Because Dr. Schwarz is a lover of poetry, I believe the following poem well summarizes our attitude toward such a  crusading spirit. It is entitled “Be Strong” and written by Maltbie Babcock (d. 1901):

Be Strong!
We are not here to play, to dream, to drift
We have hard work to do and loads to lift;
Shun not the struggle—face it; ‘tis God’s gift.

Be Strong!
Say not, ‘The days are evil.  Who’s to blame?”
And fold the hands and acquiesce—oh shame!
Stand up, speak out, and bravely, in God’s name.

Be Strong!
It matters not how deep entrenched the wrong
How hard the battle goes, the day how long;
Faint not—fight on!  Tomorrow comes the Song.

      As most of our readers know, on April 5, 1998 Dr. Fred Schwarz, founder and president of the Christian Anti-Communism Crusade, announced his retirement after 45 years of loyal service to the cause of God, truth, freedom and the furtherance of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  His wonderful book, Beating the Unbeatable Foe (Regnery Publishers, 1996), is a moving story of a one-man crusade against the forces of darkness, deception, mass killings, lies and slavery.  Dr. Schwarz took communism seriously and battled it his whole life.  He knew in his heart it was the very mask of Satan (who lies, steals, murders and destroys—John 10:10).  He had the courage to tell the  naked truth about it.  For his efforts he was labeled everything but a decent human being, which I can now assure our readers—he is indeed.
      In fact, it was Dr. Schwarz who told the truth about the whole communist enterprise and the leftist/liberals who banked the truth or lied about the Communists.  As difficult as it might be to believe today, the anti-anti-Communists considered the anti-Communists to be more deadly than the Communists.  But the Communists were responsible for the death of tens of millions while Dr. Fred Schwarz labored to preserve life.  Yet, to this day, the liberal/leftists  anti-anti-Communists in this country have never apologized for their smear tactics and efforts to destroy those who were seeking to tell the truth about Communism.  If the truth were known, the anti-anti-Communists were much closer to the Communist’s worldview  than the anti-Communists.

      For those who doubt such sentiment, I simply suggest a reading of the book published by Yale University Press entitled The Soviet World of American Communism by Kiehr, Haynes and Anderson.  In a review of this work in The Weekly Standard for March 9, 1998 Arnold Beichman says, “The Communist Party USA did remarkably well in securing unconditional approval for Soviet foreign policy aims from such non-Communist Americans as Henry Wallace, Joseph E. Davies, Vera Micheles Dean, Claude Pepper—the list is endless.  So, too, the party did quite well in espionage recruitment, finding Alger Hiss, J. Robert Oppenheimer, Whitaker Chambers, Lee Pressman, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, and many more.”
      In fact, as Beichman further notes, the liberal/left is already seeking to rehabilitate Communism by making it part of the larger family of socialism and democracy.  Says Beichman, “No one would think of doing this favor for fascism, but communism with even more millions of victims and a much longer life span is the beneficiary of this sustained effort of historical rehabilitation in—of all places—American colleges and universities.” 
      By God’s grace and your involvement we plan to do something about this situation.  We need this publication to be placed in the hands of this generation’s young people.  Are you ready for this challenge?  We trust you are because we will be reaching out to you for the resources to keep the Christian Anti-Communism Crusade viable and active.  We need your prayers, interest and financial help.  We need you to stand up and speak out, too.  And we promise to supply you with the best material and necessary ammunition to do so.  We just need you to make sure you place this material in the right hands.
      Yours truly, along with Dr. Michael Bauman, head of Christian Studies at Hillsdale College, Hillsdale, Michigan, will be editing The Schwarz Report and promoting the educational and spiritual aims of the Schwarz organization.  Dr. Ronald H. Nash, professor at Reformed Theological Seminary, has agreed to help with the newsletter as well.  Dr. Nash has written extensively on the subject of Marxism (as has Dr. Bauman) and these men are confident the product will be first class.
      If someone in our reading audience is wondering why this ministry, the Christian Anti-Communism Crusade,  should be carried forth let me  make just two observations.  First,  one of America’s best but least known theologians, D. A. Carson, in his The Gagging of God says that Christians must continue to maintain a “well-directed” assault against the ideas of Marxism, Freudianism, evolution and postmodernism (p. 426).    And second,  the slaughter of the 20th Century is reason enough to keep all eyes on these

Marxist/Leftists/Socialists groups and The Schwarz Report will be doing just that.  An old Russian proverb goes something like this: “Dwell on the past and you’ll lose an eye; forget the past and you’ll lose both eyes.”

