Lessons to Learn from the Frankfurt School

Though the Frankfurt School is justifiably attacked by the White Right, there are certain lessons to be learned from its development and influence. It could be said that the Frankfurt School saved(or salvaged) Marxism–and leftism in general–and carried it one step further. Paradoxically enough, Frankfurters did this not by building on Marxist dogma but going back to the origins of Marxism. They focused on the writings of Marx before Marx became a Marxist–a thinker so satisfied with his theories that he abandoned criticality and devoted his energy toward an all-purpose theory purporting to connect all the dots of history. Prior to the rise of Marxism as an iron-fisted–and soon to be totalitarian–ideology, Marx had been more of a critical thinker than an all-knowing prophet. Before Marx developed a purely Manichean view of society and morality, he had sought to study and analyze society. Before he embarked to ‘change’ history and society, he sought to understand them. Eventually, all inquiries, studies, and theories develop a tendency to develop into iron truths or dogma. If they remain theories forever, they can’t be turned into a tool or weapon of practice. But, the danger of dogma is it shuts off further thought, dissension and opposition, and critical thought.
Whenever an idea or theory turns into dogma, it assumes that the End of Thought has been reached; all that remains is to implement those thoughts as practice so as to change society for the better for all eternity. This is also true of Visions. All religious visions are harbingers of the new. Visionaries open up new windows of opportunity where spirituality comes alive as a creative and original force. Thus, Jesus offered a new ways of understanding and serving God. Muhammad did the same for the Arab peoples. But eventually, visions harden into dogma, and the followers of the new religion claim the FINAL TRUTH has been revealed and everyone must conform to it. Perhaps, dogmatization or mainstream-ization is, to an extent, necessary. If all of humanity existed in a constant state of flux where thousands of POVs and ideas-as-theories contended with one another without producing a unifying truth or set of values for most people, civilization would probably fall apart. But, when a single dogma gains total domination over a people or a group, it pretty spells the end of thought and progress.
　
This is why the Frankfurt School was vital to the future of Marxism. The latter-day Marx, in his supreme arrogance, believed he had arrived at The Theory that explained just about everything–how history worked, what humanity desired, what justice was, how people should live, etc. He was convinced–and convinced a lot of people–that his ideas were not merely political, philosophical, or moral but also scientific and objective. Thus, Marxism came to attract and inspire a lot of people who, despite their intelligence, courage, and dedication, lacked the virtues of open-mindedness, genuine criticality, and skepticism/caution. To hardline Marxists, liberal open-mindedness was just lazy bourgeois fantasizing. Criticism of Marxism itself was attacked as heresy. Skepticism and caution were said to be signs of half-heartedness, indecisiveness, and cowardice. A true revolutionary had to fully accept the wisdom of Marx and devote himself fully to The Cause. Any hesitation meant he was really just bourgeois-chickenshit. So, it was not surprising that many intelligent people who joined the Russian Revolution often did not think very intelligently. They could only think ‘intelligently’ in their service to The Cause; of course, half-blind intelligence is not true intelligence. If evidence or developments seem to contradict or negate the theories of Marx, they blamed everything but Marx’s theories. The Russian Revolution was a great lesson in how one can be intelligent and not think intelligently at all. Much the same was true of Leninism and then later with Maoism. Never mind that the Russian Revolution contradicted what Marx had predicted, and the Chinese Revolution contradicted what Lenin had predicted. Diehard communists convinced themselves that history was more or less working out as Marx had portended, and if things didn’t turn out as they were supposed tot, the flaw must lie with reality and humanity than with Marx’s theory. Of course, the nature of Marxism being what it was, there soon developed rifts between various schools of Marxism and among national communisms, each one purporting to uphold true Marxism while the opponents were heretics or ‘bourgeois capitalist roaders’.
　
Anyway, the Frankfurt School came along at just the right time. In the 1930s, history was not turning out like Marx or even Lenin had predicted. Germans went with the radical rightism of National Socialism. Communist Russia could not export its revolution to any of the Eastern European nations whose elites and even masses preferred closer ties with ‘fascist’ Germany than with communist Russia. Chinese communist movement had miserably failed, and both the right-wing forces of Japanese militarism and Chinese Nationalism seemed to be on the rise. Also, it was obvious to all honest and relatively conscientious observers that Soviet communism had turned into a murderous and totalitarian enterprise. And, most Marxists in the Western world seemed either to blindly toe the Moscow line, fall behind cult figures like Leon Trotsky, or regurgitate the same radical truisms.
Of course, Hitler messed up royally in the next decade, and Soviet Union gained great power and prestige and became the second superpower after the U.S. And, with the rise of anti-colonial movements all over the world, it even seemed for awhile as though USSR would lead the bulk of humanity into the future. On the other hand, the Cold War turned the majority of the working class in the free world against communism. In 1968, it was the children of the bourgeoisie who were rioting in the streets while the members of the working class marched in support of De Gaulle. Also, with the rise of prosperity in the West, the working classes were simply not dreaming of End of History and World Revolution.
Also, it was becoming irrefutable that despite its power and size, the communist empire that arose since WWII was a moral catastrophe and an intellectual embarrassment. Though some Western European intellectuals continued to apologize for the USSR, their arguments became less and less convincing. Others like Sartre shifted their allegiance from the Soviet Union to Red China and non-white radical nations or movements, but that was bound to be discredited too as anti-intellectualism and oppressive brutality dominated all those systems.
　
Thus, the Frankfurters were prescient in the 1930s in dealing with the problems of Marxism. They were convinced that Marxism was NOT the iron law of history. Rather, it was a tool, an instrument or method, to be used for understanding, critiquing, and reforming society. Furthermore, the Frankfurters didn’t believe that Marxism had connected all the dots among history, economics, sociology, psychology, etc. No, Marxism offered some key methods toward finding certain answers, but Marxism could not answer all questions or solve all problems. Thus, Marxism had to be integrated with other ideas–such as ones developed by Max Weber and Sigmund Freud. To the Frankfurters, Marxism was a critical tool, not a scientific fact.
Also, the Frankfurters ventured beyond the crude materialism of most Marxists and acknowledged the importance of human psychology and culture.
Even if the white right may detest or disagree with the goals of the Frankfurters–or Antonio Gramsci–, there is no doubt that their revisions or re-formulations revitalized Marxism into an intellectually and culturally vigorous discipline, methodology, and even a neo-movement.
　
Of course, critics can argue that the Frankfurters were blind to one crucial detail–Marxism is useless or dangerous even as a critical methodology because its inner logic can only nudge or lead us ever closer to a form of totalitarian statism since its goal is to subvert and undermine the institutions and values that are crucial to the maintenance of modern democratic capitalist society where people are bound together by national unity and traditional values. If the dominant intellectual ideas in society weaken the justifications for capitalism, nationalism, conservatism, individual liberty, and etc, then wouldn’t society eventually decay and fall apart? From the rubble, wouldn’t a non-democratic tyrannical order arise?
Indeed, it is this aspect that has rightfully angered many white right critics of the Frankfurt School. The White Right may grudgingly respect the old-time communists who openly stated their goals and confronted their enemies face-to-face. They shook their fists at the capitalists, and capitalists shook their fists back.
