Anti-Communism: Manufacturing Ignorance and Hypocrisy

“The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas.”

-Karl Marx, The German Ideology

Anti-communist propaganda at its most transparent. Freedom isn't for women, I guess?

Anti-communist propaganda at its most transparent. Freedom isn’t for women, I guess?

As I’ve said in a previous post, anti-communism has not let up, despite the claims of communism having been “defeated”. The bourgeoisie will one moment laugh and say Marxism has been “debunked”, and in the next moment, they’ll be foaming at the mouth about how we need to “stop communism” from taking away our supposed “freedoms”. We’re told communism was “proven wrong”, while at the same time it’s still a “threat”. It’s clear the bourgeoisie is still scared shitless about the powerful examples of socialist and national-liberation victories around the world.

Therefore, anti-communist propaganda is still running hard and desperate to keep the people and our ideology under control.

The claim that communism(Marxism-Leninism) has been “defeated” is a part of this propaganda. It is an attempt at discrediting communism in the eyes of the masses, who are, as Marx said, subject to the ideas of the materially dominant class(the capitalist bourgeoisie). This notion is therefore taken as fact, despite the idea itself being, as anti-communist propaganda, proof that the oppressors still consider communism a threat to their power. Because it is still a threat to their power. But this evidence is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the falsities of anti-communism.


“We are marching in a compact group along a precipitous and difficult path, firmly holding each other by the hand. We are surrounded on all sides by enemies, and we have to advance almost constantly under their fire. We have combined, by a freely adopted decision, for the purpose of fighting the enemy, and not of retreating into the neighbouring marsh, the inhabitants of which, from the very outset, have reproached us with having separated ourselves into an exclusive group and with having chosen the path of struggle instead of the path of conciliation. And now some among us begin to cry out: Let us go into the marsh! And when we begin to shame them, they retort: What backward people you are! Are you not ashamed to deny us the liberty to invite you to take a better road! Oh, yes, gentlemen! You are free not only to invite us, but to go yourselves wherever you will, even into the marsh. In fact, we think that the marsh is your proper place, and we are prepared to render you every assistance to get there. Only let go of our hands, don’t clutch at us and don’t besmirch the grand word freedom, for we too are “free” to go where we please, free to fight not only against the marsh, but also against those who are turning towards the marsh!” -V. I. Lenin

A popular claim made by the bourgeoisie and their payroll-academics is that every single socialist state in history has been “paranoid”, and disruptive of personal privacy because of this. This assumption is considered to be “common knowledge”, since the bourgeoisie, the owners of our society’s ideology, wishes it to be. The facts of very real and material threats to these socialist states are never taken into consideration. Did not the imperialist powers lead fourteen invasions of new Soviet Union just after the October Revolutions of 1917? Yes. Is Trotsky not on file as having collaborated with the FBI and Mexican government? Yes, he is.

But not only this, the capitalist states themselves are still acting just as paranoid as the socialist and anti-imperialist states they blame. And then going even further. The capitalists don’t just target communists, but anything and everything that slightly differs theoretically or practically from the “common knowledge” of the bourgeoisie’s absolute rule. Not only were members of the Black Panther Party murdered by the dozens, not only were CPUSA members monitored and often imprisoned, not only were rebellious figures like MLK and Fred Hampton assassinated, but many other groups have been targeted and attacked in similar ways, and still are.

MKULTRA and the Tuskegee experiments are not just conspiracy theories; they have been admitted and proven to be true. And these weren’t even targeting communists, but any people of color, the homeless, the poor, etc. The “Russian Sleep Experiment” creepypasta doesn’t hold a candle to what the capitalist-imperialist US government has done in real life and to countless numbers of people.

Today, repressions are still going on against anyone considered even a small threat to bourgeois rule. Despite the early promises of President Obama, there are still people held imprisoned in Guantanamo without having had a trial(some have been there for over a decade). The FBI just raided the anti-war FRSO headquarters about two years ago. It has come out that the FBI is also still keeping tabs on former Black Panthers simply for their ability to(“GOD FORBID”) bring people of every skin color together to fight for justice. Just a few days ago it was leaked that the CIA has been continuously torturing people suspected of rebellious activity. Just today it was revealed that the US government will not prosecute those guilty of these illegal acts of torture.