We must not forget the past or fail to pass on to the next generation the benefits of Christianity, morality and freedom.   Join us in this endeavor.  We welcome you with open arms and hearts.
                                                —David A. Noebel, for the editors

The Communist Manifesto  (1848-1998): Prescription for Mass Murder
by Dr. Fred Schwarz

      Despite the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the collapse of the Berlin Wall, thousands of people throughout the world are celebrating the 150th Anniversary of the publication of the Manifesto of the Communist Party.    It has been one of the most influential publications in human history.  The Manifesto was written by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels and has inspired numerous revolutions throughout the world and caused millions  to give their very lives for such a revolution.  Lenin, the conqueror of Russia in 1917,  describes it thus:

“With the clarity and brilliance of genius, this work       outlines a new world conception, consistent materialism, which also embraces the realm of social life; dialectics, as the most comprehensive and profound doctrine of development; the theory of the Class Struggle and of the world historic revolutionary role of the proletariat—the creator of a new communist society.”

      Chapter 1 of the Manifesto begins with the statement, “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.”
      This categorical statement expresses the conviction of Marx that all societies are divided into classes which are unequal and in conflict.  Human inequality is a basic premise of Marxism.
      The Random House Dictionary defines “class” as follows:

“A number of persons forming a group by reason of common attributes, characteristics, qualities or traits” and “a social stratum sharing basic economic, political or cultural characteristics and having the same social position.”

Marx describes the existing world system as he sees it:

“Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie,  possesses however, this distinctive feature;  it has simplified the class antagonisms.  Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other:  Bourgeoisie and Proletariat.” 

      The bourgeoisie consisted of the owners of property and the means of production and the proletariat consisted of those who sold their labor for wages.  The conflict between them, insisted Marx,  was intractable and irreversible.  It could only end by the total destruction of the bourgeoisie.  Fortunately,  according to Marx, the bourgeoisie were creating the forces that would destroy it.  He writes:

“What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are  its own grave diggers.  Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.”

      In practice the definition of the bourgeoisie has been somewhat elastic and has included all owners of property, even those in the middle class.  Marx writes:

“You must, therefore, confess that by ‘individual’ you mean no other person than the bourgeoisie, than the middle-class owner of property.  This person must, indeed, be swept out the way, and made impossible.”

      Pol Pot, the devoted follower of Karl Marx, set out to obey his master.  After coming to power in Cambodia he proceeded with his “mission to destroy” and “make impossible” all owners of property.  The possession of a pair of glasses became a death sentence.
      The bourgeoisie created both the weapons to be used for its own destruction but also the executioners who would use the weapons.

“Not only [did] the bourgeoisie forge the weapons that bring death to itself;  it has also called into existence the men who are to wield those weapons—the modern working class—the proletarians.”

      More than 50 years after Marx wrote the Manifesto, Lenin formed the Communist Party of Russia, which considered itself to be the brain and muscle of the proletariat.  Under Stalin, it took upon itself the Marxist responsibility to execute the bourgeoisie, including most of the revolutionary colleagues of Lenin.  Mao Zedong directed the homicidal activities of the “brain” of the proletariat of China, and Pol Pot “swept out of the way and made impossible” one third of the population of Cambodia.  To say that communists have killed over a hundred million is an understatement. Communism has proved itself to be not only a deadly disease of the mind, but the greatest killing machine of all human history..
      Apologists for Marxism and Communism claim that Marx did not intend people to be killed; that he was only  referring to their ideas. This claim in nonsense. Marx consistently referred to the use of force and extolled it.  He openly states his mission “is to destroy.”  The concluding sentence of the Manifesto states:

“The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims.  They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions.  Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communist revolution.  The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains.  They have a world to win.
“Working men of all countries, unite!”

