Two superb, yet much underrated books, are Ryskind’s Hollywood Traitors and Horowitz’s The Professors.
Orwell was the first to understand the intellectuals’ infatuation with Communist totalitarianism. He famously remarked of intellectuals’ embracing bizarre proposals that, “You have to be an intellectual to believe such nonsense. No ordinary man could be such a fool.” This observation is particularly timely in today’s universities.
 It was Eric Hoffer, the longshoreman turned writer who wrote the definite treatises on the intellectuals’ obsession with promoting totalitarianism in all of its manifestations. This has recently been followed up, equally impressively, by Thomas Sowell. It is revealing that although Hoffer was a blue collar worker and Sowell is black, which would ordinarily have qualified them for unlimited praise and adoration by leftists, both have been decisively ignored by them and their writings consigned to oblivion.
Yet, neither Sowell nor Hoffer noticed a peculiarity about these Marxist intellectuals, to wit, that for all of their supposed concern and compassion for the working class, very few, if any, socialize with blue collar workers. If any do so, they do the slumming on a very temporary basis, in a controlled environment, then scurry back to their ivory towers where they can exhale again and mingle with their peers, after which they will write another manifesto of sorts based on their “experience.” American leftist intellectuals have open contempt for these “rednecks,” who, remember, under other circumstances would be referred to as exploited or as working-class heroes. Plop them in a honky-tonk bar and these Marxist intellectuals will wet their pants.
Armando Simón is a retired forensic psychologist and author of A Prison Mosaic, The U, Orlando Stories, Wichita Women and numerous stage plays.
Follow NER on Twitter @NERIconoclast