Why Communism Kills
by Dr. Fred Schwarz, Part 2 of  a continuing series

      The Regenerate Man

      Marx believed that a scientific program based upon these laws [as stated in Part I] could create a new and superb quality of human nature.  This new man would possess such diverse talents that he would be able to perform a vast variety of functions.
      He stated: “In communist society, where no one has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticize after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, shepherd, or critic.”  (Collected Works, Vol. V, page 275).
      The philosopher, Sydney Hook, comments on this statement: “All we need to do to show its bizarre character is to recast Marx’s schedule of activities in terms of modern vocations and avocations; to perform brain surgery in the morning, engage in nuclear research in the afternoon, do some gentle gene-splicing in the evening, and conduct a symphony after dinner, just as I have a mind to without ever becoming a brain surgeon, or nuclear physicist, or geneticist, or conductor.” (Marxism and Beyond, page 6).

      Steps to Regeneration

      Despite his capacity for self-delusion, Karl Marx did not believe that the desired condition know as Communism could emerge suddenly from existing capitalism. As the beautiful butterfly must pass through the stage of the caterpillar before it can fly in all its glory, Communism must pass through the stage of Socialism before the era of abundance and freedom can dawn.  Steel can only be created by passing iron and coal through a fiery furnace, and Communism can only be created by passing society through the fires of revolution and dictatorship.
      Communism is the hypothetical end result which will reward the survivors of the long march that is necessary to move from Capitalism to Communism.  Steps on this long march include: 1) Revolution, 2) Dictatorship of the Proletariat, 3) Destruction of the Capitalist State, 4) Liquidation of the Bourgeoisie, 5) Creation of Socialism, 6)

Creation of the New Socialist Man, 7) Withering Away of the State, and 8) Emergence of Communism.  

      1. Revolution:

      Marx taught that a revolution to destroy Capitalism was both necessary and inevitable.  He acknowledged the possibility that the revolution in England and the United States might be peaceful, but he believed that most revolutions would be violent.  Lenin dismissed the possibility of peaceful revolution and declared that violence was essential.
      A debate on the question whether revolution must be violent is presently raging in the ranks of the Communists.  Certain Communist parties, known as Euro-Communist, such as the parties of Italy and Spain, believe that the revolution may be peaceful while others ridicule the idea as reformist.  All are agreed that violence is permissible.

      2.  Dictatorship of the Proletariat:

      The purpose of the revolution is to overthrow the existing government and to replace it with the dictatorship of the Proletariat, which is actually the dictatorship of the Communist Party over the Proletariat.  The Communist Party monopolizes all the levers of power.
      Lenin defined the dictatorship of the proletariat as follows: “The dictatorship of the proletariat is the rule – unrestricted by law and based on force – of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie, a rule enjoying the sympathy and support of the laboring and exploited masses.”  (The State and the Revolution by Lenin) as quoted in (Problems of Leninism by J. Stalin, page 49).

      3.  Destruction of the Capitalist State:

      After a successful revolution, many of the institutions of the capitalist state remain relatively intact.  These may include the army, the police force, the courts, the bureaucracy, and the educational system.  If they are permitted to continue to exist, they pose a grievous threat to the new regime.  Through them a counterrevolution may be organized which will threaten to overthrow the dictatorship of the proletariat.  These residual institutions of the capitalist state must be destroyed.
       Lenin was as concerned with the maintenance of power as with its seizure.  He wrote the book “The State and the Revolution” to show how it was necessary to destroy residual state institutions in order to maintain Communist power.  Above all, the army must be destroyed and replaced by a new army, a “Red Army”.

      4.  Liquidation of the Bourgeoisie:

      The Communists are followers of Karl Marx.  They believe that the economic environment generates ideas and character.  Their ultimate objective is to create the perfect character through the perfecting environment.
      When the revolution is successful, the majority of the bourgeois class remains.  In the words of Karl Marx, they must be “swept out of the way and made impossible.”  If this is not done, they will form the environment in which a substantial segment of the population is nurtured and will thus destroy the prospect of a perfect society.
      The liquidation of the bourgeoisie is an essential step on the path to Communism.  This is why Communism must kill.