      Frederick Engels was co-author of the Manifesto.  He is often called the “alter ego” of Karl Marx.  He always pays tribute to the primacy of Marx and states in the 1888 preface to the English edition:

“The Manifesto being our joint production, I consider myself bound to state that the fundamental proposition, which forms its nucleus, belongs to Marx.  The proposition is: that in every historical epoch, the prevailing mode of economic production and exchange, and the social organization necessarily following from it, form the basis upon which is built up, and from which alone can be explained, the political and intellectual history of the epoch.”

      In his writings, Engels glorifies violence.  He wrote the book  Anti-Duhring  which is recognized as one of the great classics of Marxist literature.  Although Engels is the official author he states that the ideas expressed are basically those of Marx.

“I must note in passing that inasmuch as the mode of outlook expounded in this

book was founded and developed in far greater measure by Marx, and only in an insignificant degree by myself, it was self-understood between us that this exposition of mine should not be issued without his knowledge.  I read the whole manuscript to him before it was printed, and the tenth chapter of the part on economics (“From the Critical History”) was written by Marx but unfortunately had to be shortened somewhat by me for purely external reasons.”
      One could be pardoned for deciding that Engels lusted after violence after reading the following: 

“To Herr Duhring force is the absolute evil; the first act of force is to him the original sin; his whole exposition is a jeremiad on the contamination of all subsequent history consummated by the original sin; a jeremiad on the shameful perversion of all natural and social laws by this diabolical power, force. That force, however, plays also another role in history, a revolutionary role; that, in the words of Marx, it is the midwife of every old society pregnant with a new one, that it is the instrument with the aid of which social movement forces its way through and shatters the dead, fossilized political forms—of this there is not a word in Herr Duhring.”

      In his classical work The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky,  Lenin quotes the following statement by Engels with approval.

“Have these gentlemen (the anti-authoritarians) ever seen a revolution?  A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is: it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon—authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionaries.”

      The verdict is clear.  Marx and Engels prescribed violence.  Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot applied it.  One hundred million corpses confirm it.

      How can such violence be prevented in the future?  Accurate diagnosis is the first essential in the treatment of disease.  The root cause must be discovered.  The basic ideas of Marx and Engels are pathogenic and must be combated wherever they are proclaimed.

Christianity and Marxism
by Dr. Ronald H. Nash

      Many people are only now becoming aware of the strong Marxist presence within American Christendom.  In one sense, this is nothing new.  During the heyday of Josef Stalin, many liberal Christians in America acted as though the kingdom of God were being established in the Soviet Union.  Even while Stalin’s secret police were murdering millions of people within the Soviet Union, alleged spokesmen for Christ were praising his efforts to bring about a just social order.
      Much more recently, of course, a Marxist influence began to appear in the thinking of those who call themselves liberation theologians.  But many American Christians have yet to grasp the growing Marxist influence within pockets of American Christendom that have been theologically conservative.  I am referring especially to those American Protestants known as evangelicals.  Many readers view politically radical evangelical journals like Sojourners as anti-American and anticapitalist.  They also find a distinctively pro-Soviet and pro-Marxist stance in such magazines.  The magazines exhibit a double standard.  Their standards for the United States are strict and severe.  Their standards for everyone else, including the Soviets, Cubans, Vietnamese, and Sandinistas, are quite lenient. Over the past several years, Sojourners has appeared to blame the United States for most of the major evils in the world, including the murder of millions of Cambodians by Communists, the Soviet invasion   of Afghanistan, and the Soviets’ shooting down of a Korean airliner.  In his book Target America, James Tyson discusses the changing content of Communist propaganda on various issues and events of the past few years and documents the extent to which the U.S. media has mirrored that propaganda.  Many persons familiar with the positions of the evangelical radicals will be surprised to find how closely the views of these radicals follow the official party line.
      Varieties of Marxist thought have become deeply entrenched on several major evangelical campuses.  Some evangelical sociologists criticize their society from a Marxist perspective, while some evangelical economics departments present socialism as the only option for thinking Christians.  This pro-Marxist bias is also evident in other departments in these colleges and seminaries.
      One book that illustrates the growing Christian fascination with Marxism is Jose Miguez-Bonino’s Christians and Marxists.  Not only was this book published by an