The Frankfurters were more dangerous in the long run because of their insidious and stealthy nature. They permeated into our institutions not as hardline radicals but as respectable ‘open-minded’ intellectual. Thus, they came to wield influence on the ‘bourgeois’ elites of this country, and in time, the elites became more leftist and anti-nationalist than the masses. Since the elites control the means of representation and communication, it was only a matter of time before the masses to become more leftist or anti-conservative. We can clearly see this in the acceptance of ‘gay marriage’ among young people hooked to pop culture and indoctrinated by public education. How else can we explain the dire fact that the most educated members of the US voted overwhelmingly for that scumbag Barack Obama the jiveass mofo?
We cannot deny the fact that the Frankfurters were radical leftist Jewish weasels, rats, or termites who penetrated some of the most core intellectual institutions of this country and gnawed away the foundations from within. There is no doubt that they were our enemies.
(But, the sheepishness of the masses must also be blamed on conservatism to some extent. Conservatives tend to stress respect for authority figures, flag-waving, getting with the program, with-us-or-against-us, allegiance to symbolism, appeal to emotionalism, populism, etc. When conservatives controlled or had great sway over culture and values, sheepishness of the masses may have favored conservatism, but when the culture and media fell into the hands of the left, the sheepish masses–who’d long been conditioned by conservative values–simply came under the thumb of new authority figures of the left. If the core of conservatism is to fall in line behind those in power, then it made sense for many Americans to fall in behind the New Boss–Jewish, black, gay, and Latino. Thus, white women who had once sang, ‘Stand by Your Man’ were suddenly singing, ‘I wanna suck a big black cock’. White boys who had worshiped white athletes were suddenly awestruck by black athletes. White kids who had mindlessly deified white rock stars were grinding their groins to rap music. Whites who had hero-worshiped men like John Wayne and Ronald Reagan raised children who were gaga over Oprah and Obama. In other words, most sheepish people worship and admire that which is promoted, disseminated, approved, and/or marketed by the powers-that-be. Thus, the teenyboppers who had once swooned to Tom Cruise now get their thrills by dreaming of Will Smith.)
　
　
Even so, there is much to be learned from the Frankfurt School because its members were indeed critical and creative enough to redeem and save a moribund ideology fated to be discredited. No idea or dogma can last forever by claiming to be the one-and-only truth. For it to survive, it must evolve into another idea. Thus, Christianity had to change and reformulate itself in a changing world. There is less and less appeal for a dogmatic Christianity that says the Earth is 6,000 yrs old. New Christianity must interpret the Bible historically or metaphorically–or poetically–than literally in order for it be relevant in the modern world. Otherwise, it will be the religion of dummies and ignoramuses. Similarly, hardline Marxist theories prophesying the fall of capitalism and rise of the proletariat– Leninism, Stalinism, and Maoism–are now useless. Che Guevara is still popular but as an icon and sex symbol–or rock star–than anything else. If Marxism still has a hold on the intellectual classes around the world, it’s thanks to people like the Frankfurters who understood the limitations of Marxism as a science and recognized its usefulness as a critical tool–to be used in tandem with other tools. Thus, the Frankfurters turned Marxism from an ideology at war with the capitalist West to one that could be employed usefully within the capitalist West.
So, it was only natural that the Frankfurters were more interested in Marx’s earlier writings than the works he came to be famous for. They were more interested in the critical Marx and the process through which he arrived at his ideas than in the infallible Marx possessed of perfect wisdom.
Another crucial importance of the Frankfurt School was it didn’t only critique ideological and class ‘enemies’ but also many of the assumptions of hardline Marxism and dogmatic Left. It was as if the Frankfurters had laid Karl Marx on a couch to be psycho-analyzed by Freud.
　
This is a crucial lesson for the White Right for it suffered the same fate as communism. If Marxism turned into the monstrosity of Leninism, Stalinism, and Maoism, the modern right turned into the horrors of Japanese Imperialism and National Socialism–and to a lesser degree, the stupidities of Italian Fascism. This is all the more unfortunate because the modern rightist ideology of fascism was developed by disenchanted Marxists and leftists. If Mussolini had been more thoughtful and less enamored with his ego, he might have developed a kind of pre-Frankfurt School for the modern right.
After all, the whole point of early fascism was that there was no single truth or ideology that can be an answer to all problems. If fascism wasn’t exactly critical, it was certainly creative. Instead of seeing the world and history in stark Manichean or purely dialectical terms as outlined in Marxism, fascists saw history and society as being organisms where various forces eternally contended, competed, fused, and sought harmony. There was no need to create a wholly classless society, no need for a totally new society.
Fascists rejected hardline conservatives and reactionaries too. There was no going back, no stopping change and progress–as change was organic and necessary–, and no clinging to old dogmas.
On the other hand, man was not a purely rational creature who could plot out and execute perfect progress based on purely ‘objective’ understanding of himself and history. Thus, fascism and other forms of modern rightism had been creative and critical. There were many schools and many possibilities. They even attracted or forged alliances with numerous intellectual giants of the time in various fields. So, what went wrong? The same thing happened to the modern right that happened with the modern left. Dogmatism, regimentation, and a dulling of the mind took over as Mussolini and Hitler took total power and began to regard themselves as neo-gods.
　
To be sure, one could argue that the fate of both the modern left and modern right was pre-ordained by the nature of their ideologies. One could argue that the inner logic of Marxism could only have led to Stalinism; in other words, totalitarianism wasn’t a perversion of Marxism but it’s inevitable outcome. If indeed capitalism must be destroyed and an avant-garde intellectual class must rule in the name of the proletariat, it’s only logical that the bourgeoisie, liberal democracy, and pluralism will have to go. Thus, even as alternative Marxists denounced the brutality and oppressiveness of Leninism or Stalinism, they were blind to the fact that Marxism or radical leftism would have turned out much the same even if Trotsky or Chomsky assumed the mantle of power. This isn’t to suggest that all ideas or trends on the left is necessarily totalitarian. There has been a moderate, skeptical, libertarian, and/or cautious Left on the side of individual liberty and pluralism. And, it’s true that even radical ideologies like Marxism can be mined for useful or insightful ideas.
As for the modern right, one could argue that it too could only have given rise to men such as Mussolini and Hitler–that they were not deformities of the modern right but the consequences of its inner logic. After all, what did the modern right stress? Unmoored from traditional spiritual values of Christianity, the modern right was heavily pagan and obsessed with visionary greatness. Friedrich Nietzsche laid the ground for the wold-be ‘superman’ types. Since the modern right often–if not always–rejected the notion of the all-embracing and loving God of the New Testament, it gave rise to an idea that man himself could be god-like and direct the fate of the world. And since the modern right upheld the idea of natural hierarchy, it meant the superior individuals should rule over the inferior masses–and inferior masses should blindly follow and worship the ‘great men’–and that superior races, cultures, or nations should rule over the inferior races, cultures, or nations.
To be sure, the idea of superiority of one people over others was nothing new. But, if Christianity has at least reminded the ruling class that all humans are the same children of God, the modern right tended to have a much harsher view not only because of lack of faith in Christianity but because of its adherence to Social Darwinism.
There were some elements on the modern right which embraced spirituality, but it tended to be of the dark and disturbing occult kind, sometimes even a perverse distortion or misinterpretation of ancient artifacts or alien cultures, reaching the apotheosis of ludicrousness in the mind of Heinrich Himmler.
