Cambodian people are reflected in the door of a building containing skulls as they pray to mark the annual 'Day of Anger' at the Choeung Ek killing fields memorial in Phnom Penh on May 20, 2016. More than 1,000 people watched black-clad students wielding rifles, knives and bamboo sticks to mimic Khmer Rouge crimes to mark Cambodia's annual 'Day of Anger' against the genocidal former regime in the late 1970s.

By Jay Richards Published on August 7, 2017

Too many of us are still clueless about socialism and communism. I blame biased media and fuzzy thinking.

Walter Duranty, long the Moscow Bureau Chief for the New York Times, spent many years defending Stalinist Russia. He won a Pulitzer Prize for it. And now, in 2017, the Times has a series, called the Red Century. As Robert Tracinski notes at The Federalist, it’s mostly “a series of fond, nostalgic recollections about the good old days of twentieth-century Communism.”

Mass Murder

Still, sometimes, the truth leaks out. Last year, The Washington Post published a long piece by Ilya Somin. It’s about the “greatest mass murderer” in the world. Take the time to read the whole thing.

Guess who wins that grim prize. Maybe Hitler? Pol Pot? Stalin? No. It’s Mao Zedong, the leader of China’s communist revolution. “From 1958 to 1962,” Somin notes, “his Great Leap Forward policy led to the deaths of up to 45 million people — easily making it the biggest episode of mass murder ever recorded.” Let that sink in. In under five years, a government led by one man murdered 45 million of its own people.

Scholars have long known the basic stats. But historian Frank Dikötter has shown that the number is larger than previously thought. And many more of the deaths were deliberate, rather than “just” the outcome of bad policies that led to famine. Millions were tortured to death, often for minor crimes like digging up a potato.

Communism Bad, Socialism Good?

Alas, the delusion goes far beyond the media. Millennials don’t seem to know what the word socialism means. And even many who grant the evils of communism still try to defend socialism. Have a look at the comments on Ilya Somin’s piece about Mao Zedong. Over and over, readers chastise him for calling murderous Mao a “socialist” rather than a “communist.”

Lots of people seem to think “communism” just means “bad socialism.” But that ignores the meanings of words and Marxist theory itself.

What Marx Said

Here’s a brief primer: Marx and his disciples claimed that “capitalism” must give way to “socialism,” where private property would be abolished and an all-powerful state would own everything on behalf of the people. That’s what Marx meant by the word socialism, and that’s the main dictionary definition.

This was only supposed to be a stage, though, not the end of all our strivings. At some point, under socialism, people would lose their silly fondness for property, family, religion, and other evils. A “new socialist man” would emerge and then the state would “wither away.” Everyone would enjoy peace, prosperity, and the brotherhood of man. Marx and his acolytes called that final, stateless paradise “communism.”

Here’s the point: Those regimes led by mass murderers with their gulags, death camps, man-made famines and killing fields were socialist. That’s not slander. It’s what these countries called themselves. USSR stood for the “Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.”

You gotta break millions of eggs with socialism to make the communist omelet. Socialism, you might say, was the necessary evil to reach the bliss where no state would be necessary.

That was sort of the theory anyway. In practice, socialism has just been evil. Unremitting evil, wherever it’s tried. Have a look at North Korea and now Venezuela. Socialism doesn’t lead to a higher plane of existence or a stateless utopia. It leads to a bottomless pit of immorality, poverty, and death.

Why would we expect anything different? It’s based on a false view of human nature, history, labor, property, economic value, capital, and the role of prices.

“Real” Communism?

In his great Washington Post piece, Ilya Somin asks why the horror of Mao’s cultural revolution has made so little impact on thinking in the West. Part of the problem, he thinks, is that the victims were mostly Chinese peasants. They’re far removed from the culture and experience of the average American. Out of sight, out of mind.

But there’s also, he argues, “the general tendency to downplay crimes committed by communist regimes.” That tendency is on full display in the New York Times series. It’s “overall thrust,” Robert Tracinski notes, “is summed up in a call to try Communism again, but maybe this time try not to have any gulags.”

This is the old chestnut that “real” communism just hasn’t been tried yet.

Frank Fleming had the best response to this claim on Twitter:

What does it mean to say “real” communism hasn’t been tried?

