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.

    • Boris

      Those are not socialist regimes. The Nazis and the Russian communists were not socialists. Socialism is what they have in Scandinavia and Europe, you know all those places with a higher standard of living than ours. Oh it’s true.

  • 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.

          • Oremus

            Wow! Mensa Member!! I was admitted to Mensa many years ago, but after attending a couple of meetings, I discontinued my “membership.” It was the biggest bunch of misfits I had ever encountered.

  • 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

        Jay,

        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?

          • bmniac

            Not any more.

      • 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!

      • bmniac

        Abuse not logic!

    • 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.

      • bmniac

        Unlike the financial system!

    • 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.

    • bmniac

      It is all muddled thinking no doubt.

  • 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

            Okay.

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

            propaganda
            noun
            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.

          • mbabbitt

            Boy, that definition is pure propaganda (“maximize wealth and opportunity”).

          • Trilemma

            What is the true definition of socialism?

          • bmniac

            Not always as we have seen in the recent past.

    • 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?

          • les

            The IRS! And their state and local equivalents.

  • 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.

    • mbabbitt

      Your ad hominem attack on Jay Richards as a Christian propagandist is pure propaganda with no basis in argument or truth. Look in the mirror first; then cry.

      • Boris

        I gave the proof, the undeniable proof that Richards’s is a hoaxer. He is promoting Intelligent Design Magic which is a religious hoax in every sense of the word. Richards is an evolution denier and I have heard him lie about evolution with my own ears. His lies about science are in print. History will not speak kindly about people like Jay Richards who is already in the Encyclopedia of American Loons.

        • Irene Neuner

          Boris evolution denies logic and common sense. Even the most simple design requires a thinking mind. Go and find the architect of the eagle and the engineer of the dolphin, the one who gave Shakespeare his words and Beethoven his music. Or maybe the one who gave you your first breath when you were born. His mind is much greater than yours.

          “Who is this that obscures my plans
          with words without knowledge?

          • Boris

            Evolution by Natural Selection is the best established, longest standing, most useful and most productive scientific explanation we have ever had. Go find the architect of heart disease, childhood cancer. dementia, and skin cancer caused from our supposedly finely tuned heat and light source the sun. Belief in God denies common sense and logic not to mention science. You know science, that stuff that has made our lives so much better than our ancestor’s was. You are welcome to go back to that time.

          • Irene Neuner

            Boris natural selection demands that a large ‘gene pool’ is available for it to select from. Natural selection disproves evolution rather that proving it. The information was already there. The hundreds of varieties of dogs have been developed within the last several hundred years dated to the time of the Victorian era from muts.

            Let say it again another way. Natural selection doesn’t generate information, it doesn’t design. The German Shepherd was created (selected) by a man with a mind.5

          • Boris

            “Natural selection doesn’t generate information, it doesn’t design.” ROFL! Prove it. Hahahahahahaha

        • AndRebecca

          Ah, Boris, how is it in Moscow?

      • Boris

        Richard’s could defend his lies right here. But he hasn’t got the guts.

    • fullerhonda

      You miss an important point: the evil perpetrated by socialist/communist regimes is a result of human nature. All human beings have the potential to commit atrocities whether socialist, communist, democratic, republic, monarchy, theocracy, et al. The difference with the Socialist/Communist is the belief that man can create a utopia to rival God, which necessitates getting rid of God. A society without God is a people listing in the dark sea of evil. Without God, no one is good.

      • Boris

        Sorry but you don’t get to redefine terms such as “good” or “sin” or any other words according to your religion. Are you going to tell me Goodwill Industries or the Rotary are not good? You’re wrong. The truth is that there is nothing good about Christianity, the most evil institution that has ever existed on this planet.

        • fullerhonda

          Sorry, you don’t get to define truth either. The difference between the two claims is this: I don’t define or redefine any terms, but you seem to privilege yourself with that authority. Whatever I know is from the Father; whatever you know comes from yourself or mankind. Now that we’ve established where you are regarding status, tell me in detail the evidence for your claim “that there is nothing good about Christianity” and how you came to the conclusion that it is the most evil institution that has ever existed on this planet? What I understand you to be saying about yourself with that claim is that you are the uncreated Creator; otherwise, how do you know what has existed for eternity (ever, your word)?