And, there were modern rightists defined more by what they were against than what they were for–especially in occupied France where many French Rightists tolerated the German Occupation if only because it crushed the communists, socialists, liberals, and the Jews. They tended to be against modernity, industrial society, Jewish finance, the ‘slave’ religion of the Christian Church, Bolshevism, materialism, decadence, and/or black music. But, what were they really for? It was hard to say, and these kinds of ‘rightists’ tended to fall into a rut of nihilism and opportunism. One wonders if Ezra Pound’s support of Italian Fascism was really genuine or just a means to play the Bad Boy against what he perceived to the soulless modern West.
To be sure, there was a strong contingency of the Christian Right in or at least allied with the modern right. For some of these people, Christianity was more a symbol of Western tradition, glory, and power–National Christianity–than a set of moral or spiritual principles, and they should not be confused with genuine Christians who allied with the modern right in fear of the radical left or out of hatred for decadent modernity.
　
The modern right, though accepting of science and technology, was also marked by an ideology rooted in ‘blood and soil’. As such, it tended to consecrate and enshrine all that was dear to one’s own people while too often disdaining or holding in contempt the cultures and even the racial makeup of other peoples. The modern right was a strange mix of rational ideas and irrational impulses and visions. It developed a talismanic version of Darwinism, half science, half blood religion. Thus, the modern right produced a strange ideology where cold-hearted automatons, who claimed to have gone ‘beyond good and evil’ and gained a clear view of the world without the obfuscation of sentimentality, also claimed to be ‘spiritual’ than ‘materialistic’.
Their brand of spirituality claimed to be unfettered by pitying compassion for the weak, diseased, and the mediocre and espouse a true pagan spirituality which valued the strong, beautiful, healthy, and superior. It was meant to be a kind of spiritual Darwinism. It was supposed to be a fusion of beauty, intelligence, and strength, the very best qualities of man.
　
It’s no wonder that the Nazis were obsessed with neo-classicism and harkened back to the world of the Ancient Greeks where the gods and heroes represented strength and beauty. Of course, this was a terrible caricature of Ancient Greece just as heavy metal and punk are stupid caricatures of the rich and diverse idiom of rock music. The Nazis only amplified one aspect of the classical world at the expense of all others. Obviously, they had no use for something like the anti-war play ‘Trojan Women’ nor for the many schools of thought which pondered the tragic fate of man and warned against the vice of arrogance and hubris. Also, the existence of many city-states prevented the rise of one mindset uber alles.
Alexander the Great later unified Greece and expanded the empire, but he had a certain respect for other cultures and the bravery of his enemies. Nazism, on the other hand, was psychotically arrogant, contemptuous, and/or hateful of all things non-Aryan. Many Nazis were men with small brains with even smaller hearts who mistook their lack of thought as vigor and their lack of sympathy as an higher form of ‘spirituality’.
　
At any rate, it never seemed to occur to many on the modern right why the great spiritual faiths took the form they did. There are two forms of spirituality: one that idealizes and magnifies things of this world and one that seeks to escape or rise above this world. On some level, both of them are related, but there are important differences. It’s easy to understand why people have always been obsessed with power, wealth, beauty, and etc. Those are things we want in THIS world. They mean survival, glory, power, and pleasure to those who have them. Thus, many cultures worshiped gods and spirits that were said to embody these qualities. Take Thor(power) in the Germanic mythology or Aphrodite(beauty) in the Greek.
And, one of the appeal of the Old Testament was that Jehovah was supposed to be most powerful being in the universe; if you were on his good side, he would help you to defeat the enemies.
　
Even so, the Judeo-Christian faith eventually came to favor–at least morally–the loser over the winner, or at least the virtuous and poor over vicious and powerful(or poor). (It can’t be emphasized enough that Christianity is, foremost, a religion for the good and kind, not necessarily of the poor. To Jesus, a good heart was more important than poverty and weakness. Thus, a wicked poor man had no more chance of going to heaven than a wicked rich man. Indeed, Jesus preferred a conscientious and redemptive rich man over a vile and wicked poor man. It’s only the modern leftist variation of Christianity that, via Marxist materialism, equates poverty = virtue. On the other hand, the liberal global elite seems to have no problem promoting themselves as the best of the best for their combination of riches, power, and social conscience. Thus, the attraction of ‘climate change’ faith to a lot of rich globalist elitists. Such movements not only justify their riches–since they support or are associated with ‘good’ social causes–but suggest the global rich are better than all of us.) Christian morality was partly based on the truthful observation that people–as individuals and collectives–lose far more often than they win. For every victory, there were bound to be many defeats. Also, even the strong eventually grow feeble. Even riches don’t last forever and cannot be taken to the next world when one dies. Even the beautiful grow wrinkly and old. Even the healthy grow diseased.
The Jews lost time and time again, many more times than they won. Yet, unlike most cultures which vanished from the face of the Earth upon defeat, the Jews formulated a new kind of religion where they could never be spiritually defeated even if physically defeated. Since their god was not tied down to one place or time, the Jews came to believe that their God was with them and see them through–if they kept the faith.
This didn’t mean that God favored the weak over the strong–or that God especially loved the Jews because they were so often the losers. It meant God favored the faithful of heart over the strong of body. If His people remained faithful to Him, then vengeance would be His, and he would, in time, smite the peoples who had done harm to His people.
There was a strong moral code in the Old Testament and some stuff about the importance of compassion, but it too was a religion of power–or power-lust. The difference between the Jews and the ancient pagans was really in a matter of degrees. Pagans expected their gods to deliver victory and greatness HERE AND NOW. If such weren’t forthcoming, they lost faith in their god, the social order broke down, and the culture was lost. In contrast, the Jews developed a culture of patience. Even if things turned out bad for the Jews HERE AND NOW, there was still a sense that God was plotting for their eventual triumph. Thus, the Jews needed to remain faithful and true to the One and Only God.
Indeed, many a prophet explained the downfall or suffering of the Jews as a consequence of their sinfulness. As a result, the Jewish religion became ever more moralized. Eventually, the Jewish religion went from a delayed or patient expectation of eventual power toward a tendency to favor the weak(and virtuous) over the strong as its main principle. Though this idea never became the core of Jewish beliefs, it spawned an innovator in Jesus.
Jews had innovated their religion to the point where defeat, loss, or weakness was not necessarily fatal or even something to be ashamed of. As long as they kept the faith, they could expect good things in the future. A great messiah would arrive and save the Jews and defeat the enemies. But, Jesus went the extra step and said defeat, loss, and weakness in THIS world was not something one should struggle against with the aid of faith but something one should willfully and happily embrace with faith.
According to Jesus, the Jews should not expect better times in THIS world. The world was sinful and it will be as it always has been. Since the world is sinful and filthy, wealth and power could only be attained through sin and filth. Thus, it was better to be poor and weak and unstained by the temptations and abuses of wealth and power.
It should not surprise us why Jesus’s message eventually spread like wildfire. We tend to remember the past through its kings, warriors, art, and monuments, but the fact remains that power, wealth, beauty, and good times were really enjoyed by maybe 1% of the population if that. Everyone else lived like shit. Of course, there were slave rebellions and creations of new orders, but they all turned out to be the same in the long run–‘meet the new boss, same as the old boss’. So, the idea of making peace with one’s unhappy lot and knowing that the Son-of-God loved you despite your weakness, poverty, or illness were no doubt appealing to many people. (It also became popular among the ruling classes because wealth and power often make one feel spiritually empty and compromised. And, there was the usefulness of Christianity in controlling the masses with a value system that stressed accepting one’s meager lot in this world.)