It could mean that no one has tried to apply Marx’s communist theory. That’s false. Lots of folks have tried it. And the results are always horrendous.

On the other hand, it could mean that no one’s tried to implement the stateless nirvana at the end of Marx’s story. (Remember, that’s what Marx and his followers meant by “communism.”) In that case, why aren’t those who say “true communism hasn’t been tried” calling for the abolition of the state altogether?

Yet more evidence that when it comes to communism and socialism, too many Americans are still clueless.


Jay Richards is the Executive Editor of The Stream. Follow him on Twitter.

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • Wayne Cook

    My god! Somebody gets it! Well written, Jay! I lived under two socialist regimes in South America. They were anything but benign!!

    • Mensa Member

      South American dictators were not exclusive to any economic theory.

      Since you lived down there, you know that very well.

      • Wayne Cook

        One thing you are great at is whining.

        Unless you lived in South America, in the 60’s, you don’t. The rest of your rhetoric is so much ballyhoo. Enjoy your septic confusion.

        Socialism isn’t everyone helping payou for public use. It’s control of everything for use of a privileged few. You lied.

  • Paul

    Socialists need to obfuscate the truth about this in order to keep advancing their agendas wherever people are stupid enough to believe them. Sadly that is right here in the USA.

    • Mensa Member

      When your business catches on fire, do you call the fire department or do you hire a bunch of guys with buckets?

      If you call the fire department, you’re welcome comrade.

      • Paul

        I haven’t encountered such utter nonsense in quite a while. Very illuminating about your demensa

        • Mensa Member

          It is exhausting teaching even the most basic economics to conservatives.

          How did you get it into your head that fire departments are capitalistic? They are almost a pure social program. They don’t swipe your credit card before turning on the hose! Somebody’s tax dollars paid for that fire hydrant and probably not yours. Yet you get to use it without charge.

          A fire hydrant is property. A fire hydrant is owned by the government. And when it’s used to save your burning widget factory, it’s a means of production. This is the dictionary definition of socialism.

          I know, facts and logic make you giggle.

          But I gotta log off.

          • Paul

            Actually in my neighborhood the hydrants are owned by the privately owned water company. But even if owned by the municipality, that has nothing to do with socialism. And my neighbor has his own fire truck to personally address grass fires on his own property and also helps his neighbors.

            What dictionary are you using? Webster has this to say:

            Definition of socialism
            1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
            2a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
            b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
            3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

          • AndRebecca

            In some fire districts they do swipe you credit card before turning on the hose. If you live where taxes don’t pay for the fire fighters, you have volunteer or for profit fire departments.

          • Kelly B

            Dude, if you love communism so much, I’d be delighted to pitch in for a one-way ticket for you to North Korea, Cuba, or Venezuela

          • Vincent J.

            The dictionary definition is the government owning all property, owning and controlling all of the means of production and distribution. The government owning a fire hydrant is not socialism.

  • Mensa Member

    >> I blame biased media and fuzzy thinking.

    This article, included. What a mish mash! Reality check:

    Social Security is socialism. So is Medicare. Heck, even the GOPs “Trumpcare” was socialism.

    Every conservative I know uses and likes socialist programs — but wants to end socialist programs for others.

    Historic communism is a very different beast.

    • Jay W. Richards

      No. None of those things is socialism. Socialism has a historic meaning (please look it up), and it’s not “any entitlement program by government.” It primary meaning is state ownership of property. This isn’t a controversial point.

      • Mensa Member


        Is the national highway system not property? Or how about an insurance company? Or the National Forest system? Airports? Or even a local boat ramp?

        My point is that we have socialism all over our country and Americans like it. Thousands and thousands of things owned by the government and shared by all. Even those who didn’t pay in.

        This is in stark contrast with free market, capitalism where a private citizen owns the insurance company (or boat ramp) and only lets customers use it. You don’t pay, you go packing.

        America is a hybrid of capitalism and socialism. It’s imperfect but far better than countries which tried to exclusively implement one system or the other.

        Surely you know this.

        • AndRebecca

          Insurance companies are now socialism?