evangelical publishing company [Eerdmans, Grand Rapids], but its contents were first delivered to an evangelical audience in London, England under the auspices of John Stott, noted British evangelical and former rector of All Souls Church in London.  In his book, Bonino discusses Communists like Lenin, Mao Tse-tung, and Fidel Castro in the same reverent tones he uses to describe Christian saints and martyrs.  Bonino reports how he is moved by “their deep compassion for human suffering and their fierce hatred of oppression and exploitation.”  Of course, such an observation would have surprised the millions of people who were oppressed, exploited, and murdered at the command of these men.
      In one of his more surprising claims, Bonino writes: “Indeed, when we observe the process of building a Socialist society in China . . . we see a significant, even preponderant, importance given to the creation of a new man, a solitary human being who places the common good before his own individual interest.”   The reader must keep in mind that the China Bonino thinks so highly of is the China of Mao Tse-tung, a China that the Chinese themselves have since denounced.  Sociologist Peter Berger provides a healthy antidote to Bonino’s ethical short-sightedness when he writes: “Even if it were true that Maoism had vanquished hunger among China’s poor, this achievement could not morally justify the horrors inflicted by the regime—horrors that entailed the killing of millions of human beings and the imposition of a merciless totalitarian rule on the survivors.”
      But Bonino is not through praising Marxist dictatorships.  He writes: “The political and economic quality and the human value of Socialist revolutions has consistently increased as we move from the USSR to China and Cuba.  The social cost has been reduced, the measure of compulsion and repression, particularly in the last case, has been minimized, the welfare of the people has been given at least as much priority as economic development, the disruptive consequences of a blind drive towards industrialization have been avoided.  The Chinese and Cuban revolutions have created a sense of participation and achievement on the part of the people and have stimulated a feeling of dignity and moral determination.”
      Such words would not be surprising if uttered by paid propagandists of Mao or Castro.  But they come from a self-professed evangelical who was speaking to other evangelicals—who believed him!  One must wonder why Bonino was so silent about the millions who died under Communist rule in China and in the U.S.S.R.  Why did he fail to mention the persecution of the Christian church (and other religions) by these dictators he finds so admirable?

      Another sample of contemporary evangelical attitudes towards Marxism is Andrew Kirk’s book, The Good News of the Kingdom Coming [InterVarsity Press].  Kirk’s position is another troubling example of the unbalanced sympathy for Marxism that exists in certain evangelical circles.  Kirk is associate director of the London Institute for Contemporary Christianity, an off-shoot of the group that gave Bonino the platform for the lectures on which his book is based.  Kirk’s institute has strong ties both to John Stott and to All Souls Church, an important and influential center of evangelical training in London.
      Kirk presents Marxism “as a strong defender of the dignity of human beings.”  Under Marxism, Kirk thinks, “Every person has a right to develop himself freely and enjoy the fruit of his work.”  Many readers will wonder where this kind of Marxism is on public display.  Marxism, Kirk continues, has “a deep compassion for people.  Unlike present political systems—big business, even the Church—it [Marxism] does not seem to have any particular vested interests to defend.”  Moreover, Kirk tells his Christian

readers, Marxism “contains a strong element of hope....Marxism’s crowning assertion is that Communist society is the only place where man can find his own real humanity by discovering that of his neighbor.”
Something seems desperately wrong here.  Some may rush to the defense of evangelicals like Bonino and Kirk by claiming that such quotations misrepresent their views.  After all, it might be claimed, there are different kinds of Marxism and perhaps Christian Marxists only mean to speak kindly of nonrepressive forms of Marxism, forms that may in fact express concerns that theologically conservative Christian can share.  While this interesting suggestion may get Kirk off the hook to some extent, it hardly rescues Bonino from his fawning over ruthless Communist dictators.  Because different versions of Marxism exist and, in fact, compete with each other, there is value in distinguishing these varieties of Marxist thought in order to see if it throws any light on the contemporary Christian fascination with Marxism.

