Communism is coming back? No way.

by Petr Hampl

Petr Hampl exposes the irony of anti-capitalist movements being funded by powerful global capitalists rather than socialist regimes.

When we see an invitation to a radical political event demanding the abolition of capitalism and private property, it is not hard to guess who is funding it. Maybe Goldman Sachs, maybe the Vodafone Foundation, maybe the Ford Foundation, maybe the Soros Foundation. But it is inconceivable that, behind this, there could be support from Cuba, Venezuela or even North Korea. The struggle against capitalism has long been waged neither by socialist parties nor by socialist regimes. The fight against capitalism is being waged by bankers, corporate captains and the biggest global capitalists.

At first sight, this seems impossible to understand. But this is largely due to the fact that we think about such things very imprecisely. Examples of such inaccurate, superficial thinking are cries like “communism fell in 1989 and now we find that it has returned with everything.”

Of course, neither communism nor socialism have returned and are not returning. Only some of the tyrannical methods used by the previous regime have returned, and some of the people active in the repressive structures of the time have returned. A prominent and well-known example is the current Czech president, promoted by the Soros Foundation, who used to be an elite member of the communist intelligence service, and his wife, who used to be a communist political commissar. But other attributes of that regime have not returned. State ownership of factories has not returned. The ethos of equality has not returned. State-owned mass housing construction has not returned. And many other things have not returned.

Moreover, those tyrannical methods cannot be described as a distinctive feature of socialism because outright capitalist regimes have worked with them. In Europe, Greece, for example, but also a lot of Latin American countries or 19th century Britain.

So I offer a different hypothesis. Namely, that what is now being described as the “return of socialism” is in fact a continuation of what helped the West to triumph over the Soviet Union.

First of all, we must discard the cliché often repeated in conservative circles that the West has fallen victim to some kind of neo-Marxists. No one can explain how this could be possible. A lot of descriptions have been made (Gramsci wrote a book in such and such a year, and Alinsky started lecturing at a university in such and such a year), but that does not give us an explanation of why this particular school of thought prevailed. There are hundreds of bizarre and crazy schools of thought. It is something that is perfectly normal in a free society. If we don’t want to accede to inquisitorial paranoia and constantly look for heretics under every rock, we have to live with it. However, such schools of thought usually quickly fall into irrelevance.

Why didn’t it happen this time? Why did what is often described as neo-Marxism prevail (I draw attention to Ivo Budil’s interpretation, according to which it is in fact neo-Malthusianism). After all, a certain school of thought does not prevail when it is truer or logically stronger. It prevails when someone powerful, rich and capable enough has an interest in it. And of course luck or chance plays a role.

Who was most interested in the spread of what we superficially call neo-Marxism? Well, the free-market advocates!

From about the middle of the 19th century onwards, gradual reforms took place in all Western European countries. Pensions have been introduced, state unemployment benefits, working hours have been reduced, state health care has been improved... It has obviously not slowed down economic development, it has not caused economic problems, it has not undermined morale, and it has not prevented the rich from getting richer.

It is good to note that behind this was a long-standing social alliance involving workers, students, intellectuals and a conservative portion of the state bureaucracy. And, of course, a number of patriotic businessmen.

The ideology of the anti-civilization left (we call it progressivism at the moment) helped break this alliance. This is because it argues that the working class has betrayed revolutionary ideals and that radical students plus other intellectuals must therefore launch a struggle against the workers. They must stand up for the real oppressed, which are — how else — members of the richest classes.

Why did someone feel like breaking that alliance? In my judgment, it was a mistake. There was certainly an optical illusion that without the decent treatment of the working classes one could get richer even faster. That illusion was wrong, but it is easy and tempting to believe something like that. So a few rich people thought that if they supported bizarre groups like the Frankfurt School, they couldn’t lose out. And if one of the hundreds of weird groups gets a great backing, they’ll skyrocket.

The push of the anti-civilization left has actually achieved some change.

For example, the loss of interest in further raising the living standards of the working classes.

A renewal of the idea that the Soviet Union is the main civilizational rival. Before the new left took hold, the prevailing view was that it was enough to encourage Soviet leaders to become increasingly democratic. That there was no need to destabilize the Soviet bloc, and that destruction would help no one.

A change in the intellectual atmosphere. Professional intellectuals are almost always a predominantly destructive element. However, sympathy with the working masses may have moderated this somewhat. Today we have intellectuals just as destructive, but siding with the stock market speculators.

And, of course, also an attack on what the workers have drawn their will from to defend their own interests. That is, an attack on their family life, on their habits, on their lifestyle, on their self-esteem.

It helped to change conditions. It helped to defeat the Soviet Union. But then it went on with its own life.

Now many corporate captains and shareholders are discovering that they have overplayed their hand. That the progressives (no longer intellectuals, but primitives) have gotten out of hand. But that’s normal.

First they paid Lenin to weaken Russia. Then they found that things got a bit out of hand, and instead of a decrepit Tsarist Russia, they got an ambitious and purposeful Soviet Union.

Then they paid Hitler to weaken the communists and had no choice but to wage a world war against him.

Meanwhile, they supported jihad as a tool against the Soviet Union, and we see the consequences.

And that the progressive hordes also got out of hand? Perhaps that can no longer even be described as an accident. That’s the accompanying feature of a certain type of governance.