Communism In The World

.. ginning a nationwide offensive against the peasantry. Unknown millions died as a result. However, his industrial campains of the late 1930s enabled the Soviet Union to rise to the foremost rank of industrial powers. It was also during this time that Stalin enacted the Great Terror which killed millions. Millions more were sent to concentration camps.

The fear of Stalin was carried out by his secret police called Komitet gosudarstvennoy bezopasnosti or KGB.Then an event happened that forever change the world’s view of the Soviet Union. That event would be known as World War II. Stalin personnally led the assault on Germany that eventually resulted in the end of the war. The choice now was what to do with the conquered land. Stalin decided that he wanted the eastern half of Germany while the Americans, British, and French would get the western half.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

It was with this that East Germany became the Deutsch Demokratik Republik or DDR. Along with its new form of communist government came the Berlin Wall which would be known as symbol of fear and imprisonment of the people all the way up to its destruction in 1989. The other countries liberated by Soviet armies also became influenced and controlled by the communist domination.Needless to say, the west was not happy. It was because of this displeasure that the Soviet Union and the United States would be involved in the Cold War for nearly the next 50 years. Although the U.S.S.R.

was now the largest country in the world, the United States was evenly matched with it. The U.S.A.’s citizens were learning to hate the Russians because of Senator McCarthy who wished to persecute all communists in the U.S. Through this continuing rivalry began a nucular arms race that would affect the world’s people even today. Along with this started the space race which has rapidly propelled mankind into the future.Would this all last? The answer is no. Some might say that its increasing struggle with the United States and its need for nuclear weapons caused its demise.

While others might say it was because of cruel leaders who killed their own citizens. What ever it was, the fact remains that the Soviet Union began to dissolve in September of 1991. President Mikhail Gorbachev, the leader of the U.S.S.R. ant the time, eased the transition. So it was on December 25, 1991 that the Soviet Union was officialy dismantled and the Russian Federation came into exsistence.

Its communist party remains today as a still vivrant source of political debate. A theory which advocates a state of society in which there should be no private ownership, all property being vested in the community and labour organized for the common benefit of all members; the professed principle being that each should work according to his capacity, and receive according to his wants. Any ideology based on the communal ownership of all property and a classless social structure, with economic production and distribution to be directed and regulated by means of an authoritative economic plan that supposedly embodies the interests of the community as a whole. In most versions of the communist utopia, everyone would be expected to co-operate enthusiastically in the process of production, but the individual citizen’s equal rights of access to consumer goods would be completely unaffected by his/her own individual contribution to production It was expected that such a radical reordering of the economic sphere of life would also more or less rapidly lead to the elimination of all other major social problems such as class conflict, political oppression, racial discrimination, the inequality of the sexes, religious bigotry, and cultural backwardness — as well as put an end to such more psychological forms of suffering as alienation, anomie, and feelings of powerlessness. The specifically Marxist-Leninist variant of socialism which emphasizes that a truly communist society can be achieved only through the violent overthrow of capitalism and the establishment of a dictatorship of the proletariat that is to prepare the way for the future idealized society of communism under the authoritarian guidance of a hierarchical and disciplined Communist Party. 1.

A world-wide revolutionary political movement inspired by the October Revolution (Red Oktober) in Russia in 1917 and advocating the establishment everywhere of political, economic, and social institutions and policies modeled on those of the Soviet Union (or, in some later versions, China or Albania) as a means for eventually attaining a communist society. a system of social organization in which property, particularly real property and the means of production, is held in common. With an uppercase C, the term refers to the movement that has sought to overthrow CAPITALISM through revolution. Forms of communism existed among various tribes of Native Americans, and it was espoused by early Christian sects. During the Middle Ages the MANORIAL SYSTEM provided communal use of the village commons and cultivation of certain fields, rights the peasants fought to retain in England (14th cent.) and Germany (16th cent.).

By the early 19th cent. the rise of capitalism, reinforced by the INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION, had created a new industrial class living and working under appalling conditions. Utopian socialists such as Robert OWEN and Charles FOURIER, anarchists such as P.J. PROUDHON, and revolutionaries such as Auguste Blanqui all favored some kind of communal solution to this poverty. In Germany Karl MARX and Friedrich ENGELS published the Communist Manifesto (1848), the primary exposition of the doctrine that came to be known as MARXISM. It postulated the inevitability of communism arising from class war, the overthrow of capitalism, and the creation of a classless society.

Marxism greatly influenced 19th-cent. SOCIALISM. The modern Communist political movement began when the Russian Social Democratic Labor party split (1903) into two factions (see BOLSHEVISM AND MENSHEVISM). The Bolsheviks, led by V.I. LENIN, called for armed revolution. After their triumph in the 1917 RUSSIAN REVOLUTION, the Bolsheviks formed the Communist party (1918), established a party dictatorship, and founded the COMINTERN (1919), which claimed leadership of the world socialist movement.