And, like I said above, whereas the US tortures and monitors even relatively small-scale rebels and revolutionaries, the socialist and anti-imperialist governments, which are somehow deemed the “paranoid” ones, had very real and powerful threats to worry about. The Bay of Pigs invasion of revolutionary Cuba, the nearly 400 assassination attempts against Castro(all failed – put that in your bank account and smoke it), the intervention in literally every anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist revolution ever, the successful assassinations of various revolutionary leaders around the world(Che, Allende, Sankara, Kirov, and many others), the on-going presence of the US military on the Korean peninsula, the US government helping in the slaughter of over 500,000 people before the Korean War even began, the help Reagan and Thatcher gave to the Khmer Rouge in torturing and killing Vietnamese people in an attempt to undermine the revolution in Vietnam – and this is just to name a few examples of imperialist aggression against revolutionary governments. I think this all constitutes legitimate reasons for socialist and anti-imperialist states to be weary of the aggressors.

And yet, it is the governments having to fight these threats, not the government instigating the acts of aggression(who still repress their fair share of dissidents and assumed dissidents), that are called “paranoid”. As if capitalist states have never invaded anyone’s privacy(see: the Patriot Act and NDAA and the entire fucking McCarthy era).


“The theory of “heroes” and the “crowd” is not a Bolshevik, but a Social-Revolutionary theory. The heroes make the people, transform them from a crowd into people, thus say the Social-Revolutionaries.

The people make the heroes, thus reply the Bolsheviks to the Social-Revolutionaries. The book carries water to the windmill of the Social-Revolutionaries. No matter which book it is that brings the water to the windmill of the Social-Revolutionaries, this book is going to drown in our common, Bolshevik cause.” -Joseph Stalin

Another favorite condemnation the bourgeoisie has of socialist states is the Cult of Personality. Now, I won’t make the claim that this is something the capitalists completely made up(exaggerated – yes), because socialist and anti-imperialist states have, indeed, been plagued with this problem. Some, such as the DPRK have embraced it completely as an essential part of their state ideology, and I will never defend these actions because – and here’s what the bourgeoisie doesn’t mention – it is a regressive, bourgeois practice. It is practiced by bourgeois states everywhere.



Something else the capitalist media won’t tell you when talking about the problem of the Cult of Personality: Joseph Stalin, the man most famously blamed for this practice, fought hard against this practice; he opposed the cult built up around him by figures such as Kruschev. That’s right, the infamous creator of the “Secret Speech”(which is the primary piece of evidence used by the bourgeoisie to blame Stalin for egomania) was one of the people who originally pushed for Stalin to take on the Russian title equivalent to the German title of “fuhrer”. Stalin succeeded in blocking this from becoming official.

Then there are the 3 different attempts of Stalin’s to resign from his post as General Secretary: first during the whole Trotsky-Stalin rivalry after Stalin was democratically elected as the head of the Party, then during World War II, and finally at the last, unpublished Congress of the CPSU he ever attended(the one before Kruschev’s “Secret Speech”). His request was denied by a vote each time.

Lastly(regarding Stalin), there was the biography of himself he outright criticized as being untrue, idealistic, and, of course, a piece of hero-worship. He issued a Soviet-wide statement condemning the book. (Read his statement: )

While the Soviet Union, the DPRK, and Mao’s China fell into this practice, other socialist and anti-imperialist states and leaders succeeded in quenching it before it could get out of control or even begin. Enver Hoxha is the best example of this, while Castro and Ho Chi Minh are close runners-up.

Leave it to the bourgeoisie to condemn a practice they do every single day, and to a greater extent. In the capitalist ideology, a statue of Lenin signifies “brainwashing” and cultism, but carving four presidents into a fucking mountain it “quaint” or “respectful” or something. A bust of Stalin is “outrageous leader-worship”, but a massive statue of Lincoln is totally not that. They say to admire socialist leaders is to admire “genocidal maniacs”, as if Washington didn’t own slaves, or Jackson didn’t massacre Natives, or Lincoln didn’t put Natives into labor camps.

