SOCIALISM: THE ULTIMATE EVIL
Dana
SOCIALISM: THE ULTIMATE EVIL
By Balint Vazsonyi
[First published July 15, 1997 in The Washington Times, under the title:
"Behind the benign masks of socialism"]
PBS has begun to air a documentary series under the title "Russia's War:
Blood Upon the Snow." Surprisingly, judging by an early segment, a belated
exposure of Soviet bestiality under Stalin is on the minds of the makers.
Belated, because the facts have been available since 1956 at the latest.
Surprising, because American television generally conveys the sense - more
and more each year - that Communists were martyrs, that the Soviet Union
really meant well, and that anyone disagreeing with that view was either
senile (President Reagan) or a pathological bigot (Senator Joseph McCarthy).
I must be forgiven for a measure of suspicion. It is not easy to believe
that, of all networks, PBS would suddenly have a complete change of heart
about Communism. I will therefore speculate about the real purpose of the
series, with every intention of happily eating my words in the event of
being wrong.
Not one, but two warning signals go off. The first is about World War II
which, it appears, is a major focus of the series. There has been an
unmistakable tendency in our media (culminating around the 50th anniversary
of VE-Day) to chronicle the victory as largely the accomplishment of the Red
Army, underplaying - if not ignoring altogether - the role of Britain and
the United States. One wonders if our journalists ever visited the American
graves, stretching as far as the eye can see, on the Western shores of
Europe. One wonders if our journalists have heard of the Battle of Britain
that broke the back of Luftwaffe, the German air force. That made all the
difference for the Red Army, since the Soviets had no air force of their
own.
The second alarm bell has been ringing since about 1994, when the Russians
first put out word that they, too, were "victims of Communism." Could the
PBS series, made with the wholesale participation and cooperation of the
Russian Government, aim to hammer home just such a notion? Incessant
references by the narrator to Stalin as "the Georgian" would point in that
direction. Hitler, we are reminded, was Austrian. Yet, in 1945 and since, no
one has sought to absolve Germany and Germans of their culpability. Not even
the Germans themselves.
What harm, I hear you ask, can possibly come from the exposure of horrendous
crimes, properly documented at last? The first concern has to do with the
confusion already surrounding the word "communism." Technically speaking,
Communism is simply the final phase, the ultimate goal of Socialism. In
other words, it is a variant of Socialism. So is what we call Nazism. "Nazi"
is short for National Socialist, merely another variant of Socialism. Stalin
ordered Nazis to be referred to as "Fascists" only to avoid the obvious
analogy with Soviet Socialism. Germans never were "fascists" - the Third
Reich was ruled by the National Socialist German Workers' Party.
Socialism, by whatever name and in all its forms, is the ultimate evil.
Sooner or later, it destroys everything in its path: law, morality, family,
prosperity, productivity, education, incentive - finally life itself.
Portraying Stalin as the cause of evil puts the cart before the horse.
Socialism creates the conditions for a Stalin; socialism creates the
conditions for a Hitler.
Socialism was much the same before and after Stalin, before and after
Hitler. In my native Hungary, a mere six months of Leninist rule during 1919
(years before Stalin) destroyed the national fabric to the point where its
legacy tears apart the country even today. Socialism remained the same under
Beria, Malenkov, Khrushchev, or Brezhnev. As for the murder of tens of
millions, the torture and the gratuitous cruelty, they may have been ordered
or sanctioned by leaders, but they were committed by people against other
people. Russians committed them, just like Germans or Japanese. And Russia
went on to enslave civilized nations with consequences we cannot as yet
assess.
Yes, Stalin and Hitler, the prize disciples of Lenin, were twins. So were
Communism and Nazism. In Budapest, when the Gestapo left, the NKVD (then
GPU) did not even bother to change the building in which the tortures and
murders took place. They kept the building, and the personnel.
Therefore, let us be clear about Stalin's role. He may have been top of the
heap, but no "lone ranger." And let us, also, assess accurately the role of
Russia's Red Army in the defeat of the Third Reich. Why did they fight? What
were they after?