      Marxism in Cambodia

      The leaders of the Cambodian Communist Party were convinced Marxists.  The majority of them were converted to Marxism and Communism while they were students in France.  Returning to Cambodia, they organized the Communist Party which they called the Khmer Rouge, and conquered Cambodia.  They set out to be the best Communists the world had ever seen.  They conducted the programs demanded by their Marxist doctrines with an amazing consistency and ruthlessness.  These doctrines taught them that the environment generates character; that the capitalist environment generates an evil character; that the cities are the headquarters of capitalism; that the bourgeoisie must be liquidated and the residual people removed from the capitalist environment of the cities; that physical labor is regenerative.
      Translating these doctrines into deeds, they ordered the evacuation of the cities of Cambodia.  Everyone had to go.  No one was exempt for humanitarian reasons.  The people were animals and could be treated like animals.  Three million people who were crowded into Phnom Penh, were ordered to leave the city in one day.  Everyone had to leave just as they were.  Children in schools were not permitted to go home and join their parents but were driven out of the city like cattle.  Hospitals were emptied of doctors, nurses, and patients.  The situation is described in the book “Murder of a Gentle Land” by John Barron and Anthony Paul, which is published by Reader’s Digest Press:

      “Troops stormed into the Preah Ket Melea Hospital, Phnom Penh’s largest and oldest, and shouted to patients, physicians and nurses alike.  ‘Out! Everybody out!  Get out!’  They made no distinction between bedridden and ambulatory patients, between the convalescing and the dying, between those awaiting surgery and those who had just undergone surgery.  Hundreds of men, women and children in pajamas limped, hobbled, struggled out of the hospital into the streets where the midday sun had raised the temperature to well over 100 degrees Fahrenheit.  Relatives or friends pushed the beds of patients too wounded, crippled or enfeebled to walk, some holding aloft perfusion bottles dripping plasma or serum into the bodies of loved ones.  One man carried his son, whose legs had just been amputated.  The bandages on both stumps were red with blood, and the son, who appeared to be about twenty-two, was screaming, ‘You can’t leave me like this!  Kill me!  Please kill me!”  (Page 17).
      The population of Cambodia was about 7 million.  It is estimated that between two and three million died.  The remainder were forced to engage in the physical labor necessary to grow rice.
      The number of dead did not trouble the Communist leaders, and Ieng Sary, their foreign minister, said: “As long as we have one million left, that will be enough to make the new man.”
      Pol Pot and his associates have earned the right to be called the most consistent Marxists the world has ever seen.
      In the Communist program for human regeneration, killing is as necessary as the fire of the furnace is for the creation of steel.
      This program of slaughter is rational if the basic premises of Marxism are accepted.  If there is no God who teaches, “Thou shall not kill,” and if people are merely animals, why should they not be treated as animals?  Husbandmen who breed finer animals and destroy the inferior ones in the process are respected and honored throughout the world.  The Communists believe that they are the husbandmen who have been selected by history to enact the programs that will result in the creation of perfect human animals.  To hesitate to eliminate the diseased would be to betray their mission.

      Watch for the last part of this three part series in next month's "Report."

continued from page 1

      The minutes of a New Jewel Movement meeting revealed that Lee was present and “had brought with her a report on the International Airport that was done by Ron Dellums.  They [Dellums and his staff] have requested that we look at the documents and suggest any changes we deem necessary.  They will be willing to make the changes.”  (Emphasis added.)
      When Dellums presented the final report to the Congress, it concluded–with Bishop’s obvious approval–that “nothing being done in Grenada constitutes a threat to the United States or her allies.”
      The captured documents, however, revealed nothing of the kind.  They showed that the Bishop regime was intent on thoroughly communizing Grenada and that the country was becoming a major military threat to the region.  By the time of the invasion, Grenada had received a gigantic infusion of arms from the Soviet bloc and, in the words of the scholarly “The Grenada Papers,” nearly 900 “Cuban, Libyan, Soviet, North Korean, East German and Bulgarian personnel were in Grenada to assist in the transformation of the island into a major military camp.”
      So far as the Grenadian airport that Dellums and his staff dismissed as nonthreatening, a March 22, 1980, notation by Lt. Col. Liam James, a deputy to Grenadian Gen. Hudson Austin and a member of the New Jewel Movement Central Committee, read: “The Revo[lution] has been able to crush the Counter-revolution internationally, airport will be used for Cuban and Soviet military.”
      Scott, the DNC’s new political chief, was not only a participant in Dellums’ bogus fact-finding mission, but the captured documents include letters she had sent to Bishop for at least a year before the Dellums visit.