      • Patmos

        Remember who you’re dealing with here. Mensa Member thinks it’s very Christian to affirm abominations. Yeah, I don’t get it either. Seems like most of his posts here are just scrambling to make up for that major gaff, and yet he just keeps digging himself deeper and deeper into the hole he’s in. I guess he thinks pride is part of being Christian too. Next he’ll be offering up a golden calf. The guy is beyond retarded, and just a plain jerk.

    • Paul

      You need to get out more, I’d be happy to see all the ‘redistribution’ end today.

      • Mensa Member

        Well, you won’t be getting out much. Not even past your driveway! Roads are socialism. Some pay-in, all use.

        • Paul

          I must say you’re at least good for a laugh. I’m not even sure how to address such absurdity.

          • Mensa Member

            Instead of laughing, use your noodle.

            Roads are property. Roads are a means of production. Roads are owned by government.

            Of all the forms of American socialism, roads most closely meet the dictionary definition.

          • Paul

            Socialism would dictate that ALL roads MUST be public. Ever been in a private community with private roads? Or how about ever used a privately owned toll road? If there’s a lack of noodling going on it isn’t with me.

          • Mensa Member

            Maybe some imagined socialists would not even allow driveways.

            Imagined libertarians would install a toll booth at the end of your driveway.

            Only the most primitive thinkers can’t see a place for both socialism and capitalism in a modern country.

            How and where that plays out is up for much debate. Are some private toll roads OK? Sure! Should most roads be socialized? Obviously!

            Ironically, capitalism needs a large socialist infrastructure. Without government, free markets would be trading a handful of clams for a handwoven basket.

          • Paul

            “Ironically, capitalism needs a large socialist infrastructure. Without government, free markets would be trading a handful of clams for a handwoven basket.”

            Alas we get to the core of your demensa. To you Govt = Socialism.

          • AndRebecca

            We certainly are becoming more socialist, but what about the toll roads and mass transit? American roads are usually considered capitalistic and the socialists among us want to get people out of their cars and into mass transit. And toll roads are turned over to private operators for upkeep and collection.

        • AndRebecca

          Right I guess the Romans were Socialists because they had roads. Good thinking!

    • Dean Bruckner

      You liar. You’ve never met a Big Lie you didn’t love and long for enforcement.

      Socialism is an idolatry of government and lies supremely about human nature. The reason that you won’t see that is that you are neck deep in the idolatries of Progressivism: self, sex and socialism.

      Repent of your rebellion and deception while there is still time!

    • ncsugrant

      Too funny that the two specific programs you mention (SS and Medicare) are known to be among the biggest frauds ever committed, and were done for pure political gain at the expense of an ignorant electorate.
      The fraudsters knew they were deceiving the public, and they are the very ones who passed legislation criminalizing such behavior in the private sector.
      MENSA? HA, HA.

    • BXVI

      Look, just about everyone agrees that a regulated but free market is the key to economic prosperity.History proves it: the free enterprise system lifts all boats. But, only the most obtuse person would refuse to acknowledge that, in a completely unregulated market the weak get ground up and spit out, capitalists can impose their externalities on the public at large, etc. So, yes, we agree to live with a certain amount of regulation and even redistribution, for the common good.

      The debates in this country (at least up until recently) have been over how much regulation and how much redistribution are fair and necessary. But it only crosses over to “socialism” when the regulations become so intrusive as to amount to the government taking control of the means of production and taxation for the purpose of military defense, infrastructure and poverty relief becomes so heavy as to amount to an unjust confiscation of wealth.

    • AndRebecca

      Regulation and taking care of the least among us is not socialism. It’s Christianity and capitalism. “Capitalism is the only way to help the poor. Production is the single most important factor in helping the poor.
      A. Tools most important for production.
      B. capital
      C. profit”
      …I’m paraphrasing
      Jerry Fleming on Christian Capitalism.

    • Myth Buster

      You made an excellent point. I’d also add children write-offs and mortgage write offs are also a form of socialism too. So, is public education, fire departments, police protection, public roads and bridges. In fact, all of the western European countries are considered democratic-socialist countries and their citizens seem to have a better grasp of the political definitions of communism and socialism; than the average American or the writer of this piece. Many of these countries experience a higher median standard of living than what is seen in the USA, simply because money doesn’t funnel up to the top 1% in an un-Christian manner as it does in the USA. It’s completely idiotic to make a huge leap of logic by connecting the socialism North Korea and now Venezuela, while overlooking Western Europe. I give the article a whopping D- Grade.