          • Boris

            What you know is what the early Church wrote in order to filch wealth, power and young boys to itself. The New Testament is a hoax. Nice that you base your entire life on that. Good way to be wrong about EVERYTHING and be completely irrelevant as well. The mass-energy that comprises the universe has existed forever. So where is the need for a creator? Claiming the universe was created by someone is engaging in the ancient custom of creating a mystery to explain a mystery. We should all be very glad scientists do not do that.

          • fullerhonda

            You have no consistency; you’re all over the place with claims you can’t support nor know how to support. You make a claim about me as if you have some intimate knowledge of me–absurd. Energy, mass or otherwise, didn’t create itself, so it had to have a cause. That cause would be God, who explains the universe. You’re free to explain otherwise, but if you’re going to claim some other source of Creation, provide a coherent theory, not mumble-jumble, hate- spewing, rambling nonsense.

          • Boris

            God didn’t create itself, so it had to have a cause. If everything needs a cause then so does God. If you say no you are committing the fallacies of Special Pleading and Goal Post Shifting. But if you could recognize logical fallacies you wouldn’t be a Christian. The universe as we know it expanded from something that already existed. Time as we know it began when the universe began to expand. So the mass-energy that comprises the universe has always existed in one form or another. It didn’t need to be created. You say God didn’t need to be created. So what you are doing is engaging in the ancient custom of creating a mystery to explain a mystery. There’s no need to posit any God in the equation since we don’t have any evidence for any God nor any need for supernatural explanations for anything. Science is NEVER going to accept a supernatural explanation for the universe or anything else. The only way we could accept any kind of supernatural explanation for something is by first eliminating all possible naturalistic explanations. However we could never be sure we’ve done that and magic as an explanation explains nothing and so its useless anyway.

          • AndRebecca

            Wrong.

          • Ken Abbott

            Boris: The Law of Causality states that every *effect* must have a cause. It does not require that everything have a cause. Please note that in place of an “uncreated” God you have posited an uncreated, self-existent mass-energy. Now where’s the mystery?

          • Boris

            First of all physical laws are nothing more than human observations. We can observe matter and energy. Where’s the God? POOF.

          • Ken Abbott

            You’re dancing. The Law of Causality is not a physical law–it’s a law of reason or logic. Your first statement above, that “God didn’t create itself, so it had to have a cause,” is inconsistent with the Law of Causality (that every effect must have a cause). God, classically defined, is the First Cause, the Uncaused Cause, self existent and eternal. You reject God but then you go right ahead and posit a self-existent, uncreated universe that “has always existed in one form or another.” So you accept the idea of a self-existent entity; the debate concerns whether that entity is personal or impersonal. You state we can observe matter and energy, which is true enough. But has anyone observed the primordial state of the universe?

            By the way, science qua science is not incompatible with the supernatural, but an a priori assumption of materialistic naturalism is. If you automatically exclude supernatural explanations for your observed phenomena, you will never find them.

          • Boris

            There is no evidence for anything supernatural. It’s a stupid superstition and you’re welcome to it. However science well NEVER accept a supernatural explanation for anything so you might as well get used to it. First of all any supernatural explanation would most likely be useless. But more importantly the only way we could ever accept a supernatural explanation for anything is by first eliminating all possible natural explanations. However we could never be sure we’ve done that. You might be certain but scientists have proofs without certainty. They have facts that are provisional. But I’ll take that over all your certainty without any proofs or even the tiniest shred of evidence for the nonsense you’ve let other delusional people pack your head with. There’s no reason to look for magical explanations for anything. I’m glad scientists don’t waste their time chasing ghosts, gods and goblins. And you are too.

          • Ken Abbott

            There are several points to address here:

            1) Science is an intellectual tool by which through observation of natural phenomena (in its native state or by controlled experimentation) we can learn about natural processes. This is its proper use. Scientists typically employ a methodological naturalism–i.e., they assume for the purposes of the observation of a natural process that only natural explanations pertain.

            2) Scientism is a philosophy, closely allied to materialistic naturalism, that maintains all of reality experienced by humans can and must be explained through scientific understanding or application of the scientific method. This is a faith statement, an axiom, that cannot be proven and is not itself subject to scientific verification (which makes it self-refuting, by the way, but leave that to the side).