      Several letters and notes to the Communist leader refer to him as “My sweet,” “My Dearest” and “My darling Comrade leader.”  After she accompanied Dellums on the visit to Grenada in April 1982, she wrote another effusive letter to Bishop on House stationery.
      “My Dearest,” she began her April 28 letter.  “Just a brief note to let you know that I still love you madly. . . .  I really need to talk to you face to face to share some thoughts that Ron has.
      “I don’t know if you realized it or not but Ron has become truly committed to Grenada. . .  Ron, as a political thinker, is the best around and Fidel will verify that in no uncertain terms.  When matched against the best of them, Ron always comes out ahead (even with Fidel). . . .
      “I am very excited about the role that Ron is willing to play after trying to get him to Grenada for so long.  I know now that all our efforts have not been in vain.  Ron had a long talk with Barb and me when we got to Havana and cried when he realized that we had been shouldering Grenada alone all this time.
      “Like I said, he’s really hooked on you and Grenada and doesn’t want anything to happen to building the Revo[lution] and making it strong.
      “He really admires you as a person and even more so as a leader with courage and foresight, principle and integrity.  Believe me, he doesn’t make that kind of statement often about anyone.  The only other person that I know of that he expresses such admiration for is Fidel.”
      Scott then closes off her letter to Bishop: “Love you madly and hope to be able to prove it one of these days.”
      Now she’s got a top job at the Democratic National Committee.
      Human Events, May 14, 1999, p. 1

Mayhem Match Points
by Paul Craig Roberts

      Now that America’s Bill Clinton and Britain’s Tony Blair have killed as many people as Chile’s Augusto Pinochet, will they be extradited to Spain for trial as war criminals?
      According to the latest news reports, as of June 2 the civilian death toll from the Anglo-American air war of aggression against Serbia stands at 2,000.  Moreover the Clinton-Blair air armada has managed to kill 2,000 civilians in only 70 days – a number Gen. Pinochet reached only after more than 16 years of civil war and internal conflict.
      In Chile, the Rettig Commission was established in 1990 by President Patricio Aylwin, the first post-Pinochet president of Chile, to document the deaths resulting from political violence during the Pinochet era.  The commission was able to document 2,298 total deaths.  About 100 of the 

deaths were military personnel and civilians killed by terrorists.  The commission was unable to determine the perpetrators for 168 of the deaths.  That leaves 2,033 documented deaths from political violence attributed to the military.  Most of these deaths resulted from shoot-outs between Marxist terrorists and military personnel, such as when the terrorists tried to assassinate Gen. Pinochet and his 10-year-old grandson.
      When the Marxist Salvador Allende discarded the Chilean constitution and attempted to establish dictatorial Marxist rule, the elected Congress censored Allende for treason and called on the military to save Chile’s democracy.
      Forced into action by a Soviet- and Cuban-backed plot to assassinate Chile’s military leaders, the army, navy, and air force moved against the paramilitary forces that Allende had organized.  The majority of the 2,033 deaths occurred during the first few days when the armed Marxists fought on behalf of Allende’s Marxist revolution.
      Gen. Pinochet is a Chilean hero.  With the help of