There’s a statue of Nathan Bedford Forrest, the slave-owner and founder of the KKK, in my city. There’s a state-park named after him here in Tennessee, but yeah, honoring those who opposed slavery and fought for national-liberation is what’s outrageous.


“It is difficult for me to imagine what “personal liberty” is enjoyed by an unemployed hungry person. True freedom can only be where there is no exploitation and oppression of one person by another; where there is not unemployment, and where a person is not living in fear of losing his job, his home and his bread. Only in such a society personal and any other freedom can exist for real and not on paper.” -Joseph Stalin

Finally, there is the incredibly vague and idealistic notion that communism is inherently “anti-freedom”, whatever that means. First of all, freedom is never laid out as something concrete – it is explained in idealist, non-material terms. It is postured as some ideal above and independent of reality. That is because it’s meaning, in the bourgeois sense, does not encompass the whole of society, as is claimed in the beat-around-the-bush explanations, but it only applies to the bourgeoisie. The masses have the “freedom” to sell their labor power(to sell themselves, their being, for a certain amount of time every week) to the owning class, or starve, homeless and penniless, while the bourgeoisie has the freedom to enjoy comforts and luxuries they gain through the labor power of the masses, not their own effort.

Freedom in a capitalist society rests in the hands of, as Lenin said, the (wage)slave-owners, not the workers(wage-slaves) themselves. That is, freedom is reserved for the minority of wealth-owners, while those who own nothing but their own labor-power(their very essence) are excluded from this privilege, even though they’re the majority of the population.

Capitalist states have always persecuted and oppressed dissent(see the first section of this post). Even in the early days of the US, workers’ dissent was put down with fire and bullets. Today, things are no different, if not worse, and the bourgeoisie still claims to be the force fighting for “freedom”. The United States is still called the “land of the free”, despite having the highest number of prisoners fucking ever. The hegemonic belief in the “freedoms” of capitalism is still shouted from the rooftops while people are being beaten, wrongfully imprisoned, murdered, and generally oppressed by bourgeois state-power as I type this.

The notion of freedom is intrinsic to the treatment of human nature. There is no freedom when a person cannot follow their passions when their labor-power(their species-being) is under the control of someone else on a daily basis, just in order to stay alive and healthy enough to work some more.

The bourgeoisie likes to say socialist states “control thought”, but does the bourgeoisie not own the mass media, the means of production, the ideology of this society? I guess we communists have found the secret to “brainwashing”: providing free education at every level and keeping the population healthy. Yes, according to capitalist logic, the communists states are not overthrown because the populations are smart and healthy. That pretty much gives away the failures of capitalism.

Who is interested in controlling the masses: the states that want their people to be smart, healthy, capable, or the ones that keeps education and health out of the reach of a great many of its people?The states that provide the people with all the means to think and act for themselves, or the states that restrict these rights to only those who can afford it(and are therefore already bought over to the bourgeoisie side of the class war), while the rest of the population is taught to remain docile and under the economic and political control of a small elite? Socialist states or capitalist states?

I find it hard to believe that all of the states and nations constantly demonized by the bourgeoisie have to “trick” educated, healthy people into being happy. If anyone is “totalitarian”, it’s the states which are owned by an economic elite, who refuse to educated and treat their own people, not those which willfully and freely provide the entire population with what they need, so that they are able to focus on other things, using their high level of education and healthy bodies.

Why would these socialist and anti-imperialist countries provide the people with everything they need if they want them to stay distracted from toppling these so-called “authoritarian regimes”? Wouldn’t they take a lesson from the capitalists instead? That is, keep the population dumb and desperate just to survive.

But, as Marx’s quote at the very beginning of this post points out, the ruling ideas of every society(here, that’s bourgeois anti-communism) are always the ideas of the ruling class. Just because they say it, doesn’t make it fact. Just because they point their fingers elsewhere, doesn’t mean they aren’t guilty of equal or worse crimes. Just because they say something is “bad”, doesn’t mean it’s bad for you. They are only say it because it’s a threat to their own power, not because they give a shit about us. They don’t. Stop believing they do.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s