　
Also, death rates were quite high until relatively recent times, and most people lost many dear ones. Thus, there was an emotional need to believe in some kind of afterlife where you might meet your dear ones again. Many on the modern right tend to laugh at the ‘slave religion’ of Christianity, but they forget that most of their ancestors were slaves or serfs than great warriors or kings. Because even an average Joe today lives better and enjoys more goodies than kings or noblemen of yesteryear, there is a tendency to identify with men of power than with men without power.
To be sure, the modern mind is kind of schizo because it is, at once, more power-and-wealth-obsessed than ever AND more egalitarian than ever. Everyone watches and fantasize about grand historical epics about the Great Men of Power, but we are also taught in schools that history must teach about The People and not just about Great Men.
　
As for Jesus, there was a contradiction between his worldly message and his promise of a new beginning. Though his worldly message seemed to be ‘accept your lot as a poor and virtuous weakling’, his prophesy forebode that He shall return one day and cleanse the world of all the bad elements and establish a kingdom of heaven on Earth. This is proof that there is some connection between pagan and Judeo-Christian religions. All said and done, whether the gratification is immediate or delayed, it all comes down to POWER.
　
But, there is another deeper connection between paganism and Judeo-Christian beliefs–wisdom.
All religions have required some kind of magic man, medicine man, sorcerer, witch, shaman, priest, soothsayer, etc. Though a primitive or warrior pagan culture may stress power and gory glory, the custodians of the religion need something other than brute strength and power. They need to tap into the dream world or the OTHER world; they need to go on mind journeys or meditate; they need to develop complex rituals based on mystical cosmology; they need to reflect on experience and understand reality not only in terms of its outward–or superficial–appearance but its deeper and hidden dynamics. Thus, even as Thor is the strongest of the gods in German mythology, Odin is considered the top god because of his possession of wisdom. Odin’s wisdom may pale next to that of Yahweh, but he’s a real thinker compared to the dimbulbs or pretty tarts who are his companions. Similarly, though Ares is the god of war and Aphrodite is the goddess of beauty in the Greek pantheon, they get less respect than Apollo and Athena who are associated with wisdom.
Insofar as all religions strive for some kind of wisdom, and to the extent that wisdom goes beyond fixation with beauty, power, and wealth, all religions have something deep in common. The tragic and evil aspect of Nazism was the only ‘wisdom’ it derived from pagan religions was Odin’s cunning, Thor’s muscle-headedness, Aphodite’s pornographic narcissism, and Ares’s brutish recklessness. Stupidity is bound to fail and fall, and so fell Nazism. To be sure, the good guys can sometimes lose too, but they leave behind a legend of the lost noble cause, which may later inspire generations to come. But, the defeat of the Nazi Germany left the world with nothing more than relief. Win or lose, evil forces don’t inspire us, which is why the Mongols and the Nazis have never captured the positive imagination of the world.
　
Though it is true that there were certain tendencies in the ideas and assumptions of the modern right that led to the disasters of Italian Fascism and National Socialism, it could be argued that this was less INEVITABLE with the Right than with the Left. For one thing, there was no universal or rational logic that purported to unite all rightist ideas. Indeed, rightist ideas were notable for having primary relevance to their place or nation of their origin than for all of humanity. Also, the Right was far more comfortable with concepts such as ‘culture’, ‘blood and soil’, ‘the irrational’, and ‘sacredness’ whereas such ideas were either suspect or anathema to the Left. If one could argue that there was only universal truth for all leftists around the world–and a logic governing such truth–, no such claim could be made for the right. There were as many rightist ‘truths’ as there were rightist entities. For the right, the truth wasn’t merely material or objective but what an individual or a people felt or held sacred.
In this sense, the right could be less dangerous and aggressive than the Left OR more dangerous and aggressive. If the Right in any nation argued only for national power and sovereignty, it only minded its own business. But, if the Right in any country plotted to conquer other nations, the result could be a total bloodbath.
The Left was more meddlesome as it called for World revolution, but it regarded–theoretically anyway–all people as being equal and deserving of ‘universal justice’–as defined by the left of course. Thus, even as the USSR killed countless people in the regions it occupied, its stated official goal was to spread the brotherhood-of-man. Nazi Germans, on the other hand, could very likely treat conquered peoples as less-than-human–depending on how the subject races measured on the Nazi scale of racial hierarchy.
Even so, Nazism was only one possible outcome of modern rightist ideas then coursing through Europe, and there was never a unified right-wing support of Mussolini’s Italy or Nazi Germany–or Franco’s Spain–comparable to the united leftist support of Marxist dogma or the Moscow line.
This was only natural as some modern rights were romantics, some were scientific or materialist, some were occultist, some preferred the past, some welcomed the future, some were pro-industry, some were anti-industry, some were business-oriented, some were socialist-oriented. Because of the crazy-quilt realities of the modern right, it’s understandable why Mussolini harked back to the distant glory of ancient Rome in order to find SOMETHING that might unite all Italian rightists. All the better to find the unifying symbols in the long lost past since no one agreed on anything in the present. If Roman glory was the unifying symbol for Italian modern rightists, German National Socialism settled on racial nationalism. Thus, National Socialism had a room for pro-science people, pro-religion people, pro-capitalists, pro-socialists, pro-paganites, pro-Christianites, and so forth and so on. How do you maintain unity among such plurality? Hitler presented the idea of German national pride and greatness.
For most Germans, the appeal of Nazism was German nationalism, not theories about the ‘Aryan’ race. ‘Aryanism’ became the central animating force of National Socialism ONLY AFTER Hitler consolidated total power. German nationalism meant revival of German power, German economic recovery, and regaining of some German lands. It didn’t mean igniting another world war.
Hitler deviously used German nationalism to gain power, but his main goal was ‘Aryanism’, a kind of demented ideology rooted in a false reading of history and calibrated as an imperialist plan to create an ‘Aryan’ empire. ‘Aryanism’ went beyond German borders in scope and policy. After all, Germanness was limited to German lands. But, Aryanism interpreted all of history as a battle between the noble, beautiful, and healthy blonde-and-blue-eyed Aryan peoples vs the mongrel or dark races. Thus, Hitler believed that nearly all great civilizations had initially been created by the Aryans but had come to ruin because Aryan founders had grown weak by mixing their blood with the lesser humans. (Hitler saw the rootless and venal Jews as facilitating this racial decay all throughout history by settling in Aryan-created civilizations and using their deviousness to undermine the rightful power of the Aryan elites. Simply put, Hitler and his cohorts projected or grafted what they observed in the modern West on ALL of history.) Aryanist view implied that much of the world been dominated by the great Aryan peoples. Himmler even argued that the original Aryans of Central Asia had been the first blonde and blue-eyed people. Of course, much of this was pure unadulterated nonsense. But, as long as Hitler, Himmler, and other lunatics were obsessed about some long lost blonde-and-blue-eyed Aryan paradise, they hungered to create a neo-Aryan empire in the modern world, and their targeted real estate was the vast lands of Russia. The insane ideology of Aryanism rode in through the Trojan Horse of German nationalism. Many Germans supported Hitler to revive Germany, not to build a utopian ‘Aryan’ empire.
