Skip to main content

(Part 3): SJWs Have Always Lied. A Fisking of Soviet Civilization(1952) by Corliss Lamont

Continuing on with this massive fisking of Corliss Lamont’s 1952 book on the Soviet Union, this week’s installment is going to focus on Comrade Lamont’s explanation as to why Communism is a phenomenal system to live under and is totally different from fascism, which sucks to live under. It's a very nuanced interpretation of the two socialist philosophies and one that will require not only all of Comrade Lamont’s intellectual brainpower but also the complete ignorance and credulity of the reader. Let’s see how he does.


On Page 228, Comrade Lamont identifies ten “fundamental differences” between Soviet socialism and fascism. This is on the second page of the chapter and represents his efforts to set the tone for the remainder of the chapter. Essentially, if he can get the big whoppers swallowed first, the remaining smaller ones will go down easier. So let's take a look at the ten differences that Lamont claims separate the evils of totalitarian fascist socialism from the saintly beneficence of totalitarian soviet socialism(not that Comrade Lamont admits that fascism is socialism, that would be entirely too honest). Going to be a fun ride.


Comrade Lamont’s Ten Key Differences Between Fascist Socialism and Soviet Socialism


  1. Soviet Socialism’s end goal is “full political democracy”, while Fascist Socialism’s end goal is a “permanent dictatorship.”
  2. Soviet Socialism stands for the equality of the races, while Fascist Socialism stands for “racial discrimination and persecution”.
  3. Soviet Socialism stands for the equality of women with men, while Fascist Socialism treats women as the inferiors of men.
  4. Soviet Socialism supports trade unions, while Fascist Socialism seeks to destroy trade unions.
  5. Soviet Socialism has (I have to quote Comrade Lamont here directly, the clauses are just too intellectually arrogant not to appreciate in their full SJW glory) “an unceasing emphasis on the proletariat, the class struggle, and the classless society”, while Fascist Socialism supports and perpetuates the class system.
  6. Soviet Socialism supports (I have to quote Comrade Lamont again) “a planned socialist economy operated for use and abundance” while Fascist Socialism is apparently…”a monopolistic capitalist economy run on behalf of profits and aggression.”
  7. Soviet Socialism supports all sorts of cultural expansion, while Fascist Socialism is debased and drowns puppies. Something to that effect.
  8. Soviet Socialism supports atheism against any form of religious worship(Those Wise, Enlightened Atheists again), while Fascist Socialism has “tribal superstition, conceit, and blood-thirsty war-cries.”  
  9. Soviet Socialism is privileged to be led by “leaders with intellect, social idealism, and international vision” while Fascist Socialism is led by “ignorance, egotism, and savage nationalism.”
  10. Soviet Socialism stands for loving thy fellow man, peace, love, and Woodstock(Woodstock was over a decade away when Comrade Lamont committed these idiocies to paper, but if the shoe fits…it probably wasn’t made by a Soviet factory, but I digress).


Wow! What a lot of solid reasons why Soviet Russia was the most benevolent, wise, tolerant, advanced, and progressive regime on the planet! Other than the fact that out of the ten reasons given...nine and a half are flat out false. And the half is being generous, but any good lie has at least some measure of the truth in it, makes it more believable. So let’s go through these one at a time.


Soviet Socialism’s end goal is “full political democracy”, while Fascist Socialism’s end goal is a “permanent dictatorship.


Comrade Lamont opens with quite the whopper here, baldly stating that the end goal of the group of gangsters who were running the Soviet Union at this point (headed by none other than that noted lover of democracy, freedom, and law, Joseph Stalin), was to reach the point where they were apparently out of a job, as the state withered away and full democracy was established. What a truly selfless and tragically misunderstood group of men.


It is key to understand the fact that SJWs always, invariably, and pathologically lie. They lie by omission, they lie by obfustication, they leave no stone unturned in their attempt to get their message across. There is no element of good in their corrupt ideology, and it should be vigorously resisted by any means necessary. Do not let them in your life, your work, or your church as they will do nothing but cause damage and destruction. Here we have a man who is claiming with a straight face and an assumed facade of detached objectivity, that Joseph Stalin and his precursor Vladimir Lenin, actually were supporters of liberty and democracy, they just were merely victims of circumstance, forced to remain all-powerful despots by factors outside of their control.


