Tag: communism

Communism Was Never a Proletarian Revolution

Rafael Augusto B.L. de Oliveira@ancient_scrolls

History has repeatedly shown us that human greed, ambition, and selfishness will never let Karl Marx’s ideas properly work in the real world. When Karl Marx wrote his ideology of communism, he envisioned a world of near-total equality. In other words, this would be a world without any division of classes or inequality. While his ideas looked promising on paper, they did not properly function in the real world. Instead, totalitarian states formed, under which the working class had even fewer rights than before. Unlike capitalism, the workers didn’t even have a slight chance of eventually joining the upper class. Continue reading “Communism Was Never a Proletarian Revolution”

Advertisements

Karl Marx Tombstone Vandalized Twice this Month

Rafael Augusto B.L. de Oliveira |@ancient_scrolls

Even if Karl Marx has been sleeping with the fishes for centuries it looks like the father of the so-called “people’s revolution” is finally getting a taste of his own medicine. After all the pain and death his writings have caused around the world, individuals are striking back by defiling the fallen comrade’s statue.

Continue reading “Karl Marx Tombstone Vandalized Twice this Month”

Why Do the Political Elites Love Cultural Marxism?

By Jack Parkos | United States

The 2016 election was a fierce political battle, but it stretched beyond the typical fight between Republicans and Democrats. It was a battle between Western culture and cultural Marxism.

Cultural Marxism is a term used in much of right-wing media, typically as a term to describe social progressivism. When an institution comes out against straight white men or western values they get labeled by the right as falling to cultural Marxism. The left tends to label this as “alt-right propaganda” or simply a conspiracy theory. But in all actuality, cultural Marxism is real and is a problem in today’s society.

What Cultural Marxism is Not

Cultural Marxism gets used by extremists on the alt-right quite often. They label it as a “Jewish conspiracy” to kill the white race (often using the word “white genocide”). This is foolish. Cultural marxism is not this. It is not when people of different races interact with each other peacefully, marry, or have kids; rather it is about conflict amongst groups. The alt-right is just as disgusting as cultural Marxists.

What is Cultural Marxism?

Many have heard of cultural Marxism but do not understand it. Cultural Marxism begins with the Frankfurt School in the 1960s, the goal of this being to bring about a marxist society. It differs from traditional Marxism in the sense of bringing about this Marxist utopia by trying a new political strategy. The traditional Marxist movement’s of the past consisted of the Leninist strategy at building a movement. The goal was for the upper political elite to appeal to the bottom of society to create a “dictatorship of the proletariat”.

Unlike cultural Marxism, Leninist philosophy was based on the idea of class struggle. People were divided by their class, and Marxist thought tried to unite the working class to rise up. This helped party leaders like Stalin, Lenin, and Trotsky gain power.  All political movements need a “bad guy” to fight against. For Leninism, this enemy was the monarchies and the capitalists.  This was a success, as the revolution prevailed and the “dictatorship of the proletariat” began. Under it, the capitalists were the enemies and anyone who wasn’t a Bolshevik was attacked. Naturally, after Leninism, Stalinism occurs with a brutal police state hunting down enemies of the movement. The working class was used by elites to gain power. Meanwhile, the “middle man”, as well as many others in the working class, suffered.

Cultural Marxists use this Leninist model to gain power as well, but where they differ is in the target of the “bottom of society”. Cultural Marxists focus on cultural divides and not economics. In the Russian revolution, the oppressors were the upper class and the workers were the oppressed. Under cultural Marxism, the oppressors are white men and traditional western culture. The oppressed are minorities, women, the LGBT, Muslims, etc. Cultural Marxists attack concepts like the nuclear family as being part of “the patriarchy”. They label patriotism as racism and all of traditional western culture as oppressive or evil.

In the modern day, many people do not identify with economic class anymore. We aren’t divided as Bolsheviks, bourgeoisie, and the upper class anymore. People identify with their race, gender, and sexual orientation. Thus, cultural Marxist philosophers try to change the culture to obtain an end goal of complete Marxism. So far, they are very successful.

Examples of Cultural Marxism

We can see examples of this in Communist China, as Mao’s “Red Guard” destroyed artifacts of traditional Chinese culture. But in recent years it has overflown to the Western nations, like the United States, as well. We live in an age of forced so-called “political correctness” where everything from education, pop culture, and even sports must follow these principles or be punished. We allegedly live in a “homophobic country”, but bakers are harassed to obey the demands of the LGBT. Education has a huge bias with many classes being taught from a left-wing perspective. Furthermore, if a right-wing or conservative speaker comes to speak on a college campus, then riots or protests break out. The police are ordered not to stop the riots, but to force a peaceful speaker not to speak on campus.