　
Because of the crazy-quilt nature of the modern right, it’s perhaps true that the right should focus more on culture and ideas than on politics. It is unfortunate that the left has gotten a leg up in the area of culture since culture is essentially ‘irrational’ and the product of creative forces. The rational left is understandably more critical–deriving from Marx’s scientism–, but the modern right should have had the creative edge–inspired by Nietzsche. (Alas, it was the modern left which creatively appropriated Nietzsche and even Heidegger in the post-WWII era whereas much of the ‘far right’ turned to stupid Holocaust Denial, skinheadism, Neo-Nazism, and other childish lunacies.) Indeed, it is not surprising that many of the great artists in the first half of the 20th century were modern rightists–as opposed to the old school rightists who stuck to the dogma of God and Country. Somehow, the creative juices on the modern right were stomped out by the rise of Italian Fascism and especially National Socialism. For all their talk of art and culture, the severity of censorship and officialism did much to stifle and suppress individual eccentricity so crucial to art, vision, and culture. One could argue that Mussolini and Hitler were visionary artists in their own right, and surely no one can deny the grandeur, power, and even a degree of brilliance in what they managed to pull off before they shot everything to hell with reckless upmanship and warmongering.
　
Anyway, if there is something the Right can learn from the Frankfurt School, it is this: Like the Frankfurters, the Right must go back to the origins. The Frankfurters went back to Marx before he hardened into a Marxist. Similarly, the modern right must go back to the ideas and visions of the modern right before they were perversely distorted or simplified into something like Italian Fascism or National Socialism. And, the modern right must study the manner in which many modern rightists in the first half of the 20th century rejected or resisted the rise of corporate fascism which replaced an organic rightism or proto-fascism. Also, the modern right must study why some original thinkers on the modern right surrendered or lent their support to the likes of Mussolini and Hitler, thus abandoning their critical faculty and creative spirit for the sake of brute power and domineering glory.
　
It would have been sheer foolishness for the Neo-Left to build on Leninism, Stalinism, or Maoism–or even dogmatic Marxism. History never turns out like ‘great men’ prophesy nor is heaven ever possible on earth–Stalin’s Russia and Mao’s China certainly weren’t it. Thus, the Frankfurters wisely went back to what might be called proto-Marxism when Marx was still a thinking and searching man than an all-knowing wiseman.
　
Similarly, it is ludicrous for the modern right to build on great political and moral failures of Mussolini and Hitler. (This doesn’t mean we should reject everything they did as some of their ideas had the ring of truth and some of their accomplishments were admirable and great.) We need to go back to the beginning when nothing had yet been carved in stone, when all things were possible for the modern right, when many different schools and individuals offered their own vision of the world and critique of modernity. Of course, eventually and for the purposes of action, we must arrive at some set of ideas that may constitute a new dogma, but this process must take time and great effort. The problem with the modern right in the 20th century was it took power too quickly before it matured into deeper and vaster pool of thought. Also, the modern right came to power in a state of panic when the bourgeoisie supported the radical rightist in order to stave off the radical left. In this state of Manichean panic and power struggle, the ideas became polarized and starkly us-vs-them.
There may not be much time for the White Right since we are faced with dire cultural and demographic problems. Nevertheless, unless the white right reforms and re-formulates itself–and expunges the sickness of Nazism–, it will never develop into an ideology or movement that will win over the majority of people or inspire the most intelligent and talented to take up the nationalist flag.

The (Human)Sacrificial Aspect to Soviet Communism’s Mass Killings.

It’s often been asked why communism killed so many people if the goal was to liberate mankind. In a way, this question answers itself. Any war, crusade, or revolution seeking to change the world is an act of violence. Consider the fact that America was on the ‘good guy’ side of the Good War–WWII–yet killed millions of civilians through aerial bombings and other methods. US even dropped two big ones on Japan. It’s not out of the ordinary to do ‘bad things’ for ‘noble’ ends. There was an element of communism that was indeed war-like. What is a revolution but war waged on Old History to create New History? People were bound to get killed. This has been the case all throughout history. All nations were unified through violence; the ‘higher good’ was achieved through much bloodshed. For example, the rise and spread of Christianity and Islam necessitated war and suppression of peoples, cultures, ideas, and values out of sync or opposed to the New Spiritual Order. In this sense, one may indeed wonder if communism was any worse than other historical movements.

Communism was a totalitarian ideology and movement, and therein lied its danger and power. It was a unified system that purported to have connected all the dots of history, science, arts, spirituality, economics, culture, politics, philosophy, morality, and etc. Communism was a total way of life, a totalistic way of understanding the world–its past, present, and future. It was archaeology, it was sociology, it was prophecy. As such, communists tended to be more fanatical, blind, ruthless, and cocksure in their beliefs and assumptions. They were convinced 200% of their correctness.
Though the Far Left is often associated with Liberalism–not least because both had been allies during the era of the Popular Front–, communism has always been proudly anti-liberal. Marx, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao all saw liberalism as a promise of false freedom, a fiction of freedom procured and projected by bourgeois liberals for the purpose of fooling themselves and the masses that the capitalist order was essentially decent and just. Communists spoke of True Freedom, True Liberation, True Equality, True Truth. Marx–the man, the methodology, and the myth–was so awesome to his adherents that many leftists just took it on faith that he must have been right. Most communists never read Das Kapital and even those who did understood little of it. Most communists were only familiar with communism through the Communist Manifesto, slogans, speeches, marches, posters, and lots of singing. It was a religions movement. Just as illiterate people all over the world were crazy about God and Jesus(or Muhammad), communists were crazy about Marx. Indeed, the very difficulty of works like Das Kapital made Marx’s star rise higher. It was as though the man was so great, wise, and brilliant that most people simply couldn’t understand his divine genius. You just had to take him on faith. Most people understood the ideas in "Communist Manifesto", but that alone could not have created the religion of Marx. No, it required Das Kapital, the magnum opus that was purported to have demonstrated beyond any doubt that every assertion made in "The Communist Manifesto" was totally true. Just gazing at the thickness of Das Kapital(in three volumes) and being overwhelmed by its dense writing were enough to convince many people that this was godly wisdom.

So, it’s not hard to understand why so many people fell under the spell of communism and why it came to be so dangerous. Communism, like Christianity, had two aspects to it. On the one hand, its core ideas and central tenets were simple enough for a child or an idiot to understand. Even an illiterate could understand slogans such as ‘land, bread, justice, equality, death to oppressors’. That was the populist side of Marxism.
But, there was also an intellectual side as Marx had been a thinker and writer all his life. One could be a scholar in a university and study Marxism and use it as a methodology for economics, literary studies, history, or etc. for the rest of your life.
This dual aspect of Marxism filled its adherents with spiritual meaning in their lives. Ignoramuses felt they’d gained a degree of ‘intellectual’ seriousness by embracing Marxism. Many working class or lower-class people felt more serious, more knowledgeable, and smarter by claiming to be communists. Being a communist meant that one wasn’t just another working class slob but a humble thinker who understood how society really worked. As for the privileged and educated who had no direct connection to The People, Marxist studies meant that they were ideo-spiritually connected to the ‘oppressed’ masses. Marxism also made leftist intellectuals feel that they were leaders of the masses, at least in their own delusional minds. Marxist intellectuals persuaded themselves that a crass and exploitative capitalist structure stood in the way between the people and themselves–the rightful savior-leaders of the masses.