  • Michele Shoun

    I wonder, since the fall of the USSR, do our schools still show the “propaganda” films films we saw in middle school?… The ones that compared capitalism and socialism/communism? They made a strong impression back then.

    • ncsugrant

      Not sure how you define propaganda, but our schools most definitely are on a mission to indoctrinate. They often cite NYT, NPR, and PBS as credible sources.
      As for what was shown in the past. check into the Venona Project. This was once kept secret by our government, and now it is all but kept secret by the so-called “news media”.

      • Michele Shoun

        I meant it in the usual sense. These were films intended to show the evils of one system while touting the virtues of another.

        • TheSaint4JC

          I think that ncsugrant meant that the word ‘propaganda’ means “to intentionally spread falsehoods in order to deceive the ignorant into believing a false reality as true.”

          So, with that definition… is that how you meant to use that word?

          • Michele Shoun

            Merriam-Webster says propaganda is “the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person; ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one’s cause or to damage an opposing cause.” That’s the definition I was thinking of. I used scare quotes to indicate I realize one man’s propaganda is another man’s spin. I don’t recall, for instance, those middle school films talking about the relation of slavery in this country to capitalism. Evils can be done in the name of any economic system.

          • ncsugrant

            And there is finally an honest answer to my question.
            Nobody said Capitalism was perfect, and it was not designed as a humanitarian instrument.
            However, to pretend that there is some sort of moral equivalence between Capitalism and Socialism/Communism is a flat LIE.
            Mankind has been advanced by the implementation of Capitalism, particularly when you include the charitable gifts made by citizens who have prospered enough to help others.
            You couldn’t fill a single truck with the gifts that were made by the poor souls who endured the brutality and corruption of the repressive Soviet regime.

          • Michele Shoun

            I wasn’t aware you had asked a question. And I never said anything in favor of socialism or communism. Expecting people to tell the whole truth about capitalism is NOT support for alternatives.

          • ncsugrant

            Okay, Michele. If you say so.

          • TheSaint4JC


            But you didn’t read further down the Webster online page…

            Definition of propaganda for English Language Learners
            : ideas or statements that are often false or exaggerated and that are spread in order to help a cause, a political leader, a government, etc.

        • AndRebecca

          They unfortunately do not use any films which might show Americans to be patriotic or the good guys. They have books telling the students that traditional marriage is wrong, and all sorts of other anti-American culture stuff. They used to build character in the schools and I doubt the students today could tell you what character is.

        • ncsugrant

          Actually, most people use the term to infer some degree of deception. I hope you don’t think the anti-soviet films were too harsh. If anything, they were too mild. Right up until it collapsed, the Soviet regime was run by a lawless band of murderous thugs, and anyone who wants to know can see that they had indeed infiltrated the US government at the highest levels from before WWII.

  • Patmos

    And this article doesn’t even mention the famine in China that killed millions more. Such a great system!

  • BXVI

    Jay, I remember in 1986 when you wore a “CCCP” pin on your lapel to purposely stir things up. I think the Marxism class we took with the great Dr. Borges was when you began to turn away from the dark side. Ha, ha.

  • Trilemma

    Mao Zedong was a socialist and his Great Leap Forward policy led to the deaths of up to 45 million people. This does not mean socialism is evil and results in millions of deaths. It means Mao Zedong was evil and responsible for millions of deaths.

    If Americans don’t want any socialism then they will have to privatize the Postal Service, Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, Air Traffic Control, public education, police departments, public transportation, fire departments, etc…

    • AndRebecca

      You sound just like Lenin. The only thing Lenin liked about America was the Postal Service. The Postal SERVICE was started to be of service to the American people, including business men, and it was not made to be in competition with anyone and so was NOT meant to make a profit… Pooling together your money (through taxes) in order to pay for services you would otherwise have to do yourself, is not socialism. As an example, the property owners in the 1800s were required to provide teams of horses and their own labor, or pay for someone else to take their place in road repair in their counties… Small towns had volunteer fire departments… Families were responsible for the care of their own elderly in old age. Town founders had to take on the care of the indigent, mentally ill, etc., ( it was in their founding corporate documents) and they did this by taxing certain people, not by taking all their property away from them… We were taking care of people and business in America long before the socialists and communists were considered anything more than a bunch of cranks. We have worked since the beginning for the Peace and Prosperity of the American people.