            3) Science qua science does not reject the supernatural because it obeys its limits–the supernatural is not a proper subject of science–and so must maintain a gentle agnosticism, never hostility. Scientists, as individual and rational human beings, are free to consider that reality may be greater than that limited by science.

            4) Facts are facts. *Hypotheses* are provisional and must be verified or falsified on the basis of careful observation and measurement.

            5) There is no need to resort to abusive and prejudicial language (“superstition,” “nonsense,” “delusional,” “magical”), although your use of it above reveals your prior axiomatic (faith) commitment to a strictly materialistic worldview that refuses to consider–and in fact denigrates–other perspectives. That you personally have not been persuaded of the existence of supernatural realities cannot automatically exclude them.

          • Boris

            I know what it would take to change my mind. You’re the closed minded one here and I will prove it right now. A personal appearance from God might change my mind. So let’s supposed God did come to Earth and did whatever was necessary to convince us all He was God, you know raised the dead, moved mountains, cured diseases did feeding miracles, did away with the Ice Capades and Limp Biskit and so on. Then when asked which God He was God answered “I am Allah the God of Islam. Follow me to Paradise, deny me and suffer eternal torment.” What would Ken do? We both know what you would do. You’d think it was a trick from the devil. What I have just proved is that no amount of evidence or proof would ever change your mind from what OTHER PEOPLE have already brainwashed you into believing. Think about that for a while. Oh that’s right. Thinking is not allowed in Christianity. Is it Ken?

          • Ken Abbott

            We don’t have to posit hypotheticals, Boris, for God actually did come to earth in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. He did many of the (serious) things you listed, and many others (John 20:30-31). When asked about his identity, he affirmed that he was the predicted Messiah (“Son of Man,” his favorite name for himself, is a messianic title) and even claimed to be God (not Allah, but Yahweh–he applied the name God revealed to Moses in Exodus 3 to himself, as recorded in John 8:58).

            But let’s get down to brass tacks. You assert that “no amount of evidence or proof would ever change [my] mind.” You are wrong. Boris, prove to me, and to the world, that Jesus is still dead and buried, that the Resurrection was and is a complete fiction and the most monstrous lie ever foisted upon mankind, and you will have my everlasting gratitude. You will have falsified Christianity’s central claim and kept me from further wasting my time and energy. For if Jesus did not rise from the dead, we Christians are still in our sins and more to be pitied than all men, and furthermore proven to be liars, because we have insisted that he did actually rise from the dead. Disprove the Resurrection and you destroy Christianity. It’s as simple as that.

            On the matter of thinking and Christianity, you cannot be as ignorant of history as your penultimate statement would have us believe. Augustine of Hippo, Boethius, Thomas Aquinas, Plutarch, Isaac Newton, Galileo, Robert Boyle, Michael Faraday, Lord Kelvin…we could keep this up for hours.

          • Boris

            Jesus still dead and buried? I’m quite sure no such person as Jesus Christ ever existed. Outside of the characters in the gospels there isn’t one witness to any trial, death, resurrection slaughter of innocent children by Herod, dead people climbing out of their graves or any of the events described in the gospels. You can’t use the actions or words of characters in story to prove the story is true. It’s like trying to prove the existence of Superman by citing the testimonies of Perry White, Lois Lane and Jimmy Olsen. So you’re jumping the gun Dude. First prove to me and the rest of the world that such a person as Jesus Christ actually existed. Where’s your evidence? The Bible? Hearsay accounts from writers who were not even alive during the first part of the First Century? No dice, I’m not buying that apologetic smoke and mirrors and nonsense. Christianity only appeals to the base human emotion of cowardice. You’re afraid not to believe or at least try to. All of you are. You can’t even be brave enough to admit that. Can you?

          • Ken Abbott

            Now you have shown yourself to be part of the fringe, Boris. The modern historical consensus (far and away) is that Jesus of Nazareth was a real human being who lived in 1st century Judea and Galilee. This is past debate and Jesus-deniers are categorized as kooks.

            What a tortured view you have of Christianity. I wonder from where it came? Certainly not from a honest, open-minded consideration.