So, Marxism’s appeal was both to the slobs and the snobs. It was an ideology that claimed to resolve the natural tensions and divisions that existed between the two camps. In this sense, Marxism had much in common with Christianity and Islam. Both religions had mass appeal. Anyone could convert instantaneously by accepting Jesus as one’s savior or Muhammad as one’s prophet. Even the dumbest person could learn and understand the core beliefs and values of either religion in a single day. But, both religions also have complex, profound, and extensive texts that could be studied, pondered, and debated by scholars forever. Christianity would have been just a cult if not for the intellectual contents in the New Testament. Though Christianity spread among the impoverished and illiterate masses, it is doubtful that it could have eventually attracted the Roman elite(that came to adopt it as official religion) had it not been for the fact that Jesus and his followers were actually intellectually formidable men who left behind an impressive body of texts. There were many philosophical and spiritual ideas as profound or as deep as Christianity through history, but as they couldn’t be easily understood by the masses, they failed to develop into Great Movements or Schools of Thought. And, there were many cults with great mass appeal, but they faded away because they failed to produce sacred texts that could engage the spiritual and philosophical fascination of the intellectual class.

Other than the appeal of righteous victimhood on the part for the masses and cutting-edge intellectualism for the elite, Marxism had another appeal: that of the dedicated warrior. As Marx said, a philosopher’s duty was not only to understand reality but to change it, or to understand history for the purpose of changing it. A Marxist warrior could be a soldier, a spy, a subversive, or a secret agent. This added an element of excitement, adventure, thrill, and romance to the calling. A Marxist intellectual or academic, as opposed to most kinds of intellectuals, could take pride in being part of Active History. The idea of a philosopher understanding history in order to change it is like the concept of the fusion of mind and body, of the pen and the sword. (One of great appeals of Jesus as a revolutionary spiritual leader is the fact that he united body and soul in his search for higher truth. Buddha is another great spiritual figure but has been less appealing because he was all mind and not much body; he was more like a draft dodger from the troubles from the world. Jesus, on the other hand, didn’t merely seek inner or spiritual peace but put the pedal to the metal in the real world. He was a warrior in that sense and exciting for that reason. As extreme as Mel Gibson’s "Passion of the Christ" is, its version of Christ’s journey has a certain legitimacy. The mythic aura of Jesus derived not merely from his moral vision but his physical courage. He took the beatings not because he was weak or a coward but because he was the toughest guy in the world. And, the appeal of Che Guevara has been similar. Considering that most communists have been either paper shuffling bureaucrats, bookish intellectuals, or brutal executioners/soldiers, it was remarkable to many leftists that Che seemed to embody both the mental and physical aspects of Marxism. He wasn’t just a man of ideas but a man of action. He also looked good, which cannot be said of most communists.)
Intellectuals throughout history felt lacking in masculinity. They were ‘geeky’. Marxism offered the intellectual the promise or at least the conceit of being a Real Man. Through Marxism, even a geeky leftwing Jew could flatter himself that he was a tough warrior. It’s no wonder that so many Jews admired Leon Trotsky, who lived most of his life as a writer/thinker/political activist but also played a key role in building up the formidable Red Army during the Russian Civil War. For many leftist intellectuals–especially Jews–, Trotsky was proof that one could be an intellectual AND a badass. And, many Jewish communists were ruthless in their roles as executioners as if to prove that they were not only big thinkers but tough guys.

The element of The Warrior was appealing to the masses as well. Christianity too had a militant/military wing. It had its Warriors for Christ, the Crusades, the Teutonic Knights, and etc. Even so, Christianity aimed its arrows at the enemies of Christendom or against other denominations. But, WITHIN the Christian order, the people were told to submit to and accept the social hierarchy as natural, just, and divinely ordained. In other words, even as Christianity was for The People, they were told to obey the kings and nobles. The people had to be humble and meek. For salvation they were told to look to the Next Life. Christianity was appealing because people were told that Jesus loved them so. But, Marxism had an added appeal. It too was for The People, but it promised happiness and fulfilment in this world. It also promised power in the hands of The People. Marxism didn’t oppose the ethos of Christianity but rejected its spiritual assumptions and its uses by the powers-that-be in exploiting the ignorance of the masses. Marxism told urban workers and landless peasants that they can fight for and attain Justice. During the Russian Civil War, even peasants who knew nothing of communism gravitated toward the Reds because "land and bread" sounded better than God and Tsar. Because of the militant aspect of Marxism the masses of adherents found great excitement in the movement.
For most of human history, the warrior caste or class had been limited to relatively a few people, the nobility. Most of the people had to bow down before the kings, nobles, or emperors. The French Revolution fundamentally changed this notion, especially with its People’s Army made up of millions of ordinary people. Marxism went even further because it challenged the very concept of class altogether. Many ordinary people gravitated toward communism for it gave them arms, uniforms, and warrior pride. Of course, even prior to communism ordinary people had served in the military in all nation-states, especially following the French Revolution. Even as the Revolution and Napoleon were eventually defeated, the Western world was fast changing. Nation-states became the new norm, and masses of people were drafted into huge national armies; and even people of humble background could rise up the ranks to become colonels and generals, especially in the US. Even so, prior to the Marxist concept of Revolution, people fought for the nation, for the king, for their officers, etc. It was Marxism which gave people the notion of fighting for The People or The People’s Future. Outside Marxism, one could be a warrior only IN the military. Within the Marxist sphere, one always felt like a warrior because The Revolution was constantly at war with Old History.

Anyway, let us consider the reason why communism came to kill so many people. There was the radical faith in New Future. There was the arrogance of possessing the highest and truest from of scientific rationalism. There was the warrior cult which said one must not only be a thinker but a soldier willing to shed blood ruthlessly to create a Better World. Also, the nature of communism was monopolistic, which is to say that the state came to own and rule everything. It controlled government, the economy, education, media, and all else. So, there were no checks on government power. Communist ideology justified total control since (1) the government was supposed to be a dictatorship of the proletariat ruled by and for the people and (2) private property was associated with the exploitative bourgeoisie. In the name of the freedom of The People, the freedom of individuals was forbidden or seriously proscribed(lest some individuals grow rich and ‘exploit’ fellow man).
But, that alone doesn’t quite explain the scale of killings by communist nations. Here, we must consider the concept and practice of human sacrifice, especially like the ones carried by the Aztecs and ancient pagan civilizations. This may sound ridiculous since human sacrifice was spiritual and elitist in essence whereas communist killings were carried out in the name of rationalism and egalitarianism. But, observed closely, both human sacrifices and communist killings have something eerily in common. Both sought to placate some higher force, greater truth, grander concept.
Communists didn’t believe in God but they worshiped their conceptualization of History and had total faith in The Future. On the one hand, they CONFIDENTLY believed History was on their side, but on the other, they ANXIOUSLY worried that History might deviate from Marx’s prophecy. (Communists were never sure whether to regard Marx’s vision of the future as a prophecy or blueprint. During the Great Depression of the inter-war years, Marxism seemed prophetic, but in the post-WWII era when communism underperformed vis-a-vis the Free World, it became more a blueprint. In other words, it no longer seemed that History would naturally or inevitably ensure the triumph of Marx’s vision; rather, the future had to be COERCED into the Marxist model. Proletarian-ism turned into Procrustean-ism.) Communism was an ideology and movement of both iron conviction and extreme anxiety. Paradoxically, the two went together. Since communists believed that Marx(and Lenin) were so absolutely correct, they were convinced that History must validate their Great Truths. Communism didn’t just produce belief but inspired faith. Communism wasn’t merely a prediction but a Grand Prophecy. Their whole lives, beliefs, and values were linked with how History turned out. So, they were willing to do anything for the sake of History. They were willing to do everything and then some to show that History-as-God was on their side. In this sense, communist killings were carried out in the name of and to serve the God of History, of which Marx was seen as Moses.