When Hitler came to power, Russia remained firmly at Germany's side. Such a
tradition goes back many centuries, especially with reference to Poland - a
favorite plaything of Prussian kings and Russian Tsars. Only after Germany's
vicious attack on Russian civilians, as well as on the military, did Russian
blood boil to the point of an all-out campaign. Subsequently, pursuing the
enemy beyond their border provided feed for Russia's centuries-old appetite
for expansion.
Thus, the Red Army was motivated by the triple passions of defending the
beloved homeland, revenging unspeakable atrocities on its soil, and
conquering fresh rich territories for Mother Russia.
By contrast, America's armed forces in Europe defended the cause of liberty
for all. They responded to the suffering of others with righteous
indignation.
Above all, they gave their lives without any expectation of gain.
--
Because of their faith in the failed dogma of socialism, Democrats for years
now have had nothing to peddle to voters but fear, helplessness and class
envy. They have become a lie waiting to happen.
Brian Jones
Now you will get a bunch of posts from Americans who never lived under a
repressive regime explaining how you really don't understand what TRUE
socialism is. You see, they learned about it in a textbook and it makes
perfect sense in theory, you just gotta try it.
Curtis Plumb
Thirty Year War" chronicling our decline since the
election of JFK in 1960. Still in print, I believe.
Dana
"Brian Jones" <brian_j...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:M92W8.115036$Uu2.20523@sccrnsc03...
That is what I am expecting to happen.
>
>
>
Aleksandar Sarovic
"Dana" <raf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:uihsc5s...@corp.supernews.com...
So here we go. TRUE socialism is the only possible future of mankind.
--
Aleksandar Sarovic
www.sarovic.com
Smiley
unchanging. But you cannot equalize humans by dragging everyone up to the
level of the elite, only by shoving everyone down to the level of the
savage. Not everyone is capable of greatness; they lack the talent,
intelligence, and mentality. However, everyone is capable of going down, of
turning off their minds, leaving talents undeveloped, not fulfilling their
potential. They can be convinced, fooled, and forced into the lowest level.
You cannot convince someone of low intelligence to be of high. You cannot
put a gun to the head of a savage and get genius, but you can beat a genius
into savagery. If leftists were truly about compassion and care and
providing for the starving and sick they would have no problem with church's
involvement. They claim this would be mixing church and state, starting
from the premise that it is the government's duty to care for the "needy".
Thus revealing their true agenda to take wealth out of the hands of
individuals and give it to those incapable of creating it, to level everyone
off to the bottom rung so that there are no threats.
Those above the savage level of existence turn to subjectivism as a result
of the fear of death. Human beings were the first animal capable of
contemplating its own death, to conceptualize non-being. Humans were also
the first animals to develop a volitional consciousness. The result of the
intense survival instinct, and a complex and volitional consciousness has
created quite a problem. Humans are able to choose but no choice will get
them around their inevitable end. We are all afraid to die and we hate what
we fear. Mystics of spirit have created an after life or rebirth in order
to manage this fear. Some people choose to make other's lives more
important and sacrifice themselves in an attempt to merge with all human
life and make their life, and thus their death, not the death of an
individual but the death of a tiny piece of the whole.
"Curtis Plumb" <ero...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:3D28BBCB...@adelphia.net...
Curtis Plumb
Smiley wrote:
>
> Those above the savage level of existence turn to subjectivism as a result
> of the fear of death. Human beings were the first animal capable of
> contemplating its own death, to conceptualize non-being. Humans were also
> the first animals to develop a volitional consciousness. The result of the
> intense survival instinct, and a complex and volitional consciousness has
> created quite a problem. Humans are able to choose but no choice will get
> them around their inevitable end. We are all afraid to die and we hate what
> we fear. Mystics of spirit have created an after life or rebirth in order
> to manage this fear. Some people choose to make other's lives more
> important and sacrifice themselves in an attempt to merge with all human
> life and make their life, and thus their death, not the death of an
> individual but the death of a tiny piece of the whole.