Page 230 refers to the Constitution of the Soviet “Republic” and references some nebulous concept known as “the socialist concept of democracy” contained therein. It is instructive to stop here for a moment on Comrade Lamont’s use of the word “Republic”. I doubt it is an accident that Lamont freely mixes the words “republic” and “democracy” throughout the book. He clearly prefers the term “democracy” but uses “Republic” to try to “Americanize” the Soviet Union to his readers. See? It's republic too, just somewhat different! We see the stunted intellectual heirs of Corliss Lamont’s corrupt ideology in today’s realm, insisting that America is a democracy.


So speak ignorant men and women. Criticizing that which they do not know (and do not wish to understand), the concept of a Republic of laws not subject to mob rule, the tyranny of the half plus one that the Founders were very wary of.  We stand on the cusp of mob rule potentially electing a woman to the office of President, a woman who is deeply corrupt, venial, covers up for the grossest of legal and moral violations, and is thoroughly unfit to be the neighborhood dogcatcher, let alone the President. Hillary Clinton is the complete antithesis of what the Founders saw as the person for the office of President, yet mob rule may very likely take her there this November.  


Democracy is a road that historically speaking, has invariably led to dictatorship. The wrecking of the balance and separation of powers in the United States is a topic for another day, but you can easily see the seeds of today’s hysterical liberal bleating about “democracy” and “social justice” in Comrade Lamont’s smooth prose about “cultural, economic, racial, and sex democracy.”(Page 230)


Comrade Lamont then admiringly quotes some good old homespun wisdom from ‘ole Joe Stalin himself, “Leaders come and go, but the people remain. Only the people are immortal. Everything else is transient.”(Page 231). Stalin must have been solely contemplating the Russian people as a whole, given the fact that his ruthless secret police, gulags, assassinations, executions, and planned famines led to the deaths of millions of individual Russians. Or he was just lying through his teeth, similar to Comrade Lamont. A question for ages, clearly.   


Let’s move on to the next alleged difference between Soviet Socialism and Fascism.


Soviet Socialism stands for the equality of the races, while Fascist Socialism stands for “racial discrimination and persecution”.


I am going to score this as a half truth. Soviet Socialism was not so much concerned with people’s race as it was with their occupation/class prior to the Revolution, whereas Nazi Socialism is very well known for the horror of the Holocaust. The death toll under Soviet Socialism is considerably higher than under Nazi Socialism, however, as Stalin’s planned famines, targeted persecution of entire economic classes of people (see: kulaks) and horrific war crimes killed several times as many people as Nazi Fascism ever did. Granted, neither system is anything other than a monstrous blot on society that prioritizes the state over the people, but the overall death toll in Comrade Lamont’s precious socialist wonderland is much higher.


As a side note, I have no doubt that Comrade Lamont was enamored of the economic change that Hitler wrought in Germany, and was a defender of fascism right up until Hitler invaded Russia. Adolf Hitler wasn’t made Time magazine's Man of the Year in 1938 for nothing, fascism has always been very attractive to the creatures of the Left.


As Jonah Goldberg so thoroughly proved in his book Liberal Fascism, the Left has always been fascinated by fascism, easily as much if not more so as they were fascinated with Soviet Socialism. What Comrade Lamont and his ilk desperately try to avoid admitting is the fact that “Nazi” is an acronym, standing for the  “National Socialist German Worker's Party.” The Nazi economic platform is every bit as attractive to SJWs as the Communist Manifesto’s economic program for the attainment of Communism is. Comrade Lamont is merely an influential example of the typical lying SJW today, who rails against capitalism, writing lengthy (usually illiterate) screeds on their iPhone and angrily posting them from Starbucks. While sipping on a soy milk latte of course.


Comrade Lamont also uses his by-now-familiar-tactic of proclaiming the wonders of the equality that the Soviet Constitution supposedly guarantees, and then treating it as an established fact, simply because the Soviet Constitution said it existed, and Lenin and Stalin paid lip service to it.(Page 233). This type of disingenuous behavior is frequently seen in the pages of the Huffington Post(the Pravda of liberals) and any one of the other SJW infiltrated and converged institutions.  As we saw in a previous installment, the Soviet Constitution supposedly promised freedom of religion, but there was no such thing in Comrade Lamont’s good ‘ole utopia.  Admittedly, he undoubtedly considered that a feature, not a bug.