Of course, communists didn’t consciously think this way. They told themselves that they were killing class enemies, kulaks, the evil rich, spies and saboteurs, and other lowlifes. But, on a subconscious level there was something strikingly religious and spiritual about the entire communist enterprise. It was carried out by a men of great conviction and great anxiety. Greater the conviction and confidence, greater the anxiety. Conversely, greater the anxiety, greater the conviction. This was the paradox of the communist mentality.
Imagine a boxer who convinces himself–and is egged on by his fans–that he is the greatest and the most invincible fighter on the planet. This fills him with conviction and confidence. But, because his very worth and essence are now linked to being Champion of the World, he becomes more anxious about his fights since a loss would destroy the mythic grandeur of his greatness. Those who step into giant shoes realize the smallness of their feet. Confidence and anxiety go together.
Titanic wasn’t just another ship, and its sinking wasn’t just another disaster. It was Tragic because the Titanic was regarded as the Ship of Human Ingenuity, Power, Mastery, and Invincibility that could not be sunk. Marxism was supposed to be the Great Locomotive of History. It was supposed to travel the fastest and sweep everything aside. Its hype was such that it didn’t care how many people it mangled or sliced under its wheels. Yet, this confidence also filled it with anxiety and desperation. The communist faith was so total that communists were terribly afraid that the ideology on which they staked everything might prove to be false. To convince of themselves of the Absolute Correctness of communism, they were willing to go to extreme lengths. (We can also see this is the passions of extreme Japanese nationalists in WWII. They were so convinced of the invincibility of the Yamato spirit that they thought they could triumph over the US. But, despite the blind faith and bluster, there was also great fear and anxiety buried in their souls. When it seemed as though Japan may indeed lose the war to the mighty US, many Japanese wished to commit national suicide along with their Emperor than own up to the fact that their gods were on the wrong side of History or non-existent. They were willing to sacrifice the entire nation than admit that their gods had failed.)
If iron conviction inevitably leads to anxiety–since reality never lives up to one’s fantasies or expectations–, anxiety calls upon conviction for renewed confidence and morale.
This is a proto-spiritual trait at the core of man. When early man was faced with grim reality, he often had nothing to rely on but blind faith. So, when communism didn’t work out as it was supposed to in early communist Russia, Bolsheviks hardened their hearts and convictions even further. As they couldn’t find evidence of success in reality, they had to find meaning to carry on within their iron hearts. The nature of radicalism being what it is, most communists were simply not willing to admit that they may have been wrong or accept the fact that History cannot be remade overnight based on set of intellectual theories. Communists had spent their entire lives with the Iron Conviction. Faced with the anxiety of reality, communists only hardened their convictions(though there were interludes such as the New Economic Policy). They couldn’t let their God of History fail, and they were convinced that the God of History would sustain, justify, and ultimately validate them. To serve this God of History and in order to receive its blessings, communists were willing to sacrifice as many people as possible to bring forth the Great Shining Future.
There is a parallel of this in Aztec human sacrifice. The Aztecs needed the regularity of seasons for bountiful harvests. They were also a fiercely warrior-like people and believed that their victories in battle required the blessings or approval of the gods. They were a people of great ruthless conviction and great neurotic anxiety. The combination of conviction and anxiety led to the psychotic practice of mass human sacrifice. The Aztecs dared leave nothing to chance. They wanted to be 100% certain that the gods were on their side; they wanted to make sure that gods were pleased with the utter devotion of Aztecs elites and warriors who were willing to sacrifice any number of people.
In this sense, one could argue there was an element of Human Sacrifice to the whole communist enterprise. And, it may also explain why so many communists were willing to let themselves be sacrificed as well. Though they were proud to be communist-warriors, the God of History was what really mattered most. If individuals–including yourself–had to be sacrificed for the God of History, so be it. It didn’t matter if individuals were personally guilty or innocent–anymore than it mattered if those offered to the Aztec gods were ‘good’ or ‘bad’ Even communists who knew that they’d been falsely accused and sentenced to death made peace with their own fates since they believed their God of History would triumph with or without them. In a war, you may be accidentally, wrongfully, or negligently killed by ‘friendly fire’, but you can find comfort in believing that your side may win the war. The WAR is bigger than you, a mere soldier, a cog in the machine; as a soldier, your very essence is to bear any amount of sacrifice in order to win the war; soldiers are, by nature, expendable. Communism was not only the God of History but God of Justice and God of War. However bitter the falsely accused communists may have felt about their fates, many found comfort in the conviction that their comrades and children would eventually see the Revolution to its just and great conclusion. Besides, unlike capitalism which is premised on the idea of individualist self-interest, communism was founded on the notion of collective sacrifice.

Another reason why communism led to so many deaths is due to another paradox. Communism was based on total trust and on total subversion. Communists believed in using whatever subversive means to attain their goals. So, communists believed that the enemy must be weakened from both within and without before the fatal blow could be dealt. There are two ways to weaken your opponent in a fight. You can slip drugs or toxins into his food and drink, whereby he will feel dizzy or sick during the fight. And, if he’s too tough to KO in the early rounds, you weaken him by body blows whereupon his legs grow weary. Once his legs are immobile, you can prepare for the KO blow. The communist strategy was along those lines. Communists knew that it was near impossible to bring on the revolution overnight. So, they had to look for ways to weaken the bourgeois-capitalist-imperialist-feudalist or whatever kind of order. Communists believe in lying, cheating, spying, fooling, and all that stuff. Undercover activity, espionage, and subversion were nothing new in history, but communists took it further than ever before. They felt such contempt for their enemies that all ‘bourgeois’ notions of fair play or honor went out the window.
Christians had also been into subversion, but Christianity also said, ‘love thy enemy’. Communism said the enemy must be totally exterminated. Also, communists rejected traditional morality, notions of honor and respect, and all that crusty ‘bourgeois’ stuff. As far as communists were concerned, there was only Justice and Power. Those who were for Justice deserved to have all the Power. So, communists felt no pangs of guilt whatsoever in lying with a straight face, betraying non-communists who sympathized with them, and even in destroying fellow communists who happened to follow the wrong line. Communism’s strategy for gaining power was right out of the Machiavellian-Mafia handbook. It was essentially subversive, whether the concept was ‘cultural hegemony’ ala Antonio Gramsci or employing tools of capitalism to serve the interests of communist revolution ala Armand Hammer. This even developed into a kind of nihilistic and cold romanticism, an iron-grey knife-in-the-back fetishism. In some cases, there was even an erotic element(though communism itself was puritanical and repressed/repressive) for the duty of the radical subversive was often to SEDUCE the well-meaning, naive, or foolish western bourgeoisie with flattery and sophistication. FDR fell for communists big time! We can see communism’s seductive power in the opening scenes of East/West, the French film about travails of duped French leftists in Stalinist Russia.