In the 1930s, Joseph STALIN’s policy of socialism in one country prevailed in the USSR, but after WORLD WAR II Stalin created satellite Communist states in Eastern Europe. The Chinese Communists (see CHINA), who triumphed in 1949, aided movements in Southeast Asia. U.S. opposition to these and other actions by Soviet, Chinese, and other Commmunists led to the COLD WAR, KOREAN WAR, VIETNAM WAR, and proxy wars elsewhere, particularly in Latin America and Africa. Economic difficulties, particularly shortages of food and other consumer goods, and the resurgence of NATIONALISM led to demands for reform and internal problems in Hungary (1956), Czechoslovakia (1968), and Poland (1956, 1981), and other Communist countries, and to the often violent suppression of protest.

In the 1960s Sino-Soviet relations deteriorated, and the Communist parties of Western and THIRD WORLD countries began to assert their independence of those two powers. Popular uprisings, economic collapse, and free elections ousted Communist governments in much of Eastern Europe in 1989 and 1990, and the failed hard-line coup against Soviet Pres. GORBACHEV led to the suspension of the Communist party in the USSR and the country’s subsequent disintegration in 1991. By the early 1990s traditional Communist party dictatorships held power only in China, Cuba, Laos, North Korea, and Vietnam. China, Laos, Vietnam, and, to a lesser degree, Cuba have reduced state control of the economy in order to stimulate growth. Communist parties, or their descendent parties, remain politically important in many Eastern European nations, in Russia and other nations of the former USSR, and elsewhere.

[See also: capitalism, socialism, ideology, egalitarianism] Comparative advantage Both communism and liberalism maintain with complete certainty that the destruction of the existing society will give birth to a new form of human existence at the least approaching utopia. They are what Daniel Chirot dubbed ‘tyrannies of certitude’. A particular group of people has been responsible for blocking the happy development for centuries. In the case of communism it was capitalists, in the case of liberalism it is ‘racists’ – nearly all of whom are of course white. No! One must be harsh to build the new society and not make excuses. All white people are ‘racists’ and must pay the inevitable penalty.

Few people know that the word ‘racism’ was invented by Leon Trotsky, one of the principal architects of the communist nightmare. The rightness of the cause dictates that a political architecture of lies rather than reasoned argument is permissible if necessary to bring about the result. Since no one will willingly give up their human identity, and that is what we are being asked to do, lies will, in fact, be indispensable. The communists aimed at eradicating ‘bourgeois consciousness’. The liberals are systematically eradicating our history and identity from schools to ensure pliancy before the onslaught of anti-white bias in everything from newspapers to employment law.

In this they are unlikely to succeed. The Russian and Yugoslav experience under communism has shown the persistency of racial and cultural identity. Doubters concerning the wisdom of the new arrangements are to be hunted down and destroyed – under communism they were dubbed capitalist spies and saboteurs, under liberalism it is ‘racists’ – a sound catch-all term of abuse for any white person opposing their own marginalisation. The ‘racists’ are well-organised and to blame for nearly everything which goes wrong according to authority, just like the ‘counter-revolutionaries, western spies and saboteurs’ in the heyday of communism. Under communism the newspapers would say ‘capitalist spy ring raided’. Under liberalism we read ‘police target racist groups’.

In both cases good citizens are to congratulate themselves on the skill and wisdom of the authorities in protecting them from disruptions to the relentless march towards paradise on earth so evident on Soviet collective farms and now in Britain’s inner-cities. If communism was not delivering the goods then even more stringent action was needed to eradicate the source of the trouble. Since it had been scientifically proven that communism would deliver, what possible other cause could there be for failure except disruption by malcontents? If people do not actually enjoy mass immigration and the so-called ‘multiracial society’, it must surely be the work of similar malcontents. Liberal theory is flawless. Like communism, it presents itself as scientifically-based – an abundancy of pseudo-sociological tosh underpins its thinking – and dictates a historically-inevitable outcome in which we all celebrate the fact that we have as little in common with the people we live with as possible.

Supposed ‘historical inevitability’ as a weapon of political language has been filched from communism and creeps into every liberal initiative. It is used, for example, to forward the European federal superstate project. Both liberals and communists maintain that their systems can never be wrong. It is rather like the jesuitical argument that no innocent person has ever been hanged. Since all those hanged have been convicted by a court, they are by legal definition guilty! It is this feature – the refusal to admit to possible error in the theory – which makes liberalism as totalitarian in nature as communism and why it must be unmasked as the monster it really is.

The rulers, too, can never be wrong since they are applying a system which can never err. They are relieved of all responsibility. Notice how no one in government within Britain today takes responsibility for anything! Blair has brought the tactic to a fine art. How is it that white people could been so hoodwinked as many are in our country? A system which targets us for destruction is met with passivity and acquiescence. We can learn a lot from the experience of communism. Most people assume that government is broadly competent.

