Communism's Greatest Trick: Mass Murder in the Name of Equality

American society, particularly the up and coming generation, has been constantly exposed to the evils committed by Nazi Germany, and rightly so. The left has successfully portrayed the National Socialist ideology as somehow being right-wing in nature as it constantly equates American Republicanism, or conservatism with the Nazi worldview. The problem with drawing this conclusion rests in the fact that the nature of the political scale tends to show that the further right you move, the less government control there is. The traditional belief, as The Black Book of Communism points out, is that the left and right represent two extremes between so called compassionate egalitarianism and a strict social order which creates constant tension. Nazism, or Fascism, as Hitler was often referred to as a fascist (probably to hide the true nature of his motivations) is left-wing in its orientation as it tends to rely on big government as its enforcement mechanisms. True right-wing extremism would be a state of total anarchy, or no government. There is a difference between the way European countries and America would view the nature of the political scale because they have never experienced freedom the way America has traditionally defined it. They can describe Nazism as being right-wing in nature only because it exists to the right of Communism, but way left of center ̶ if you can picture the concept. Our constitution on the other hand, can be argued to exist slightly right of center, calling for as limited government as possible in human affairs. It protects the dignity and inalienable rights of the individual. Nazism on the other hand, only viewed people in the collective sense, equating their value with how well they served the Nazi state (Black Book of Communism). Looking at it from this perspective, Nazism cannot be equated with American Republicanism in any sense.

The intent of this article is not to detract from the evils of Nazism but to show how successful the political left has been in hiding the atrocities committed by communism. Modern politics in America has been reduced to a fake ideological debate between the right, portrayed as Nazism, and the left who is openly advocating for full blown communism. This is a false argument as it is all based on lies and misinformation.

The communists, historically, have been very adept at hiding or misconstruing the motivations behind their movement. As noted in The Grand Strategy Was Deception, the Soviets employed a tactic where they portrayed their movement as being motivated by a desire for equality and fairness. In the report, The Communist Peace Offensive, which was presented to the House of Un-American Activities in 1951, it was argued that the Soviets were employing a strategy to portray the United States as the evil, war-mongering nation and the Soviet Union as one that stood for world peace. Despite the revelation of the atrocities being committed by communist regimes, the movements were being praised on the grounds of a twisted morality led by self-deception (Black Book of Communism, p.11).

The correlations being drawn between communism and Nazism are based on moral judgments driven by ideological beliefs. Marxism was driven by the false notions of dialectical materialism which posited that class struggle would inevitably contribute to an evolved state of society, where all men were completely equal and all things were fair. Those believing in this concept still tend to explain away the millions killed by communist regimes by claiming true communism has never been tried. Communists were not driven by a desire to eliminate any one race or religion, which has generally defined the term genocide (Black Book of Communism p. 8). Instead, they were driven by the false notion that human nature could be changed by targeting the social classes that produced, allegedly oppressing and depriving others of material goods (Black Book of Communism p. 8). In the name of creating a better society they were able to hide behind the ignorance of those who bought into the deceptive promises of Marxism.

To this day the idea that communism can lead to a better society for all continues to persist and Nazism, as the ultimate evil, remains in the forefront of young people’s minds. Looking at it from a moral perspective, no matter how twisted, there was no rhyme or reason for Hitler’s genocidal madness, beyond the systematic elimination of an entire race of people for the advancement of Germany’s nationalist objectives. Apologists will always be able to make excuses for the actions of communist regimes on the grounds that they were pursuing an egalitarian goal. The Nazi’s made no concessions about what they were doing, nor, were they trying to hide it. 

It is the syndrome that gives the permanent qualitative advantage to Communism over Nazism in any evaluation of their quantitative atrocities. For the communist project, in origin, claimed commitment to universalistic and egalitarian goals, whereas the Nazi project offered only unabashed national egoism. Small matter then, that their practices were comparable; their moral auras were antithetical, and it is the latter feature that counts in western, domestic politics (Black Book of Communism).

Most young people in America know nothing of the millions killed by communist governments. Repression of all that opposed the grand scheme of reworking human nature, where the fruits of your labor would be willingly surrendered for the betterment of another through terror, mass imprisonments and elimination of entire social classes became a matter of policy in all communist governments. It wasn’t endemic to the Soviet Union alone, or to China’s great Leap Forward ̶ it was policy driven by the ideological convictions of Marxist philosophy. The misguided perception that all social progress is the culmination of conflict and struggle, and by the elimination of the producing classes, or the landowners known as Kulaks in Soviet Russia, equality and prosperity would flourish.

What is the difference then? Was the elimination of some one-hundred-million people under the lies of Utopia somehow less evil than the elimination of the Jews to satisfy the power-hungry desires of an ego maniac? Apologists for communism would argue there is a difference. Was it morally justifiable to engineer mass famines simply because those that had spent their lives working to produce something opposed the idea that the fruits of their labor should be redistributed without any compensation whatsoever? They stood in the way of Utopia, therefore according to those making excuses for Communism, the answer is yes. Was it morally acceptable for Pol Pot to mobilize that nation’s youth and eliminate all those that represented the bourgeoise? If the goal is to create a complete egalitarian society than the means are noble enough despite the outcome.

Starting in the 1940’s and 1950’s many facts about these atrocities have become public knowledge and undeniable. And although many of these apologists have cast aside their gods of yesterday, they have done so quietly and discreetly. What are we to make of a profoundly amoral doctrine that seeks to stamp out every trace of civic mindedness in men’s souls, and damn the consequences (Black Book of Communism p. 8)?

The quote above alludes to the fact that the murders committed in the name of communism have been ignored on the pretext that they were accidental, unintentional consequences in the pursuit of mankind’s perfection. These are arguments we continue to hear today. Kids are graduating from elite universities believing that they are living in an oppressive class system, and they are arguing for full communism. The global attention placed on the crimes committed by the Nazis helps detract attention away from what is being presented as a morally superior system.

In many ways, the tragedy of communism can be compared to Satan’s greatest hoax, convincing people he didn’t exist. We sit in silence and allow our universities and public schools to indoctrinate our children into this twisted, godless ideology because we do not understand it ourselves. Failure to learn this history, preserve it and pass it on will ultimately be our societies undoing.