Soviet Socialism stands for the equality of women with men, while Fascist Socialism treats women as the inferiors of men.


Most of this point comes down to making his own definition for “equality” and then using that strawman argument to declare victory. It's a very common SJW tactic, and Comrade Lamont here does it to perfection.


The Soviet Union under Lenin did indeed make long strides towards making Hillary Clinton’s ideal utopia come to fruition, complete with easy divorce and on-demand abortion. Women were fully emancipated from all sorts of burdens and were free to sleep around with whoever they wanted, with the complete freedom to destroy any unfortunate byproducts of such behavior. Thus “equality”. In practice, the rapid dissolution of the family and the societal chaos that erupted in the late 20’s forced strides to be taken back towards at least some restrictions on abortion and divorce.


Mostly what Comrade Lamont is proudly defending here is an atheistic and amoral philosophy of life, the family, and women, where babies are slaughtered as inconveniences, divorce is obtainable at will, and families are shattered and bereft of any sort of state or moral support. Children grow up with no father and mother but the all-powerful State. Even if the children are fortunate enough to have parents, they are powerless to resist the State. Children informed on parents, wives against husbands, husbands against wives for crimes against the social order. These crimes could very simply be the “mental illness” of not agreeing wholeheartedly with the Soviet Union psychologists and harboring dangerous fantasies of self-determination, freedom, and the right to raise one’s children and live one’s life as one chooses. Basically, the Democratic Party Platform of 2016. Ah, but to Comrade Lamont, the Soviet Union was a veritable paradise of equality! Still, weird that he didn’t move there to enjoy all that equality in person...


Soviet Socialism supports trade unions, while Fascist Socialism seeks to destroy trade unions.


While Comrade Lamont has spouted many lies, some laughable, some dangerous, and all contemptible...this one is one of my favorites. Obviously, as a good little SJW, Comrade Lamont loved the unions. It went hand in hand with his hatred for capitalism. And today’s unions are the darlings of the Democratic establishment. Unless their members start wanting to exercise their first amendment rights to freely assemble AND freely disassociate...then the full force of the law must be brought to bear on those reprobates. See also: the ruckus that gets kicked up anytime a state goes right to work.


As far as the Soviet Union went...there was essentially one union. It was mandatory to join.  Yes, there were several trade unions depending on which industry you were in, but they were all essentially run by the Communist Party (along with everything else in the country), and they were not there to fight for even the nebulous concept of workers’ rights. They were there to represent the Communist Party and push for the advancement of its goals. There was no activity on pay, benefits, nothing at all.


Over in the realm of Nazi Socialism...it was pretty much exactly the same. Admittedly here in the good old US of A, the unions are deeply corrupt, hate capitalism, are primarily parasites that would rather kill their host than save it, and perform essentially no useful task. But at least they make a pretense of it. There was hardly even that in Comrade Lamont’s socialist fantasy land. So as usual, Comrade Lamont is bald-facedly lying here and talking out of his rear end.  


On Page 236, Comrade Lamont makes the laughable statement that “very few strikes actually take place for the reason that a workers’ government is in power, that the elimination of the private profit motive eliminates the chief factor in management’s resisting legitimate (emphasis mine) demands on the part of labor...” it’s very kind of him to come right out and admit that to him and his socialist brethren, all labor’s demands are legitimate, and all management is evil. Ironically, the Soviet Union had an abundance of managers and bureaucrats, who all took their share of the meager pie that socialism makes. And the reason there were no strikes) other than a couple highly publicized ones for the sake of looking good in Comrade Lamont’s favorite organ of news, Pravda), was because the Communist Party undoubtedly would have sent to the gulags any troublemakers. Especially during the reign of good ‘ole Stalin, who was still the de-facto Czar of Russia at this time.  


Soviet Socialism has (I have to quote Comrade Lamont here directly, the clauses are just too intellectually arrogant not to appreciate in their full SJW glory) “an unceasing emphasis on the proletariat, the class struggle, and the classless society”, while Fascist Socialism supports and perpetuates the class system.


