Polish-Jewish Relations: 1,300 Keyword-Phrase-Indexed Book Reviews (by Jan Peczkis)

Liberal Bolshevism: America Did Not Defeat Communism: She Adopted It, by Alexander G. Markovsky. 2016. Pennsylvania State University, York

The Many Similarities Between Classical Marxism and Neo-Marxism

The author is a Russian Jewish (p. 230) émigré with degrees in political science and engineering. He condemns the then-current Obama administration for its neo-Marxism, and this is relevant owing to Obama II–the apparent election of Joe Biden to the U. S. Presidency in 2020. Markovsky’s attitudes are heartfelt, “Since my formative years I have had what I call ‘antagonistic contradictions’ with Marxism, which I ascribe to the experience of having grown up in the Soviet Union. For this reason, I find unendurable the thought of this country falling into socialism…My dream is to preserve this ‘sweet land of liberty’ for my children and grandchildren.” (p. xv).

THE ZYDOKOMUNA PLAYED A MAJOR ROLE IN THE FIRST SOVIET GOVERNMENT

Jewish author Markovsky candidly remarks, “Speaking of which, the 1917 Bolshevik revolution in Russia that brought so much suffering to the people of Russia, including Jews, was in fact a Jewish revolution. Based upon socialist theories developed by a Jewish philosopher and economist, Karl Marx, the principal inspiration, organization, and driving power of the revolution came from Jewish leaders. Most of them changed their Jewish names to Russian ones to conceal their Jewishness, such as Trotsky (Bronstein), Zinoviev (Apfelbaum), Kamenev (Rosenfeldt), Sverdlov (Rubenstine), Larine, Uritsky, Steclov (Nakhamkes)[Steklov (Nakhamkis)], all of whom later assumed major positions in Lenin’s government.” (p. 231).

COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY: A DOUBLE STANDARD ON ISLAMOFASCISM AND JUDEO-BOLSHEVISM

The author maintains that an element of collective responsibility, for Islamic terrorism, rests upon all Muslims. He comments, “…the silent majority shares the moral responsibility for the terror attacks as long as it remains silent. The Romans’ wisdom, Qui tacet consentire videtur, ‘Silence is consent,’ is as relevant today as it was millennia ago.” (p. 219). However, while we realize that most Jews are not Communists, should not the same considerations of collective responsibility fall upon Jews as a whole, for Jewish Communism? After all, very few Jews have condemned the overabundance of Jews in Communism!

AMERICAN JEWS BLINDLY VOTE DEMOCRATIC

Markovsky is critical of Jews, in the USA, automatically voting Democratic, and goes on to say, “Even among the Jews who emigrated from the Soviet Union there are many supporters of Obama and his socialist policies. That confirms the Russian saying ‘You can take a Jew out of socialism but you cannot take socialism out of the Jew.‘” (p. 235).

As one example, the author cites FDR, who blocked the docking of the German ocean liner MS St. Louis, which had attempted to deliver Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany. The ship had to turn back, and most of the Jews later died in German death camps. But no matter: Most Jews loved FDR, and voted for him, because, “after all, the New Deal was a giant step toward socialism.” (p. 232).

SOCIALISM DOES NOT NECESSARILY REQUIRE FORMAL GOVERNMENT OWNERSHIP OF THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION

Apologists of the left never tire from asserting that National Socialism (NSDAP), and American leftists such as Obama, could not possibly be socialists, because they did not nationalize the means of production, or confiscate all private property. In contrast, Markovsky points out that, “Since there is no one universal model of socialism, whether or not a person is a socialist cannot be determined by the single criterion of expropriation of private property.” (p. 20). He continues, “In order to implement the egalitarian dream, socialist society does not necessarily require government ownership of the means of production...Governments have a variety of means to enforce the distribution of wealth accumulated by private enterprises. Among the most powerful tools are taxation and regulation. Private enterprises can simply be regulated and taxed into equality or out of ownership altogether. Therefore, those who necessarily associate socialism with the central planning and expropriation of private property put undue emphasis on the process instead of the outcome.” (p. 22).

EVEN COMMUNISM DID NOT ABOLISH ALL PRIVATE ENTERPRISE

In describing Soviet Communism, Markovsky comments, “In order to restore the economy after the three-year civil war following the Russian revolution, the Bolsheviks enacted the NEP (New Economic Policy) introduced in the 1920s to extricate Russia from it economic depression. In a rare moment of honesty, Lenin himself acknowledged that NEP was on fact a partial return to capitalism…(But) As soon as the country started to recover, the Bolsheviks imposed heavy taxation on private enterprises and drove them out of business.” (p. 23). (Markovsky could have made his argument stronger by pointing out that a capitalist “second economy” existed in the USSR onto its very end. The Soviet authorities looked the other way.)

Now consider North Korean Communism. Markovsky comments, “You may be surprised to know that approximately 75 percent of North Koreans are independent contractors…Officially, everything belongs to the government, but in actuality private businesses run the nation’s industry and pay bribes to government officials.” (p. 23).

ALL FORMS OF SOCIALISM CALL FOR THE REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH

The author continues, “Practically, regardless of how the socialists come to power, they have one thing in common: control of the economy or, at a minimum, control of the most vital economic activities–energy, finance, and health care–to ensure ‘fair and equitable’ distribution of wealth within society…Both quotes [Lenin and Obama] mean taking as much money as possible from productive citizens to share with non-productive or less-productive citizens…It is worth emphasizing that the President [Obama] clearly was not talking about creating wealth, which would be capitalism, but rather distributing other people’s wealth, which by Lenin’s definition is socialism.” (pp. 21-22).

ORWELLIAN NEWSPEAK: CALL IT SOCIAL JUSTICE

Markovsky asks and answers, “What is ‘social justice’? The International Labour Organization (ILO), an agency of the United Nations, defines social justice as a concept based on ‘human rights and equality and involves a greater degree of economic egalitarianism through progressive taxation, income redistribution, or even property redistribution.’ Furthermore, according to the ILO, ‘Redistribution of wealth is the transfer of income, wealth, or property from some individuals to others by social mechanisms such as taxation, monetary policies, welfare, or nationalization.’ The similarities between the concept of social justice and socialism are readily apparent to anyone who is not hopelessly naïve: social justice is a code word for wealth redistribution and nothing less than socialism in disguise.” (pp. 182-183).