U.S.-trained economists, he restored Chile’s ravaged economy.  He established a constitutional commission, and after strengthening the constitutional basis of Chilean democracy, Gen. Pinochet stepped aside and returned Chile to civilian rule.
      These are not the actions of a war criminal.  Gen. Pinochet is a victim of propaganda.  Chile, a small country isolated by geography, has no voice.  In contrast, the international political left-wing has editors, reporters and columnists in every major media source in the United States and Europe.  Leftists, furious that Allende’s coup was foiled, have spent decades telling lies about Gen. Pinochet.
      A low-level Spanish magistrate, who is known for grandstanding, saw his chance for name recognition.  He sized up the Blair government in Britain as people who would bend the law in order to throw a bone, Gen. Pinochet, to the political left.  The Spaniard submitted the left’s litany of charges against Gen. Pinochet to Blair’s government, which obliged the magistrate by detaining Gen. Pinochet, who was in London recuperating from an operation.  The charges have since been thrown out by Britain’s highest court.  But Mr. Blair’s punks are still holding on to Gen. Pinochet, looking for some way to do a favor for the political left.
      In the meanwhile, Tony Blair and his ministers have managed to get themselves responsible for killing 2,000 civilians in a distant country that was not doing anything to Britain.  Unlike Gen. Pinochet, who was confronted by organized terrorists in his own country, Mr. Blair has no excuse for the civilian deaths for which he is responsible in Serbia. 
      British and Clinton spokespersons call the 2,000 dead civilians, blown to pieces by bombs, “collateral damage.”
      Why is it permissible for Mr. Blair and Mr. Clinton to inflict collateral damage by intervening in a civil war that does not concern them, but not permissible for Gen. Pinochet to have collateral damage resulting from actions necessary to put down Marxist terrorists in his own country?
      The hollowness of the World Court at the Hague, the International Criminal Court, the genocide treaty and the rest of the “human rights” paraphernalia is abundantly clear.  These “high principles” are nothing but tools in the armory of the powerful.  They are only applied to small, out-of-the-way places like Chile and Serbia.  Mr. Blair and Mr. Clinton can bomb Serbian hospitals, retirement homes, residential neighborhoods, passenger trains, and crowded pedestrian bridges without being held accountable.  But Gen. Pinochet cannot put down terrorism, and Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic cannot put down a civil war, without being “war criminals.”
      The punk governments of Mr. Clinton and Mr. Blair have reduced high principle to “might is right.”
      Washington Times, June 8, 1999, p. A 17

Jiang’s Optimism for Socialism
by David Rennie

      China’s commitment to free-market reforms has been cast deeper into doubt by an unexpectedly hard-line address from the leader of the Communist Party.
      In a speech to mark the party’s 78th anniversary, President Jiang Zemin said socialism would defeat capitalism, there would be no all-out privatization of the state sector and China would continue to be guided by Marxism. 
      China was doomed if party members ever lost faith in communism, he said. 
      Meanwhile, China’s stock markets fell yesterday after a second day of rumors that reformist Prime Minister Zhu Rongji had tried to resign.  Mr. Jiang had told a party forum on Wednesday that the faith of “some comrades” in the victory over capitalism “has been weakened.”
      Diplomats said Mr. Jiang’s speech went further than the standard communist rhetoric that had been expected on the anniversary of the party.  “This is not to say that they don’t want economic reform, but maybe they want it tomorrow, not today,” one said.
      Mr. Jiang told a party forum on Wednesday that “some comrades’ ” confidence about the final victory over capitalism by socialism and the future of the construction of socialism with Chinese characteristics has been weakened.”
      Some people abroad and within China had mistaken experiments with shareholding and other forms of private ownership for a signal that China was embracing full-scale privatization, he said.  Such misunderstandings had led to “deviations” from officials who had “drifted with the tide of money-worship” and grabbed state property for themselves.
      Endemic corruption and asset stripping has damaged the cause of those pushing for tough measures to turn around state-owned companies.  China has witnessed daily street protests as workers accuse their managers of stealing pension funds and the blatant diversion of company assets.
      The outgoing American ambassador to China revealed on Wednesday that leaders who had advocated closer ties with Washington – including both Mr. Jiang and Mr. Zhu – were under pressure from hard-line rivals who had seized on the NATO attack on China’s embassy in Yugoslavia.
      Ambassador James Sasser told reporters that the leadership was “still feeling its way” but that it had sent quiet signals to him during farewell meetings that they wanted to get the relationship back on track, when they could.
      “American-leaning leaders have been embarrassed frankly by the embassy bombing, and this is being used against them by their political opponents,” Mr. Sasser said.
      Washington Times, July 2, 1999, p. 1

What was the American Governing System Intended to Be?
by Richard L. Sullivan, part 2 of 3 parts