      • Trilemma

        Pooling together your money (through taxes) in order to pay for services you would otherwise have to do yourself, is not socialism.

        If the government collects taxes and uses the money to purchase services from a private entity then, no, it’s not socialism. If the government uses the tax money to purchase the means to produce services then that is socialism. For delivering mail, the government has purchased the means of producing the service of delivering mail by purchasing buildings, trucks, sorting equipment, etc. and hiring employees. That’s socialism. If the government had used the tax money to pay FedEx to deliver mail then that would not be socialism.

        Are for the privatization of the Postal Service, Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, Air Traffic Control, public education, police departments, public transportation, fire departments, etc.?

        • AndRebecca

          Doing things for the common good is not socialism. The Constitution mandated the establishment of post offices and postal roads. There was no socialist system here in 1789. Neither were the first public schools in the world socialist, and neither were the rest of the things you have mentioned socialist. Now, have they become more socialist as progressives have been in charge of them and working in them over the years and unionizing them over the years? Yes. Has the family unit as a governing body lost out over the years due to socialism? Yes. Would the town fathers be turning over in their graves at the thought of how poor adults are having their character ruined by handouts? Yes. But, the country had all services in place at the founding, so services in themselves are not socialist. The first public schools were financed in part by the money George Washington obtained by selling off British lands…The government buys the land it uses and sells off lands it no longer uses. States have land trusts to use for public schools. Public entities have easements on properties. All the government does is under the law of the Constitution, and the Marxists have never said they like the Constitution because it is socialist. They had public roads in kingdoms. And, in socialist and communist countries their services were slow in coming and they are still inadequate compared to what we have had in this country. Socialists are constantly working to undermine the Constitution, and that should tell you what we do for services in the country are not based on socialism. And, Lenin did a study around 1900 in the U.S. on the vulnerability of the American people and found the south to be less educated and so a place to start with the propaganda. But he was surprised to learn the southerners were twice as educated as Russians and this caused him to make plans on taking over Russia first. The poorest Southern whites had a 35% illiteracy rate, poor Southern blacks had a 40% illiteracy rate, and Russian peasants had a 70% illiteracy rate. So, why you want to believe in socialism, I don’t know. This country was founded by Christians who were capitalists but it is being undermined by people who wish us harm.

          • Valued Customer

            Socialism and capitalism aren’t incapable of mixing in one government. Every government in the world today has both capitalist features, even N. Korea, and socialist features, even the USA.

            Postal service is a socialist feature of American government. The Constitution is not some magical socialism repellent. It is merely a list of features the founders wanted in a government.

            As there was no FedEx around, and they wanted mail, they included a post service.

            Public schools are very socialist. ‘Free’ government services are all socialist services.

            At least they’re not fascist services, like those provided by Dyncorp, Halliburton, and their ilk.

            It could be said that government itself is socialism.

            Capitalism isn’t a form of government, at all. It’s an economic system. Our republic pays ever less lip service, as you point out, to capitalism, and more and more to socialism. Both US’s, the USA and the USSR, were republics. The USSR was definitely more socialist than the USA.

          • AndRebecca

            Isn’t this a great article? Jay Richards knows what he is talking about. It is too bad you don’t know what socialism is. Postal systems do not have to be socialist. Socialists as well as the other Marxists like to take credit for all sorts of things they had nothing to do with. Marxists believe in a one party, two class system of government. “Democracy” to them in its best form would be the dictatorship of the masses, and that translates into mob rule. The masses get stirred up by the rulers and go after the producers and keep production low. Christian capitalism is about the peace and prosperity of the people and Marxism is about a constant struggle over everything. Mother and child are to be in a constant struggle. The Marxists in America who have been demonstrating lately are showing you what they are about. And that includes the women Marxist demonstrators with the funny hats and the anarchists on college campuses and the BLM. Are your eyes lying to you?

          • Trilemma

            In many cities, the police department, the fire department and public transportation are owned and operated by the city government. How is that not socialist?