(Next issue: The Three Faces of Marxism) 

r   A few months ago there appeared in the Sunday Magazine of the New York Times a full-page apologia by a self-proclaimed ‘red diaper baby’: Her parents may not have exercised good judgment by becoming party members—but at least they ‘believed in something.’  In a recent essay in the New York Review of Books, the historian Theodore Draper rightly denounced such popular exculpation of communism, together with its surviving academic defenders.  There is, he wrote, ‘clearly an attempt to rehabilitate communism by making it part of the larger family of socialism and democracy.  No one would think of doing this favor for fascism, but communism with even more millions of victims and a much longer life span is the beneficiary of this sustained effort of historical rehabilitation in—of all places—American colleges and universities.’”  Arnold Beichman in The Weekly Standard, March 9, 1998, p. 35.

     “The CPUSA—the Communist party as it existed in the United States—is the only radical party in American history to be governed by a foreign country.  It was a form of colonialism, run from the mother country of the Soviet Union, that Stalin called ‘proletarian internationalism,’ and it meant that Moscow’s orders to its colonials were to be obeyed upon pain of expulsion.  Thanks to archives opened in Russia after the fall of the Communists, Harvey Klehr, John Earl Haynes, and Kirl M. Anderson have been able to document beyond all doubt the extent and the viciousness of the role played even in America by the ‘Comintern,’ the Soviet agency that ruled Communist parties the world over.  The Soviet World of American Communism takes its place as yet another fine entry in Yale University Press’s extraordinary series of recent books on the history of the Communist plague in the twentieth century.”  Arnold Beichman in The Weekly Standard, March 9, 1998, p. 33. 

r    “One of the men charged with attempting to sell organs harvested from prisoners executed in Communist China acted like a ‘human beings’ butcher,’ noted a human rights activist.  Cheng Yong Wang, 41, and Xingqu Fu, 35, were arrested on charges of trying to sell corneas, kidneys, skin, livers, pancreases and lungs harvested from executed prisoners.  Human rights activist Harry Wu, who spent 19 years in Chinese labor camps, said he told the FBI about the alleged criminal ring after videotaping a meeting with Mr. Wang at a Manhattan hotel on February 13.”  The Washington Times, February 25, 1998, p. A6.

r    “Karl Barth wrote in Church Dogmatics, “God may speak to us through Russian Communism, through a flute concerto, through a blossoming shrub or through a dead dog.  We shall do well to listen to him if he really does so.”  In the light of such statement, one wonders why Barth was so concerned in 1934 in the Barmen Declaration to deny that God can speak to us through Adolf Hitler.  The likely answer—the answer that explains his vociferous condemnation of Nazism in the  1930’s and his deliberate and lifelong refusal to condemn Communism, and even his praise for Communism—is not his theology, but his political philosophy: Barth was a lifelong socialist of the  Marxist variety.”  John Robbins, “Karl Barth” in The Trinity Review, P. O. Box 68, Unicoi, TN 37692.

r    “Jesus is more socialist than the socialists....Jesus’ view of property is this: Property is sin, because property is self-seeking.”  Karl Barth, in The Trinity Review, P. O. Box 68, Unicoi, TN 37692.

r     “Writing in 1963 to his friend the Czechoslovakian Communist and theologian, Joseph Hromadka, [Karl] Barth lamented the fact that he, Barth, had been accused of pro-Communist sympathies, even by such liberal theologians as Emil Brunner and Reinhold Niebuhr.  He defended his lifelong socialism: ‘I have, however, always spoken out loudly and consistently as an opponent of western and especially Swiss anti-Communism, against the cold war, atomic armament, ten years ago against the remilitarizing of West Germany.”  Despite his apparent orthodox words, Barth’s dialectical theological enterprise was always shaped by his prior and lifelong commitment to socialism.  He chose theology as a basis for his social action.  The theology of the nineteenth century could not so, in Barth’s view; a new [dialectical] theology was necessary.”  John Robbins, “Karl Barth,” in The Trinity Review, P. O. Box 68, Unicoi, TN 37692.