But, there was another element to communism. It was also based on profound Trust. Indeed, without trust the whole enterprise was hopeless. Communists needed to trust one another and have total trust in the justness of The Cause and Revolution. Communism couldn’t become a social, national, let alone an world movement without the trust and camaraderie among themselves. The rule of communism said, ‘be totally trusting and supportive of fellow brethren’ and ‘be totally subversive and deceitful to your class enemies.’ This radical paradox in communism was bound to lead to paranoia and bloodshed in almost every case.
Though communism was about creating a New World of Trust, it could only be achieved through deceit and subversion. (We even have variations of it in American Democracy, with Obama having used Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky to become president.) In this sense, every communist activist had to be an expert liar, cheater, and subversive. Though subversion was only supposed to serve as a means to gain power against enemies, the subversive mindset remained intact in the communist order. It’s like those who spend their entire lives lying for the higher good end up habitual liars with no real sense of true or false. Communists sought to make history out of subversion, but subversion made liars out of communists. So, communists couldn’t really trust one another.
Especially as communism is a radical ideology with a clear-cut and unambiguous notion of Truth, there couldn’t be many forms of communism. Deviations or heresies weren’t tolerated–not for long anyway. Everyone eventually had to unite under a single tent, a single interpretation of ideology, and a single strategy. But, the fact is many communists had different ideas as to ‘what must be done’. It was only natural that many communists were tempted to use the very subversive means that brought them to power against rival communists. In the USSR, no one was a bigger master of this than Stalin. The bookish and intellectually vain Trotsky was no match for the Man of Steel whose inner core had been forged through a long personal history of violence, terrorism, and murder. Trotsky was just as ruthless if not more so, but he thought the weight of his ideas and intellect would carry the day. He was very wrong.

Anyway, the Ideal of Total Trust paradoxically led to mass paranoia in the Soviet Union(and other communist countries). Under communism the contradictions among men were supposed to fade away. All men were supposed to be comrades under the Sun. But, distrust remained and even intensified. Communists had come to power through ruthless and deceitful means. Stalin well understood the true nature of communists. For all their highfalutin words about unity and trust, most communists wanted power and to do things their way.
In a perfectionist system, even a blemish can seem like a terrible stain. Communism believed in Perfect Trust among men. Yet, it was led by men of deceit, subversion, power-lust, ruthlessness, and total self-righteousness. Stalin and others couldn’t help but feel that there were other would-be Stalins, would-be Trotskies, would-be Lenins. Each would-be Stalin, Trotsky, or Lenin surely sought power and were willing to use most the devious and ruthless means to attain it. Though much of this paranoia was psychotic, it wasn’t totally unjustified as Stalin was the living proof of the conspiratorial nature of communism. Would Lenin have been paranoid had he purged and executed Stalin and all his associates in the early 20s? Historians today might say Lenin acted out of paranoia, but we know that Stalin was indeed a ruthless radical who’d wanted total power. So, it was natural that Stalin feared other Stalins-in-the-making. More one loves oneself, more one fears others like oneself. (Stalin was always looking the mirror asking, ‘mirror, mirror on the wall, who’s the greatest communist of them all?’) In one way, Stalin was killing his enemies and rivals. In another way, Stalin was killing himself in the form of fellow communists who might have wanted to take his place. Stalin had to be the bright Sun that extinguished all the other stars from the sky. He could only tolerate planets revolving around him, not other suns that might challenge his singular authority.

As to the question WHY SO MANY WERE KILLED UNDER COMMUNISM, it must be remembered that the communist order, fearsome and fearful, produced a world of great secrecy. In a democracy, you can easily tell who’s the enemy, who’s the friend. Opponents are not afraid to protest, make trouble, speak out, and give the middle finger. Under a totalitarian system, everyone is fearful. So, even the enemies, rivals, and heretics remain utterly silent and act as though they are with the program. Though communism sought to wipe out all the enemies, its ruthless radicalism paradoxically blurred the line between friend and foe. Well aware of the ruthless and murderous nature of communism, the ‘enemies’ and critics of the state and the rivals within the Party learned the fine art of silence and going along. As a result, Stalin and his cohorts couldn’t really tell who was ‘good’ and who was ‘bad’, who was ‘trustworthy’ and who was ‘untrustworthy’. Everyone was afraid to come right out and say what they believed or felt.
So, there was only one way to make sure that everyone got the message loud and clear that THE STATE IS NOT SOMETHING TO MESS WITH(or something to even think of messing with).
An all-out campaign of Terror which would arbitrarily target entire populations or establish quotas for class enemies to be arrested and shot became the Law of the Land. In the early stages of the Revolution, it was easy to tell who could be trusted and who couldn’t. The Tsar and people around him were bad. The capitalists were bad. The big landowners were bad. The Whites were bad. The Tsarist military was bad. But, when the Revolution triumphed and once the communists won the Civil War through the most ruthless means, Russia became a State of Total Fear. The remaining ‘enemies of the revolution’ all hushed up or joined the system. Stalin could never truly trust these people; in many cases, he didn’t even who ‘they’ were, where they were hiding, or whether they were in the government, military, or other institution. Were ‘they’ truly convinced of the rightness of communism or were ‘they’ cunning opportunists in the new order? Worse, were ‘they’ closet-reactionaries patiently plotting a coup to destroy the Revolution–just like the revolutionaries had destroyed the Old Order–or were they ‘heretical’ communists biding their time to overthrow Stalin?
This explains why Stalin had so many military officers killed in the 1930s. Though they joined the Red Army, Stalin wasn’t sure where their loyalties really were. After all, they were men who’d sworn eternal allegiance to the Tsar yet switched sides to the communists. How could they be trusted?

Stalin was also aware of the fact that he’d only gradually come to consolidate power in the 1920s and early 1930s. It could be argued that Stalin didn’t achieve ABSOLUTE power until 1935 though he was the most powerful man in the Soviet Union by 1929. Though the Communist Party came to regard Stalin as the Supreme Leader, Stalin knew that many in the party had backed Trotsky. He knew that Kirov was more popular than he prior to the assassination.
Think of the American political primaries in 2008. Though the entire Party eventually consolidated around Obama, we know that many Hillary supporters were bitter about what had been done to their candidate. On the GOP side, though McCain eventually won and the Party united around him, we know that many conservatives loathed McCain. Similarly, though the Communist Party united behind Stalin by 1935, he understood quite well that he had not been the preferred leader for many communists. Many had backed Trotsky or others. As powerful as he was, Stalin couldn’t read what was really in the hearts of men, and as the Soviet Union was a state of fear, no one dared to speak out against Stalin once he gained total power. Communism promoted the ideology of Total Trust but ruled by Absolute Fear. Fear among the underlings and populace reflected the fear of the supreme leader who always suspected he didn’t really have the Real Trust of the people. So, he had to rely on Fear–his own and that instilled into the hearts of everyone.
In the mid 50s, Mao would smoke out his ‘enemies’ and critics through the Hundred Flowers Campaign which encouraged the people to speak out against the Communist Party. But, Stalin wasn’t willing to take any such risks. His strategy was to use pervasive, widespread, and random fear among the populace to send a bone-chilling message that YOU COULD BE NEXT. Since anyone could be accused of being the enemy of the state–even the most loyal and ardent among his supporters–anyone who had the slightest doubt about Stalin’s power or wisdom was careful to suppress it completely and pledge total allegiance.
There are surely other reasons for the massive bloodshed that took place in the Soviet Union and other communist states, but those are for another day.