The fear of dying, when not driven by the specter of pain and suffering,
is better described as the fear of the unknown. "Where will I be after I
die?" A rational person can only answer, "I don't know." An irrational
person, unable to tolerate not knowing, turns to others for "knowledge."
Now he knows he will be in Heaven and he feels better. But in order
to keep his faith in this "knowledge," he has to scramble his rational
faculty, and the result is a wider form of unease. By succumbing to his
fear and short-circuiting his reasoning, he sets up doubts about his
ability to count on reason when he faces future frightening situations.
Thus, fear has become his master; logic and reason are dispensable.
"You'll never walk alone" means you don't *dare* walk alone.
Cannabis_Demon
news:5s6W8.762$c_2.2...@news20.bellglobal.com:
The first lunatic speaks. Is anyone suprised.
Robert S
Though this may not really be the appropriate newsgroup(s), I would like to
add these comments as a reply.
Just like Hitler, Lenin was a politician who wore the banner of "socialism"
like american politicians who wear the banner of "God Bless America" today.
It was quite popular in those places and times with the majority of people.
Just because a person claims to be a socialist (or of some other ideology),
that doesn't make them a person who practices socialism. There's a big
difference between socialism and fascism. In fact, the effects of
capitalism (like social darwinism) resembles fascism much more than
socialism.
In fact, the idea of socialism, by John Rawls' accounts of the early 1800's,
was about communally owning property and banning private property. That has
its advantages when resources and products are very scarce. It has its
obvious disadvantages as well. BTW, John Rawls didn't think socialism was
very practical.
Since then, the ideas and even the definitions of socialism has evolved. In
North Carolina, there are democratic socialists who believe in the idea of
private property ownership, but some (if not all) natural resources should
either remain public or become regulated so that the majority (rather than
the rich minority) of people benefit (financially as owners and consumers)
from the extraction of natural resources. The current focus of democratic
socialists (of which, many believe in a democratic-republic style government
as being the best form of government) is returning more power to the people
rather than allowing the hoarding of power by big business.
Robert S
rob...@hotmail.com
Stuart Burns
news:5s6W8.762$c_2.2...@news20.bellglobal.com...
Not in my life time - or yours, I'll see to that if it is the only way.
Aleksandar Sarovic
"Stuart Burns" <sab...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:npIW8.1954$9U1.9...@news20.bellglobal.com...
Well, I have to agree with you on that. Unfortunately a lot of wars and
destructions are going to come before the people finds out what must be
done.
--
Aleksandar Sarovic
www.sarovic.com
Xoa
It's always struck me as strange that Democrats seem to align Republicans
with Hitler-esque tactics and beliefs (Aryan nation), and yet believe so
hardily in Russia, the motherland. Blacking out Stalin's dark deeds has been
a labour of the media for many years. I too am surprised by PBS, but not too
much. I'm sure there is some ulterior motive behind it, some perspective
against Americans that they must be driving at.
I do have one question for you, however: You said about World War II: "Only
after Germany's vicious attack on Russian civilians, as well as on the
military, did Russian blood boil to the point of an all-out campaign." Why
did the Germans attack the Russians in the first place? I am unfamiliar with
that moment of history. Why would Hitler stab his socialist friend to the
east?
Xoa
Brian Jones
nation(germany) and the Slavic nations, and he figued that 1941 was the
ideal time to strike, while the iron was hot.
Dana
"Xoa" <xoas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:xo5X8.22350$fH5.22...@kent.svc.tds.net...
Looking at Hitler. He was a socialist, and his gvt was socialist/fascist in
nature. Hence the Russians were really nothing more than competition for
Hitler from ruling all. While the Russian government was very similar in
ideology to the German government, i.e they were rooted in
Marxism/socialism, Hitler wanted it all, with no other as his equal. The
fact that the Russians were already under a socialist form of gvt just made
it easier for Hitler to attack. Hitler was not expecting the Russians to
fight back.