          • Boris

            And what information is this “consensus” based on exactly? Outside of the Bible there isn’t one contemporary mention of Jesus Christ, reliable or otherwise from any historians. Philo certainly would have mentioned something about Jesus or Christians as he lived right where the supposed events described in the Bible took place. A lot of other historians should have mentioned someone whose “fame spread throughout the land” but none did, not one. So you Christians humiliate yourselves by having to resort to pointing to the likely forgeries done in the works of Josephus and Tacitus who were not even alive when Jesus supposedly lived. Sorry Dude a lot of people can smell a rat. I come from a Jewish family and we all know Christianity is a hoax and we all know precisely why it is a hoax. However I did have 3 years of Ancient Greek in college. What can you tell me about neuter plural nouns in Koine Greek Kenny? I know the New Testament backward and forward but all you have to know is who wrote it. Christians wrote it. You people do not tell the truth about ANYTHING and never have.

          • Ken Abbott

            Space (and available time) prevent any lengthy reply on this subject, but there are many written resources that could educate you on this topic. I can cite two persons who know quite well what they are talking about: New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman and classical historian Michael Grant. Ehrman has said of the deniers of the historical Jesus, “These views are so extreme and so unconvincing to 99.99 percent of the real experts that anyone holding them is as likely to get a teaching job in an established department of religion as a six-day creationist is likely

            to land on in a bona fide department of biology.” And Grant comments, “To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory. It has ‘again and again been answered
            and annihilated by first-rank scholars.” The Christ-Mythologists tend chiefly to lurk in the dark corners of the Internet along with the rest of the conspiracy theory addicts.

            Academic credentials are only impressive, Boris, to the extent what you do with the skills you may have gained. There are plenty of intellectual morons out there.

          • Boris

            You can’t make a lengthy reply or any reply at all. So you had to resort to a huge logical fallacy called an Appeal to Authority. If you had a shred of evidence to support the absurd claim that Jesus Christ actually existed you certainly would present that instead of proving my case for me as you just did. Thanks Ken. I heard Bart Ehrman on a Friendly Atheist podcast with Robert Price and it was hilarious. Price kept prodding Ehrman to present some evidence that the gospel accounts even might be true. Ehrman got extremely flustered and his voice got higher and higher as he exclaimed, “Scholars believe! They really really believe! There are witnesses!” Price pointed out that the witnesses are all part of the SAME STORY. Outside of the Bible we don’t have even the tiniest shred of evidence that Jesus Christ ever existed. We do have plenty of evidence of foul play, dishonesty, forgery and crimes against humanity. The Christians produced texts that supposedly gave them a direct connection to God and therefore almost unlimited power and wealth not to mention access to young male children. That’s YOUR religion Kenny. The worst human tragedy to ever come upon this planet.

          • Ken Abbott

            You must forgive me, Boris, for I thought we were discussing the academic historical consensus. This necessarily means consulting the informed opinions of people who have studied and written on the subject. It is not a logical fallacy (which you misapply here) to make reference to experts and authorities when attempting to build a case. I cited two well-known historians who are not known to be friendly to orthodox Christianity; I find it remarkable that atheists are fond of quoting Ehrman when he says things they like, but absolutely tear into him when they want to discredit his statements. But Ehrman and Grant are only two out of a myriad of scholars and academic historians who affirm the real existence of Jesus of Nazareth, forming the vast preponderance of informed opinion. The truth of the matter, Boris–and I say this not so much to you, but to anyone else reading here–you are grievously mistaken and part of a tiny conspiracy-minded, frothing fringe tin-foil-hat cottage industry of sensationalizers and loonies. Having embraced nonsense, you lack all credibility on this subject and you embarrass yourself with your postings.

            I am done with this thread, kicking the dust off my feet. The conversation is not constructive. You will undoubtedly have the last word, full of ad hominems and shrieking invective. Enjoy.

          • Boris

            Like I said you have no evidence for your superstitions about Jesus Christ. You lost another debate to an atheist. Give up.

          • Ken Abbott

            Stop lying, Boris. Your jeers, mocking, and insults do not constitute a debate.

          • Boris

            Okay if here is evidence that Jesus Christ actually existed post that evidence right here. What are you afraid of Kenny? There isn’t any evidence and you know it. There are only arguments and arguments are not evidence, they are proof that you don’t have any evidence.

          • Ken Abbott

            It’s not fear, Boris, it’s time and energy. I have a full-time job and family responsibilities. I’ve pointed you in the direction of a good resource.

          • Boris

            Marshall is a superstitious clod and a moron.