The Elitist Love for It

The LGBT community, feminists, and Black Lives Matter activists are the new proletariat. (This does not mean for example that all women and/or minorities are apart of this as many white men are even part of this). The goal is a new “dictatorship of the proletariat” to destroy traditional western values. Naturally, elites will jump on board in an attempt to stay in power by using the so-called “oppressed” to gain power and influence. This is similar to how Stalin used the proletariat dictatorship to become the most powerful man in Eastern Europe.

Corporations jump on to socially progressive causes as they must to survive. Cultural Marxists were furious at the owner of Chic-Fil-A for being for straight marriage. Even in this year’s Youtube Rewindpolitics was brought up as the viewer heard about the “brave art of drag queens” and “women gaining their voice”.  Most of Hollywood and their elites speak out against borders and push progressive views. Hollywood and the media viciously attacked conservatives in the 2016 Presidential election, calling them “Nazis, white nationalists, and fascists”. It is true that actual Neo-Nazis are scum and should be called out. However, the majority of conservatives are not Neo-Nazis, and many labeled as such were not even close to National Socialism.

Some might even say we are under this neo-dictatorship of the proletariat. Elites destroy the lives of the opposition, while violent groups like Antifa bully right-wingers. Some attribute the election of Trump as a backlash against the cultural Marxists. Naturally, as a libertarian, I want an end to this cultural Marxist ideology as it only brings statism and conflict.


71 Republic is the Third Voice in media. We pride ourselves on distinctively independent journalism and editorials. Every dollar you give helps us grow our mission of providing reliable coverage. Please consider donating to our Patreon, which you can find here. Thank you very much for your support!

Featured Image Source 

Joseph Stalin Was Undeniably Tyrannical and Evil

Nate Galt | United States

Joseph Stalin ruled the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics after the death of its founder, Vladimir Lenin, until his own death in 1953. His rule caused millions of deaths in his own country. Stalin was born in Georgia, which was under the control of the Russian Empire. He changed his name from “Jugashvili” to “Stalin,” meaning “man of steel.” He did rule with an iron fist, becoming most famous for his leadership of the Red Army in World War II and for his brutal repression of his political opponents. Commissars, army officials, dissidents, and other perceived rivals of Stalin were either sent to “gulag” prison labor camps in Siberia or were simply executed. Stalin was a dictator who resorted to totalitarian measures, directly ordering the deaths of millions of people. 

His totalitarian regime’s victims were not limited to his political opponents. When the Soviet dictator realized that Ukraine was drifting more towards the West, he decided to implement a famine known as the “Holodomor” in Ukrainian. His officers took the vast majority of food from certain parts of Ukraine. A survivor of this genocide recounts the story to a special U.S. government committee. She stated that “all the train stations were overflowing with starving, dying people” and that “there wasn’t a dog, a cat, or a sparrow in our village.” People resorted to cannibalism to survive. The evidence of Stalin’s rule causing the deaths of millions of Ukrainians cannot be denied. 

At the beginning of Stalin’s rise to power after the bloody Russian Revolution, he wanted to make sure that he would remain General Secretary of the Communist Party and leader of the U.S.S.R. Part of his plan to do so was his elimination of any opposition. One of his strongest opponents was the Russian Orthodox Church. He wished to “completely eliminate” all religion and wanted more persecution of the clergy, going as far as imprisoning many Catholic bishops in western Ukraine.  Joseph Stalin’s rule repressed religion and aimed for its destruction. He even destroyed several historic churches to build monuments and palaces dedicated to the glory of his rule and to his country, a clear sign that Stalin did not respect freedom of religion.

When the German Reich attacked the Soviet Union as a part of Operation Barbarossa, breaking the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, Stalin was caught by surprise. Adolf Hitler’s offensive was quick and deadly. Western Soviet cities like Kiev and Minsk soon fell under the control of the Reich. Stalin spoke to his people, saying that the “Great Patriotic War” was a matter of life and death for the people of the U.S.S.R. He wanted absolutely “no mercy for the enemy” and stated that any cowards or traitors should be shot on sight. The Nazi-Soviet war of attrition raged on, with millions of men, women, and children mercilessly slaughtered. After key turning-point battles such as Stalingrad, the Third Reich was forced to retreat.