>
> Xoa
>
>
Aleksandar Sarovic
> Hitler envisioned an invetable war to the death between the Aryan
> nation(germany) and the Slavic nations, and he figued that 1941 was the
> ideal time to strike, while the iron was hot.
>
Hitler was a national socialist, in short nazi, only because the name was
very fashionable in those time. Germans were very wounded after WWI so that
name "national" was adorable, socialism stood for equality and that was the
reason he got voters. Behind a nice proclamation there was a totalitarian
system Germans did not see. He was simply crazy. Hitler would attack even
Australia if he could reach it. That is it.
You readers probably believe a new Hitler would never come to power. I think
he is already there, smarter then the previous one because he does not show
up, he rules totally invisibly. He is also much more successful then the
previous one because he occupied Moscow and even Australia. In this moment
he works hard to take control over Africa, have you heard about the African
Union? Only big corporations owned by a new Hitler may benefit from it. What
may be result when somebody takes power over the whole world is not hard to
get, it happened many times over a smaller area. Add to that the limited
resources and will get unlimited wars where possibly each man might fight
each man and each nation will fight each nation. The only solution is
socialism, the ultimate good.
--
Aleksandar Sarovic
www.sarovic.com
Matt Beckwith
> The fear of dying, when not driven by the specter of pain and suffering,
> is better described as the fear of the unknown. "Where will I be after I
> die?" A rational person can only answer, "I don't know." An irrational
> person, unable to tolerate not knowing, turns to others for "knowledge."
> Now he knows he will be in Heaven and he feels better. But in order
> to keep his faith in this "knowledge," he has to scramble his rational
> faculty, and the result is a wider form of unease. By succumbing to his
> fear and short-circuiting his reasoning, he sets up doubts about his
> ability to count on reason when he faces future frightening situations.
> Thus, fear has become his master; logic and reason are dispensable.
> "You'll never walk alone" means you don't *dare* walk alone.
Curtis, this is an interesting little essay. (I don't know what it has to
do with socialism, but it's interesting!)
I like your idea that we give up rational thought out of fear. So true.
Regarding fear of death, I suspect that fear of death is not fear of what
happens after death, but fear of the dying process itself. Imagine that you
cannot breathe. Every fiber of your being wants to breathe, but you can't.
That's what most people think dying is like. Who would want to experience
that?
The desire to believe in an after-life probably has multiple motivations.
One is the fear of dying. Another is the desire for meaning. If there's no
life after death, what meaning can life have?
Curtis Plumb
I was responding to the previous post which ruminated
about the fear of death. The first sentence in my "essay"
sets aside the obvious fear of pain and suffering, to
take a jab at the mystical expectation of the "other
world" which beckons, offering a form of paradise or
the promise of seeing deceased loved ones. If someone
feels his life has no meaning, and believes that life
after death will provide it, why wouldn't he take steps
to cross over to the other side instead of enduring the
misery of an empty existence?
Matt Beckwith
"Curtis Plumb" <ero...@adelphia.net> wrote
> I was responding to the previous post which ruminated
> about the fear of death. The first sentence in my "essay"
> sets aside the obvious fear of pain and suffering, to
> take a jab at the mystical expectation of the "other
> world" which beckons, offering a form of paradise or
> the promise of seeing deceased loved ones. If someone
> feels his life has no meaning, and believes that life
> after death will provide it, why wouldn't he take steps
> to cross over to the other side instead of enduring the
> misery of an empty existence?
You mean commit suicide? An interesting suggestion.
All this only goes to show that religion is the ruling class' way of
controlling the masses. If life after death is so wonderful, why not commit
suicide and go there sooner? The answer is that then you couldn't stick
around and be a loyal subject.
In fact, the motivation to be a good person shouldn't rest on after-life
reward. Being good is reward in itself. It's the natural--and
enlightened--way to be. Of course, that's humanism, not religion.