          • Ken Abbott

            Back to the insults and name-calling?

            Boris, it’s hard to take you seriously.

          • Boris

            You lose a debate when say, “If you’ll just read So and So, you’ll see I’m right.” I could say go visit Jesus never existed .com. You’re not likely to do that now are you Ken? So if this guy’s arguments are so good present a couple of them right here and I will demonstrate why they fail in a very clear and concise fashion that even you can understand.

          • Ken Abbott

            But wouldn’t I be wasting your time with the arguments of “a superstitious clod and a moron”? Besides, you seem to think you’re familiar with Mr. Marshall, so certainly you already know what his arguments and evidence are.

          • Boris

            I have had this debate many times and I always win it. This is why. You don’t have any evidence to support your superstitions about Jesus. Christianity only appeals to the base human emotion of cowardice. You’re so chicken you can’t even admit that.

          • Ken Abbott

            Why would I admit what is manifestly untrue?

            This is getting cartoonish, Boris. Go find Natasha and make trouble for Moose and Squirrel–that’s what you’re better at.

          • Boris

            You look really foolish belittling my position without presenting even a shred of evidence to support your beliefs about Jesus. This is what always happens with you people, you’re so predictable. You all get your responses from the same apologetic websites and I’ve seen and heard them many, many times. Almost everybody has parts of the gospel fairy stories they don’t believe, dead people climbing out of their graves, Herod’s slaughter of the innocents, whatever. I just don’t believe any of it because I know solar mythology when I see it. You don’t. That’s on you Dude. Gullible.

          • Ken Abbott

            “You look really foolish.” There’s the pot calling the kettle black. You’re the one trying to assert the truth of a fringe, debunked, academically disreputable bunker mentality unmoored from reality. For what it’s worth, Boris, I don’t get my responses from apologetic websites. I read books, history books, books written by people who know what they are talking about. You should try it sometime.

          • Boris

            If my position has been debunked then you have to explain how this was done and with what information. So step up to the plate like the man you wish you were Mr. Big Mouth. Come on with it. How many more times will you ignore my challenges. Just waving your Christian magic wand at something will not make it go away. In ten years YOUR position will be so far out on the fringe you’ll be considered completely insane. Oh it’s true. The cat is out of the bag now. What will you say to potential converts when they demand you prove Jesus actually existed? Will you make a foolish attempt at mocking them like you tried with me? Prepare to be laughed at and scoffed at loser. It’s over for you people.

          • Ken Abbott

            You are freaking nuts. Pearls before swine. We’re done here.

          • Boris

            A man with evidence like me is never at the mercy of a man with only arguments like you. You should have investigated the religion before you let other people scare you unto believing what you now know is not true. You’ll thank me once your de-conversion is complete. NEXT.

          • Boris

            An evolution denier calling someone else part of the fringe! It doesn’t get any more ironic than that. I know your beliefs about science are popular in the trailer parks in the southern United States but they are the laughingstock of the entire rest of the world.

          • Ken Abbott

            Please show me anything I have posted that informs you as to my views on evolution.

          • GLT

            fullerhonda,

            “provide a coherent theory, not mumble-jumble, hate- spewing, rambling nonsense.”

            I had a long round with Boris recently and soon found such concepts as coherent, cogent and logical are totally foreign to him. With Boris it is as you say, mumble-jumble, hate-spewing and rambling nonsense. I would not bother wasting my time if I were you. Talking with Boris is the very definition of casting pearls before swine.

        • AndRebecca

          Actually Christians do get to define what is sin. The Christian religion is partly based on the belief in good and evil. You can’t define sin in any other way.

    • AndRebecca

      You are partly right. Marx was anti-Christian, along with all the other Socialists. Marxists still want to get rid of God and replace Him with atheism. Secular humanism, materialism, and in your face sexual sin is what Marxists want for the West. You can easily access Marxist websites and see for yourself what they believe.

  • SophieA

    Has anyone or does anyone even want to eat the Sociaistic or Communistic omelette? So far the objective unanimous assessment of most people is that this omelette tastes of death, doom, and ash.

  • fullerhonda

    Would you say Utopia is just another word for Heaven to those who deny God as the necessary means to be God?

    • bmniac

      Probably yes. Please read Karl Popper.

  • Nunyadambizness

    Excellent essay, and right on point.