This is another fun one. With this point, Comrade Lamont let the mask slip a bit and revealed that what he has been doing all along in this book is merely repeating Soviet propaganda.  The clues are all over, the using of pretentious words such as “proletariat”, the references to class and class struggle, and nebulous concept of a “classless society.” These words are parroted by many a hipster Marxist, in his little beret and with a tasteful Che Guevara shirt carefully rumpled over his scrawny chest.


The fact of the matter is that both Fascist Socialism and Soviet Socialism retained strong class societies, they simply switched up the rankers. And the primary culprit in all of this is indeed Comrade Lamont’s favorite utopian society, the Soviets. In the Soviet Union, especially under Stalin (who, I remind you, was still in power when this closet Marxist was writing his little screed) the primary way that class was determined (not in so many words of course) was based on who you were (former aristocrat? No nice job for you), who your parents had been (former Kulak? No school for you. And sometimes no food either), or any number of other things. Membership in the ruling class, the Communist Party, was carefully apportioned and only those with flawless Communist credentials could even think of applying.


Special stores existed in the major Soviet towns, stores that were closed to the average Soviet citizen. These stores stocked western medicines, delicacies, foods, and (later) electronics that only the privileged elite had access to. The ordinary Soviet citizen had to deal with only being able to go to the gloomy state-run stores, with limited stocks of poor quality goods. But for the ruling class? Champagne and caviar! Without exception, every single form of Communism results in a privileged ruling class receiving special treatment and care that no other citizen has access to. Communist China and North Korea(especially the latter) are still great examples of this. These days, the only argument that the Corliss Lamonts and the other SJWs have left in favor of socialism is the No True Scotsman.   


Soviet Socialism supports (I have to quote Comrade Lamont again) “a planned socialist economy operated for use and abundance” while Fascist Socialism is apparently…”a monopolistic capitalist economy run on behalf of profits and aggression.”


Bwa-ha ha hahaha :snort:. Comrade Lamont once again exercises his keen sense of humor and irony...actually no, he is perfectly serious. Let’s turn to the words of the Pulitzer Prize-winning author, Hedrick Smith. Mr. Smith wrote several books on Russia, books written during the Soviet Union’s alleged heydays during the Cold War, and books written from experiences actually obtained by riding throughout Russia with an inquisitive nose and a marked suspicion of official stories. As opposed to Comrade Lamont’s preferred method of reading the headlines in Pravda, and then writing a fable based on what he obtained through such unbiased sources. In The Russians(1976), Mr. Smith says the following about all the “use and abundance” that Comrade Lamont read in Pravda existed. Page 86 ”...the very nature of the Soviet economy and its inefficiencies-shortages, poor quality goods, terrible delays in service...” sounds like quite the paradise. The remainder of the chapter in Mr. Smith’s book deals with the ways Russians got around the terrible inefficiencies and shortages in the socialist system they lived under, ways that all had in common one thing...capitalism and the profit motive.


State grocery stores saved the best products for private, out the back door deals. State drivers of concrete trucks would sell the concrete in their trucks to private individuals, pocketing the money and shorting the job that they were allegedly delivering concrete too. It reached such a height that the Soviets formed a special branch of the Ministry of Internal Security, tasked solely with bringing the widespread theft and plundering of state goods (which is to say, all goods) under control. It failed miserably. Andrei Sakharov, a Nobel Prize winner for economics, estimated the size of the Soviet underground economy as greater than ten percent of the entire Soviet GDP. Capitalism always finds a way, even in the middle of Comrade Lamont’s socialist wonderland. No other system can bring abundance and quality goods to so many people. A good economic rule of thumb is that the closer one gets to capitalism, the better off one’s prosperity becomes.


Ironically, given Comrade Lamont’s attacks against Fascist Socialism, Germany under Hitler had a far better standard of living than the Soviet Union under Stalin did. Fascism is an attempt to find a “third way” between capitalism and communism, which is one of the reasons why it was so popular with liberals in the 1920s and 30s. The actual former (abdicated 1936) King of Britain, Edward VIII was a fascist sympathizer. Germany managed to fight the United States, Britain, and of course the Soviet Union, while not even being on a war footing (defined as a majority of the economy being devoted to war goods) until 1943. That’s right, until 1943, the German economy was still producing large quantities of consumer goods for its population.  