After the fall of the Nazi capital of Berlin on May 9, 1945, Stalin and the Allies were victorious. After the war, propaganda pamphlets owed the destruction of fascism to Stalin. The cruel dictator’s leadership during the war may have saved his country. Stalin’s supporters and communists point to the Allied victory as a good deed of his. They also point to the fact that the Russian literacy rate skyrocketed during his rule. They say that the economy grew during Stalin’s reign. He implemented a series of five-year plans in order to further industrialize the Soviet Union, hoping to produce more electricity, steel, coal, and oil. The Soviet Union certainly played a major role in World War II and the economy had a noticeable upturn; however, this fact should not distract anyone from the fact that Stalin murdered millions.

While Stalin’s modernizations could be considered a slight success, there were millions of victims of his authoritarian, oppressive regime. Low estimates put all non-wartime casualties at 10 million while the highest estimates state that Stalin was responsible for the death of 35 million people. Joseph Stalin’s methods of maintaining power were totalitarian. He kept the populace in line by the threat of execution or sentencing to a Siberian “gulag” labor camp. Tens of thousands died in these cruel camps as a result of several factors, such as the biting cold, fatigue, or starvation. In all, while Joseph Stalin ruled the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and attempted to modernize it, the primary result of his regime is the murder of millions of innocent people. There are thousands of pieces of evidence that prove that these deaths were caused by the government of the U.S.S.R. Despite certain improvements in Russian education, the economy, and the victory in the deadliest war to ever have been fought, the death toll is too great to ignore. 


Get awesome merchandise. Help 71 Republic end the media oligarchy. Donate today to our Patreon, which you can find here. Thank you very much for your support!

Envy is Evil, not the Desire for Wealth

Thomas Calabro | United States

The desire for money is often viewed with disdain by those who believe in a more altruistic approach. They believe themselves to be noble in their morals, and while that may be so, they usually believe in using more government controls to enforce their altruism. They intend to enforce desired actions to reach certain end goals, either with tighter controls of small fines, regulations on how something is made, or with the complete seizure of the means of production. These end goals usually look to end or reduce inequality of income and distribution of resources, and their morals are seen as enough reason for action.

When talking about capitalism, one must see how greediness for money energizes most of the system in an efficient way. The greedy strive for profits push businesses to create and distribute products where it is demanded by their customers. While there are some organizations whose main goals are to give back rather than making money, the desire for wealth ultimately allows scarce resources to be allocated appropriately with very little to no waste. This approach, while rooted in individual self-interest proves far better at not only distributing the resources where necessary but helps create jobs, raise wages and increase the standard of living.

But why is such a system of economic freedom and prosperity, as well as it’s drive to make profits seen as horrific to one group, but not the other? Perhaps it is that many libertarians, anarcho-capitalists, and objectivists do not see the desire for money as the issue. Rather they see the desire for someone else’s earnings as the true face of evil: envy.

Before we begin talking about envy, we must first define what envy is, as well as any misconceptions that may create confusion. Envy can be defined as the “painful or resentful awareness of an advantage enjoyed by another joined with a desire to possess the same advantage. However, many in the libertarian camp see this approach as an issue when the government is used as a force to obtain the fruits of other’s labor.

One could make the argument that envy is what drives entrepreneurs to maximize profits in a free market system, those who use voluntary exchange are not only supplying market demand but also working hard to create wealth.

While we may consider ourselves in a free market where hard work can create profits, we have many controls in our government that stifle economic growth for many people. The most prevalent of which is the war on drugs, which perpetuates a cycle of poverty towards the victims of those policies of mass incarceration. Any government controls that prevent profitable innovations should be removed.

A paper from the Cato Institute’s Brink Lindsey recognizes 4 areas of interest: copyright and patents, occupational licensing, land use restrictions, and restrictions on immigration, as being subjected to “regressive regulations” and government controls that hinder income equality, as well as the free market. These deregulations can help the US to continue to be a melting pot of ideas and innovations that create jobs, raise wages, increase the standard of living, but also reduce inequality and combat the envious urges to take from hard-working Americans.


Get awesome merchandise. Help 71 Republic end the media oligarchy. Donate today to our Patreon, which you can find here. Thank you very much for your support!

Featured Image Source