    The failure of our youth to understand the difference is not by accident, it’s by design. If one doesn’t believe that, they’re not paying attention.

  • les

    The irony of the USSR’s gulag system, where millions of mostly innocent people were sent to labor camps to be worked to death, is that for true communist, they shouldn’t mind because it was “for the greater good” and they were serving the needs of the state.

  • kwame_zulu_shabazz

    Any thoughts on US democracy established on the horrors of genocide, slavery, Jim Crow, and imperialism?

    • AndRebecca

      Yes, the US wasn’t established on any of those things. Marxists have been in America since before 1848 spreading those lies. You’ve fallen for them.

      • kwame_zulu_shabazz

        Rebecca,

        So white people didn’t annihilate Indians, steal Indian land, enslave Africans? That was all Marxists propaganda?

        • AndRebecca

          White people did not steal Indian lands. They did not annihilate Indians. Some whites enslaved Africans and then a war was fought over that enslavement, and slavery was stopped at a great loss of life. And there are records of what whites did and didn’t do written as government documents and first hand accounts. Marxist revisionist history (Howard Zinn comes to mind) is taught in schools today and tells a different story. You need to read real history in order to become less prejudiced.

          • kwame_zulu_shabazz

            The Indian genocide and theft of Indian land is not “Marxist.” It is standard information acknowledged by virtually all mainstream historians. Even Reconstruction was hellish for Black people. Reconstruction was short-lived. Republicans sold out Black people in 1877 which led directly to more slave-like conditions under nearly a century of Jim Crow.

          • AndRebecca

            Would you care to name all the mainstream historians? And, reconstruction was hellish for all people in the South. After slavery many people both black and white were reduced to subsistence farming. And many people were forced to go West for better jobs. Crime, including bootlegging became prevalent. But, the government started both agricultural colleges and black colleges and schools. The government printing office has books on the subject of education of people in America including Indians and Blacks. By 1900 35% of Blacks in the worst parts of the South were illiterate, 40% of the Whites, compared to a 70% illiteracy rate on Russia at that time. Blacks in America were better educated in the worst areas of the country than whites in eastern Europe. Ditto for whites.

    • Bourbon Beaucoup

      The U.S. did not create the system of slavery, it inherited the system from the English set up the colonies. From the moment that independence was won, it began the process of abolishing it. With half the fragile and precariously established new country based on a slave-holding economy, abolition of slavery was not something that could happen overnight. As the new country became more securely established and secure, the level of importance to that grew more urgent. Finally, after less than 75 years since enacting the U.S. Constitution, there was no choice but the worst to accomplish that, war. And to war the country went and sacrificed the lives of more than a million Americans to free men from the bondage of slavery.

      America has nothing to apologize for with it’s history of slavery. It did not create the system, but inherited the burden of it from the English who did. It was the deepest conflict of ideology confronting the new nation that would have split it apart before it could defend itself fro the European powers eager to take pieces of it. No, America has nothing to apologize for. Instead each and every American of every race should get down on their knees and thank God that we did achieve the independence that was the only way slavery could have been ended.

  • Bourbon Beaucoup

    Why is there an increasing level of college students embracing the “good” values of communism that support “inclusion” and equality of opportunity, against the “bad” values of capitalism which they see as exploitive and predatory that favor exclusion of the majority of the people to concentrate wealth into the tiny fraction of the elite. Everyone that knows anything of history can see the terrible evils and suffering that communism has inflicted on billions of people over the last century.

    That so many young Americans can seriously embrace and support Communism is that they know nothing of it’s history, of any history for that matter. They consider history to be dry and lifeless recounting of the racist and genocidal predations of dead white men. In their mutually supportive delusion of a superior world, they believe that Communism will “empower” the non-white, non-European people that have been victimized by white oppressors for the last 500 years of European colonialism.

    They have so little understanding of history, that they cannot see that all of the success in elevating an extraordinary percentage of a vastly increased number of all people of all races of all inhabited continents to a vastly improved quality of life for substantially longer lifespans; that this unbelievable accomplishment is solely attributed to capitalism which can only exist through democracy.

    The failure to understand that singularly critical fact is because they don’t understand history.

Inspiration
The Strangely Mysterious Beauty of Christmas
Tom Gilson
More from The Stream
Connect with Us