One of the harshest indictments of Comrade Lamont’s favorite form of economics is the fact that under Soviet Socialism, the Soviets managed to perform the impossible and actually keep an entire country full of Germans poor. East Germany’s average income was about one-third of West Germany’s. In deference to Comrade Lamont’s ideology, however, it must be noted that there was quite the equality of poverty in East Germany, and the lack of possessions and abundance was reasonably equitably distributed. Unless you were a high ranking member of the East German Communist Party of course. Then you got a lot more of everything because you, of course, deserved it. Equality!


We hear these pathetic bleatings from SJWs today. They have not found one new thing to say on economics since Lamont began scribbling his incoherent ramblings on the miracles of Soviet Socialism. Today’s Huffington Post reader supports the same economic philosophy that I reiterate kept an entire country of Germans poor. Never give an SJW an inch. Their economic philosophy is as morally bankrupt as their morality. They are a disease on western society, and they are doing their best to destroy it down to the same level of poverty as the Soviet people “enjoyed”. But hey! Free low-quality health care for all!


Soviet Socialism supports all sorts of cultural expansion, while Fascist Socialism is debased and drowns puppies. Something to that effect.


Hmm. This is a tough one. I’m going to call it a tie. The Fascists recognized the great value of many of the finest examples of western culture in art, and thus stole a lot of it from occupied territories to garnish their own abodes. Meanwhile the Wise and Tolerant Soviet Atheists...did exactly the same thing to their occupied territories. As a matter of fact, in 1998, Russia passed a new law that ensured that possessors of cultural treasures stolen from places such as...Germany... were allowed to keep them. I guess that counts as spreading culture? The law is quite a mouthful, by the way, formally known as Federal Law on Cultural Valuables Displaced to the USSR as a Result of the Second World War and Located on the Territory of the Russian Federation.


Just rolls off the tongue, doesn’t it?


Soviet Socialism supports atheism against any form of religious worship(Those Wise, Enlightened Atheists again), while Fascist Socialism has “tribal superstition, conceit, and blood-thirsty war-cries.”  


For this one, I am mostly just going to link to my previous article on Corliss Lamont’s idiocies. See the review of Chapter 4 for a look at just how much freedom of religion there was in the USSR.


Regarding Fascism...it's another tie. Both ideologies hate anything that opposes them, and religion is certainly something that falls under that category. Today in Communist China and Communist North Korea there are state “churches” that have official sanction to run as they are just Potemkin(a word that originates from Russia) villages to show how tolerant the atheists are of lesser mortals and their foolish superstitions.


Comrade Lamont’s little piece about “tribal superstition, conceit, and blood-thirsty war-cries” undoubtedly also applied to Christians. A refrain that sounds ripped right out of the pages of any Occupy Wall Street arrogant atheist, proud of his superiority over lesser mortals who hold to primitive superstitions about things like a baby’s right to life and the concepts of good and evil. Strangely, such enlightened atheists are usually against the death penalty, even as they support infanticide. Weird. But then again, Comrade Lamont proves that SJWs have always been marked by a pronounced paucity of gray matter and a lack of self-examination and critical thinking.  


Soviet Socialism is privileged to be led by “leaders with intellect, social idealism, and international vision” while Fascist Socialism is led by “ignorance, egotism, and savage nationalism.”


I see your Hitler and Himmler and raise you, Stalin and Beria. The head of the totalitarian and oppressive Nazi Germany and the head of the brutal SS, against the head of the totalitarian USSR and the head of the brutal KGB. Quite the choice. Basically no matter who you pick, the people lose.


Interesting to see the usual whiny SJW verbiage about nationalism. Even sixty years ago, SJWs were complaining about people loving their country. Today Hillary Clinton and her ilk are busy attempting to tear down national boundaries and bring the dubious benefits of rampant immigration, UN totalitarianism, and Orwellian thought control to the masses. An SJW sneers at anyone who loves America, sneers at anyone who wants to preserve their country and its culture, and virulently attack and disparage any who stand against them. Comrade Lamont would feel right at home reading the Huffington Post right next to his beloved Pravda.