          • AndRebecca

            The cities are incorporated. They own departments as you said. If they own it, how is that socialist?

          • Trilemma

            The definition of socialism from The Free Dictionary’s legal dictionary page.

            An economic and social theory that seeks to maximize wealth and opportunity for all people through public ownership and control of industries and social services.

            The fact that the government owns them is what makes them socialist.

          • AndRebecca

            Socialism is not set up to maximize the wealth and opportunity for all people. The fact that a city is a government does not make it socialist. The cities have regulatory powers over business and industries under its jurisdiction. They don’t own them. The communists and socialists have written on what needs to be done to turn America into a socialist country. Obviously if they think cities in America are not socialist, they aren’t. F. Engels wrote his masterpiece dubbed “Origins,” in which in which he explains his problems with the way capitalistic systems are set up… And, police forces are SUPER capitalistic to socialists and other Marxists. So, it must have something to do with the way things are run. A city charter might explain it. The only way socialists in America have gotten any of their programs going is by gaming the system. They ignore the laws and have other ways of gaming the system.

          • Trilemma

            It’s true that the fact that a city is a government does not make it socialist. However, if a city owns and operates the resources to provide a service then that service is socialist. What programs did socialists get going by gaming the system?

          • AndRebecca

            There is more to socialism than a city owning something like a water department. It must be the way laws are set up. When the government buys houses for people who can’t afford them and by that means they go into competition with citizens who can afford them, that’s socialism. When the government takes over the production of products in order to keep them out of private hands, that’s socialism. They have socialism in Europe. We have had to bail them out over the years, but not as much as we’ve had to bail out the communist countries. When towns were started in America, the founders started them with their own capital in order to make a profit. They expected to be paid back for bringing in a water department. Towns are hubs for business, not places to appeal to the government for handouts. The handouts are for people who can’t do it on their own.

    • Kelly B

      You must be too young to remember the USSR – step away from your parents’ computer, have some cookies and juice, and take a nap

      • Trilemma

        The USSR was not evil because they were socialist. They were evil because they were totalitarian.

        • Kelly B

          You’re kidding, right? Socialism IS totalitarian, and will ALWAYS, 100% of the time, require violence and bloodshed because people do not, by nature, want to give up their rights or freedom. Socialism, by definition, requires that people give those both up, always eventually by gunpoint.

          • Trilemma

            How much violence and bloodshed was required to create the federally owned and operated postal service? How much violence and bloodshed was required to create government owned and operated schools? How much violence and bloodshed was required to create federally owned and operated medical insurance?

          • Kelly B

            What is it with you and the post office? Were you molested by your mailman? I pray that the Lord opens your eyes…

          • Trilemma

            You said, “Socialism IS totalitarian, and will ALWAYS, 100% of the time, require violence and bloodshed…” So, where was all the violence and bloodshed that was required for all the socialism that Americans enjoy today?

  • blackfeather

    socialism is the stepping stone to communism.

    • Kelly B

      Yes – Stalin is quoted as saying “Communism is the goal of Socialism” – even if he didn’t actually say that, there is no doubt it’s 100% true!

  • Randall Ward

    A recent book entitled “The Demon in Democracy, Totaliarian Temptations in Free Societies” by Legutko Ryszard is a great book that explains how communism is being injected into government today. It is the best book I have read about communism in years. It shows how subtle the communists are.

  • Randall Ward

    Read the communist manifesto; all ten points have already been incorporated into the US Government.

  • Boris

    In communism the omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent god of Christianity is simply replaced by the all-wise, all-good, and all powerful god of the State. Under the communist system, the State is supposedly all-wise, all-good, and all powerful. Communism is therefore just as nutty as Christianity in its unrealistic utopian fantasies and pie-in-the-sky promises. The human rights violations in China and Russia stemmed from the leadership’s power-mad political ambitions not from any academic or philosophical conviction about socialism or communism.
    Jay Richards is a Christian propagandist with no respect at all for facts or the truth. We know this by his promotion of Intelligent Design Magic as science. ID Magic isn’t even a subject let alone science. It’s a hoax and Richard’s is one of its most dishonest hoaxers. A truly low and despicable excuse for a man.

One Nation Looking Upward at God’s Glory
Tom Gilson
More from The Stream
Connect with Us