      Before focusing on the very complex issues and differences between ideologies that influence our lives on a daily basis, it is important that some basic definitions be considered.
      It is vital to know whether or not a person is following and believing a lie or a truth.
      A descriptive scenario about the damage that can be caused by just a little bit of untruth mixed in with a large amount of truth, would be your very favorite food, prepared by a world class chef, with just 5% of the total meal consisting of a deadly poison.  A person wanting you to swallow just a small amount of deadly poison would not try to get you to eat the poison alone, but would hide it in something that you perceived as a very delicious meal.
      So it is with the political and ideological environment in which we live.
      No political system is perfect because the people in it are not perfect.  But the best system of government to live under is one that allows its citizens to determine, by participation, how good or bad that system will be for them.  We are concerned here with what form of government we are supposed to have and the form of government that the Socialists would like us to have.
      The United States was not formed as a democracy, but as a republic.
      In a democracy the people would rule directly.  One person, one vote.  The majority of the votes would determine the direction the people would want the country to go.  It

would be a very cumbersome and impossible way to run a large society.  
      In a republic, the people, through private ownership of the means of production, control their personal economy and destiny.
      Socialism replaces individual and private control with common or government ownership of the means of producing goods.  This simple difference between a republic and socialist state is the difference between being free and not being free.
      Socialism has been around, in one form or another since 1825.  Its development and existence has involved some complex changes and manipulations.  But right from its conception it has been commonly connected with the word “democratic.”  The terms Socialist Democrat and Democratic Socialism are almost interchangeable in the history of Socialist efforts to control cultures and states.
      The founders and leaders of the Soviet Union constantly used references to the superiority of socialism over systems based on capitalism.  The problem with what the Soviet leaders were telling the world about their socialist successes was that it all turned out to be lies.  Once the curtain around the Soviet Union came down the Western world was able to see the reality of the failure of Socialism in action.
      The Soviets had lied so convincingly, though, that all over the world influential people in government and academia had been convinced that government control of people and production would lead to the perfect world...Utopia!
      These people are still with us.  They still believe that Socialism is the only road to a perfect way of life.  They just believe that the Soviets took a good thing and handled it in the wrong way.
      These people make up the Democratic Socialists of America.  People who are not enthralled with Socialism are the enemy.

q            “Radio Havana (1/28/99) reports that ‘Cuba and Panama signed at the Panamanian capital an agreement for the promotion and protection of investments in the two countries, as well as a basic cooperation agreement between the two governments.  The documents were signed by Cuban Foreign Investment and Economic Cooperation Minister Ibrahim Ferradaz and Panamanian Foreign Minister Jorge Eduardo Ritter.  Following the signing of the two documents, Ibrahim Ferradaz emphasized the importance of this event, which strengthens Cuban-Panamanian ties.  He said that this establishes a solid bridge for investors while the basic 

cooperation agreement between the two governments calls for the creation of a mixed commission that will revise bilateral cooperation in the finance, trade, culture, sports, and other sectors.  Meanwhile, Panamanian Foreign Minister Jorge Eduardo Ritter said the signing of these agreements reaffirms the strong ties between Cuba and Panama, a country that has expressed its rejection of the unilateral measures adopted against Cuba, he said.’
      Howard Phillips Issues and Strategy Bulletin #614, January 31, 1999