r          “The publication in France of The Black Book of Communism is setting off shock waves in French political circles.  But the book’s real impact could be in America.  At long last, we will have the tools to confront ‘Communism The Idea.’  Three centuries in the making, communism has offered the only challenge to the principles of the American Founding.  It has done so under a bewildering variety of labels, all based on the identical doctrine: that human reason is supreme, and that certain people are capable of comprehending and arranging the world around us; that such people should guide all others toward an increasingly perfect and just society in which all desires will have been either eliminated or satisfied.  Unlike the American quest for the best possible world, communism thus promises the perfect world.  For V.I. Lenin, that meant a world where no one owned anything.  For Adolph Hitler, one without Jews and ruled by Germans.  Josef Stalin combined it all—no Jews, no ownership, and world domination by Russia.  Mao Tse-tung hunted down those who possessed Western books.  All for social justice.  All ‘in the best interest of the people.’” Balint Vazsonyi, The Washington Times, January 20, 1998, p. A12.

r  “Alain Besangon points out in Commentary [January 1998], the current vocabulary for our political spectrum is of Soviet origin.  It placed socialists and communists on the left, ‘capitalists, imperialists’ on the right.  Once Nazis entered the picture, they became the far right, and room was created for ‘moderates’ in the middle.  Each of these propositions is a deception.  Placing communist socialists and National Socialists at opposite ends feigned a quality difference between their agendas, and the people who joined them.  It also hinted that everyone on the ‘right’ was in some proximity to the hated Nazis.  Recently, ‘extremist’ has been added to move those on the ‘right,’ rhetorically ever closer to Nazis.  Accompanying this has been the refusal by persons who espouse classic socialist tools to be called socialist.  What else should we call people who advocate redistribution, class warfare, classification by ancestry, political correctness, revisionist history, school-to-work, speech codes?  Or do they not realize they are socialists?  If so, millions of Americans might reconsider their stance once they realize its origins.  Millions more might rediscover America’s founding principles once they accept that Nazism was just another form of socialism.  So let us restore clarity.  There are the principles of the American Founding: the rule of law, individual rights, guaranteed property, and a common American identity.  They bring, maintain and defend freedom.  Then there is the road to socialism: ‘social justice,’ ‘group rights,’ redistribution [of wealth] through entitlements, and multiculturalism. They crush the human spirit, and enslave the participants.  One is home-grown, secured by the sacrifice of countless generations, and uniquely successful.  The other is of foreign origin, propagated around the world by political operatives, and has produced the greatest tragedies of recorded history.  It should not be difficult to choose.  But there is no middle.”  Balint Vazsonyi, The Washington Times, January 20, 1998, p. A12.

r  “A New Jersey appellate court has ruled that the Boy Scouts of America violates the state’s laws against discrimination by excluding homosexual scoutmasters.  The Boy Scouts, who consider homosexuality ‘a serious moral wrong,’ argued that as a private, voluntary organization they are entitled to set their own criteria for membership.  A lower court agreed, and a higher court may yet agree.  The question is why anyone should disagree.  The New Jersey court—all three members—explained unanimously: ‘There is absolutely no evidence before us empirical or otherwise, supporting a conclusion that a gay scoutmaster, solely because he is a homosexual, does not possess the strength of character necessary to properly care for, or to impart BSA humanitarian ideals to the young boys in his charge.’  There is a word for this: totalitarian.  If a group can’t define its own purposes, standards and criteria for membership, if such a basic prerogative can be usurped by the State, let’s have no nonsense about freedom and pluralism.  We are living under the comprehensive, monistic, centralized state, which can dictate its standards to us.”  Joseph Sobran, The [Colorado Springs] Gazette, March 10, 1998, p. B6