The latest theory must have some sense in it, people say, or it would not be introduced. New theories which claim to be idealistic enjoy an aura and are given a chance. That is what happened under communism. Sufficient people enthusiastically supported the experiment to carry along the rest – with plentiful dollops of intimidation against anyone who became too vocal in opposition. Most people, once they have passively accepted an ideas system, dislike it being challenged, since it implies criticism of their judgement. Those who draw attention to flaws provoke psychological discomfort.

Anger and perplexity is a common response. None of us likes to seem made to appear foolish, and especially when merely to hear the message is thought to put us at risk. Later on no one wishes to admit that they were ever a believer. Under communism, only the tiniest fraction of people expressed open dissent against the system. The system tried to draw in as many people as possible as accomplices.

One of the most effective means was the threat that a failure to actively denounce opponents of the ideology would mean classification as a supporter. We see this mechanism particularly clearly in a Britain where a political, police, teaching or media career means a requirement to offer regular ritual tributes to the contribution made by immigrants, and little reference to white people beyond regret at occasional backsliding from the requirement that they voluntarily marginalise themselves within the society. The most obnoxious exponents are the army of white media apparatchiks who draw a regular thirty pieces of silver in reward for stabbing their fellow white people in the backs. The most pathetic are senior police officers with their vomit-making ‘confessions’ of ‘institutional racism’ before tribunals like that of Sir William Macpherson. They resemble the unfortunates who were tortured by the Inquisition to obtain admissions about the poisoning of wells with powdered toads. Most of the populations of the formerly communist countries now congratulate themselves on having been opponents of communism. In reality, most would have crossed the road to avoid a dissident if they had met one at the time. As a communist secret policeman told one dissenter: You are an intelligent man.

Why oppose the system when it only brings you trouble to do so. Yet the system eventually collapsed. A small number of open doubters is no measure of the worth of a political system, or of its prospects for permanence. Lenin’s definition of a revolutionary situation was that the rulers could no longer rule in the same way, and the ruled no longer accepted the old ways. What finished communism was precisely what brought it about, but it took a long time before the bankruptcy of the system led to such a parting of the ways between rulers and ruled.

Communism could not provide even the material things. Liberalism does better in material terms but cannot provide meaning to life and human identity. Sooner or later, the increasingly open repression of white people will lead to its fall. Liberal actions are constantly justified by the claim to be preventing inequality, but end up as a series of attacks on white people. Sooner or later, white people will use up the last of their goodwill and the national genie will leave the bottle.

As under communism, even the leaders will no longer be able to believe their own lies. One wonders what goes through the minds of leading members of the Labour Party, including Blair himself, who preach the virtues of the multiracial multicultural comprehensive school, while making sure that their own children do not attend them. The germ of doubt must eventually penetrate even their professionally duplicitous minds. Duplicity about schools is a liberal counterpart of the racket which operated under communism where special shops provided Communist Party members with luxuries unavailable to the mass of the population. The methods by which the main political parties maintain power in Britain – largely psychological warfare involving ludicrous claims that white people are a ‘guilty race’, but also some some violence, and occasional show trials like that of Nick Griffin – will eventually no longer work.

Any relaxation of control to placate the populace in those circumstances would lead to demands for more freedom and would soon be reversed, as happened under communism at the end of the Prague Spring of 1968. ‘Socialism with a human face’ would soon be no socialism at all. Liberalism with racial and cultural identity would be a contradiction. No such experiments are being tried at present in Britain. The psywar against white people continues unrelentingly 24 hours a day.

Like communism, liberalism has nothing new to try in a situation of public discontent but only more of the same, which will provoke further resentment. That is its fatal internal contradiction. Reinforcement of unsatisfactory policies is the answer when the regime finds itself in difficulty. Political correctness following the Steven Lawrence enquiry has led to a massive increase in violent street crime in London as the police retreat from enforcing the law. The Government’s answer is to increase the levels of political correctness within the police just as the communists tried to deal with unrest by reinforcing repression.

The case of crime is a particularly telling example. The difficulty for liberal ideologues is that political correctness was supposed to remove resentments which were the principal cause of crime – supposedly an expression of revolt against oppression, sexism, racism and so on. What if the theory fails and measures to remove its supposed causes make it worse? The theory cannot be seen to be wrong, so the very measures which have failed must be reinforced on the basis that they have not been introduced vigorously enough! This causes more problems and resentments. Minority racial groups retreat from the multiracial project to protect themselves. The rulers are forced by their own logic to dig their own metaphorical graves. People will eventually stop listening, no longer believe in the regime’s ability to deal with their problems, its moral legitimacy or its basic assumptions, and Lenin’s precondition for change will appear. The speed with which such watersheds can sometimes erupt was the lesson of 1989.

We should not assume that change will necessarily occur in such a dramatic form in liberal Britain. What is more likely, given the temperament of the British people, is a gradual erosion of credibility attached to the regime. As with communism, a quiet subversion will undermine it, even if open revolt is impossible. Chipping away quietly, we will, sooner or later, bring down the evil which intends a slow genocide of our people. The madmen who have taken over our country will be seen as they really are. Government.