q    “Not only does the left not apologize for its support of Josef Stalin and its later opposition to anti-Communism, its adherents continue to vilify their opponents who were morally right.
      “This year’s Academy Awards controversy over honoring film director Elia Kazan with a Lifetime Achievement Award is another good example of the left never apologizing, no matter how great its crimes.
      “Those leading the protests against Elia Kazan, who informed against eight members of the Communists in the film industry before the House on Un-American Activities Committee in 1952, are almost all former Communists or their supporters.  The moral inversion here is breathtaking.  The people living in luxury and freedom who supported Josef Stalin and his Soviet Communist Party have not only never apologized for the tens of millions of dead victims and the hundreds of million of other victims of Communism, they walk around acting as if they are the victimized party.
      “Former Communists and their children now write memoirs about their parents’ time as Communists as if it were some Golden Age of Idealism, rather than an evil time of willful ignorance regarding unspeakable horrors.
      “In the words of Professor Alan Wolfe of Boston University, a contributing editor to the New Republic:
      “ ‘To this day, former Communists portray themselves as innocent activists wanting only what was best for their country....Who are they, or their like-minded sympathizers today, to insist that Kazan was vile whereas their intentions were only pure?...it is time for U.S. Communists to admit their mistakes.’ ”
      “The liberal identification with leftists’ ideas has been repeatedly demonstrated during the Kazan controversy.  In the mainstream (i.e., liberal) news media, the controversy is always depicted as: ‘Will Kazan apologize?’ or ‘Is it time to forgive Kazan?’ or ‘Can we separate artistic achievement from character (i.e., great art from an evil man)?’  I am unaware of a single exception – e.g., describing the controversy as ‘Will former Hollywood Communists and fellow travelers finally repent?’  Or ‘What if Kazan had informed on members of the Nazi party?’
      “Indeed, what if Kazan had informed on members of the Nazi party, or Ku Klux Klan members or, lowest of all, tobacco company executives?  Wouldn’t the mainstream (i.e., liberal) media, in any of these situations, have regarded Elia Kazan as a moral hero?
      “In the leftist worldview, it is only Kazan, not the Hollywood supporters of Stalin’s regime, who has to say he is sorry.  The reason?  Because left means never having to say you’re sorry.”
      The Praeger Perspective, Feb 15-March 1, 1999, p. 4-5

q    “The first pseudonyms Stalin used when he started writing as a revolutionary were ‘Demonishvili’, meaning something like ‘the demoniac’ in Georgian, and ‘Beshoshvili’, meaning ‘the devilish’.  Concerning Stalin, Bukharin — formerly the Secretary-General of the Communist International, one of the chief Soviet doctrinaires, whom Stalin finally destroyed – wrote: ‘He is not a man, but a devil’.  As for Lavrentii Beria, even Svetlana Alliluyeva, Stalin’s daughter, who never understood how deeply her father had sunk into the pit, wrote: ‘Beria was a frightening, wicked demon....A terrible demon had taken possession of my father’s soul’, suggesting that Beria infested Stalin – whom Svetlana said ‘considered goodness and forgiving love to be worse than the greatest crime’.  Lenin attended a Satanic event while staying on the island of Capri.  At the age of 16, Lenin tore a cross from his neck, spat on it and trod it underfoot, a common Satanist ceremony.
      “Yagoda, the Soviet Interior Minister, used to undress, and naked shoot at images of Jesus and the saints—a Satanist ritual performed in high places among the Soviet Communist hierarchy.
      “Demonic hatred of religion, especially true Christianity, was and remains a primary motivation.  ‘We make war against all prevailing ideas of religion.... the idea of God is the keynote of a perverted civilisation.  It must be destroyed’, wrote Marx.  ‘Atheism is an integral part of Marxism.  Marxism is materialism.  We must combat religion’, wrote Lenin.  Kaganovitch, Stalin’s brother-in-law and closest collaborator, wrote in his diary: ‘Many times Stalin spoke of religion as our most vicious enemy’.  Like Gorbachev.
      “Gorbachev proclaimed in his Memoir that, as know-ledgeable authorities separately agree, he is a disciple of the dead Italian Communist, Antonio Gramsci, whose subversive prescription for changing loyalties and values by establishing a ‘New Age’ cultural hegemony and controlling minds through the systematic corrosion of art, education, true religion, national institutions, the churches, morality and the physical wellbeing of targeted Western population (through drugs, Satanic music and ponography) is responsible for the wrenching contemporary onslaught on civilisation.
      “ ‘I had also thoroughly studied Gramsci’s Prison Journals’, he writes.  It is also known that Gorbachev’s wife, Raisa, who has been seen wearing a crucifix round her neck, is a prominent student of Antonio Gramsci.  But Gorbachev is, most predominantly of all, the self-acknowledged High Priest and heir of the Satanic Lenin, the main ‘source’ of his revolutionary inspiration.  His assertion that he and the Pope ‘must also have something in common “at the source” in our ideas’, is illuminated accordingly.”
      Christopher Story, Soviet Analyst, April 1999