In my former life, I walked in all kinds of Marxist moccasins over many miles and for many years, and I know for a fact that Marxism, no matter how disguised, always begins its way to power by preaching the need to change — a society, a country, a group of countries, the whole world. Of course, people everywhere want their leaders to do a better job than their predecessors did. But “change” is also the very quintessence of Marxism, which is built upon the dialectical materialist tenet that “quantitative changes generate qualitative transformations.” (Translation for the media savvy: If you say it often enough, it becomes the truth.)
In 2008 I could hardly believe my ears when “change” became the electoral motto of the Democratic Party’s campaign for the White House. “Change” was bursting forth everywhere like a biblical shibboleth, distinguishing that party from the rest of the world.
The leaders of the Democratic Party painted the United States of America, the undisputed leader of the Free World, as a “decaying, racist, capitalist realm” unable to provide medical care for the poor, to rebuild her “crumbling schools,” to replace the “shuttered mills that once provided a decent life for men and women of every race,” and it pledged to “change” it by redistributing its wealth. Our media jumped in, and transformed the Democratic Party’s “change” into a nationwide tsunami.
They say that a picture is worth a thousand words. Click here and have fun.
The frenzy over “change” brought back vivid memories to me of the campaigns I used to be involved with during my years in Romania promoting the election of Romanian tyrant Nicolae Ceausescu. “Change” was Ceausescu’s electoral motto, as well. When he came to power, he painted Romania as a decaying, corrupt, economically devastated country, and he pledged to “change” it by redistributing its wealth. That lie, repeated hundreds of times, became the truth. Of course, he certainly did “change” what had been the picturesque, pastoral country of Romania. Here is a sample of Ceausescu’s devastated, polluted transformation. Here is another. And one more. And another one.
I do not intend to compare the leaders of our Democratic Party with a monster like Ceausescu, but their common electoral motto gives me reason to believe that both arrived at their destination traveling in the same Marxist boat.
“Change” is not only the quintessence of Marxism, it is its credo as well. Marxists believes that the nationalization of the economy generates not only political and social changes, but spiritual changes. Eventually, these changes make Marxism a religion — the only religion permitted — and the Marxist leader the only god allowed. The religious adulation of Lenin and Stalin, which filled oceans of newsprint and generated international respect for Marxism and admiration for its leaders, may well be one of the greatest hoaxes perpetrated in history. Its lingering tentacles live on. Even today, visitors in Moscow wait patiently in long lines in order to pay their respects to Lenin’s embalmed body, which has been exposed as a holy relic in Moscow’s Red Square Mausoleum since shortly after his death in 1924.
My personal experience with a “spiritual” Marxist “change” began in September 1944, when the Soviet Red Army “liberated” the Kingdom of Romania from Nazi occupation. Stalin publicly portrayed that serene sovereign nation as a decaying capitalist country, and he began “changing” it into what he called “a Socialist paradise.” At that time I was not yet familiar with the organic connection between “change,” Marxism, and the nauseating cult of personality. Soon, however, my native Romania — an idyllic Francophile country whose capital, Bucharest, was nicknamed Le Petit Paris — was changed into a monument to the Marxist who was changing it. Stalin became Romania’s new god. Stalin portraits, Stalin statues, Stalin streets, Stalin boulevards, Stalin plazas, and Stalin factories sprouted up like mushrooms all over the country. Romania even got its own Stalin city.