Soviet Socialism stands for loving thy fellow man, peace, love, and Woodstock(Woodstock was over a decade away when Comrade Lamont committed these idiocies to paper, but if the shoe fits…it probably wasn’t made by a Soviet factory, but I digress), whereas Fascist Socialism is a warmonger.


This last point is remarkably stupid. Let’s see, Stalin and Hitler invaded Poland together (after secretly divvying up the country beforehand, with agreed upon boundaries) and erased it from the maps, Stalin then invaded Finland and was only kept from taking over the entire country by the heroic resistance of the Finns, and the complete incompetence of the Soviet military, but still got something like ten percent of the land in Finland. Hitler invaded France and conquered it, while the Soviet Union cemented its hold on large areas of newly conquered territory. At no point was there any provocation to cause any of this, the Finns, the Polish, and the French simply had something that the Fascist Socialists and the Soviet Socialists wanted.  


At this point (massive oversimplification)  Hitler attacked Russia (who was most likely planning to attack Germany, just not prior to 1942) and in the end, Russia prevailed. Then the freedom loving Soviets proceeded to enslave much of Europe for the next fifty years. Complete with a wall put up to prevent people fortunate enough to live in the socialist utopia of Eastern Europe from bizarrely trying to escape to the barren wasteland of the capitalist West, where all was pain and misery. People are weird that way.  


Next week, we will take a look at Chapter VII and Chapter VIII, where we learn that all the problems between the Soviets and the Americans in the post-war era (we would say the Cold War) are all America’s fault and all the Soviets wanted was the freedom to exploit their proletariat in peace., while exporting as much peaceable authoritarianism around the world as possible. Just like today’s Democrats, everything is America’s fault.


Stay tuned.




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Partial Guide to Alt-Right Websites

Its an interesting time to be an American, especially if you are interested in politics and socioeconomics. The Internet has enabled many other-wise marginalized voices to be heard, and communities to sprout up around shared beliefs and goals.

One of the largest and fastest growing of these segments is the loose collection of websites known collectively as the "alt-right." While differing in many respects and exhibiting a tremendous degree of variety in their approach and tactics, the alt-right is largely unified around a respect for tradition and masculinity and is committed to largely libertarian ideals.  

There is much written that I do not endorse on these sites, but I do endorse a large portion of it and feel that Reality Hammer belongs in the same general political spectrum. Disagreements among intelligent men are nothing new, and are a very healthy thing, so long as these disagreements are carried on by rational adults who use the tools of logic to debate and disagre…

Fisking Sean Penn's Idiotic Editorial on Castro's Death

Today I was gifted with this astonishing (but not surprising) piece of idiocy from one of America’s foremost lovers of oppressive dictatorships and the men who run them, Comrade Sean Penn! He posted a rambling piece at the Daily Beast full of idiocy and whiney complaints about those MEANIES who were happy that Castro is dead. For good measure he doubled down about Castro: The Defender of The Poor People and the meanies who don’t like him. Those same MEANIES didn't vote for the Anointed Pantsuit either, and so Comrade Penn has a lot on his scrawny little libprog chest that he needs to get off. So let's have some fun!
My comments are in bold,Comrade Penn’s are initalics.
I was an American abroad, working overseas on this recent election night 2016. By midnight I was able to put myself to sleep, confidently, arrogantly, supremely certain that the election would go to Hillary Clinton, if not the Democrats at large.
Comrade Penn is kind enough to actually admit a by-now very evident t…

A Response to the Refugee Crisis

Trump recently issued an executive order temporarily barring individuals from seven countries from coming to the United States. From the panic and outrage emanating from the left, you would think he was dropping thousands of bombs on most of these countries. Oh wait that was Obama and Bush.

 The response from left has been the predictable outrage. However, the response from Christian left has been disturbing. By now, if you have been on Facebook, you have probably been inundated with posts and articles claiming you are not being Christian if we do not accept refugees.

Here are few common threads of these posts.

1. Theyare citing some verses from the Old Testament about welcoming the foreigner. 

Note these are usually the first to shriek about the dangers of theocracy in America. To watch their brains melt, ask them if they are also planning on stoning adulterers as well. The Bible isn't a buffet where you get to pick different verses you like. Instead, it is a series of dispensati…