Isn’t “Communism dead”? Didn’t the Russian Bear and the Chinese Dragon change into lovable, pro-Western partners? After all, the West “won the Cold War.”

The idea that Communism has withered is naïve. Instead, a host of proto-Communist and Marxist movements have inundated Western society. In fact, the One Nation rally that took place in Washington DC in early October demonstrated that Marxism and Communism is alive in the United States. It was an
event that drew crowds of socialists and Marxists of every stripe, including the Communist Party USA, the Young Communist League USA, the Socialist Party USA, the International Socialist Organization, and the US Marxist-Leninist Organization.

But this shouldn’t be a surprise. Campuses across Western nations have been hotbeds of socialist ideology for decades, and today a plethora of student-led “social justice” organizations boldly support leftist ideals. Some even raise awareness for what can rightly be considered Marxist-based national liberation movements. And online sites such as “Jesus Radicals” (www.jesusradicals.com), a hub for students inclined toward social anarchism, promotes the Marxist notion of communitarianism.

Globally, a host of Marxist, Leninist, Trotskyite, and Maoist organization are now openly at work. And today, Communist literature is readily available and immediately accessible. So the West witnessed the “death of Communism”? Hardly.

While the newswires buzz with a multitude of stories and reports – from the tension on the Korean Peninsula to the growing list of economic woes – I felt it was necessary to focus attention on the strategy of Marxism and Communism. I realize that such a focus may cause some angst, for the West has
bought into the belief that with the downfall of Russia, the challenge of Communism was behind us.

And yet, there have been some voices that questioned the validity of this notion. For if Communism truly died, why is it so evident in our national fabric? Why is its voice heard on the Washington Mall? How come its fingerprints are visible in so many different regions of the world? Why is the West being
divided along class lines? And it is, for the call to “social justice” accentuates class divisions - it pits one side against another.

Something to note is that any study of Communist/Marxist influence today runs the risk of over-generalization, for so many nuances and factions exist -- often operating in apparent opposition to one another -- that it can be difficult to sort out the matrix. Nevertheless, common elements are evident, and the
fact remains that the strategy of International Communism allows for co-existence and “competition” among groupings when it meets revolutionary goals.

At the same time, there are groups within the Communist-Socialist community that seem genuinely at odds with one another. In this situation it’s not uncommon for one side to claim the other faction has “betrayed the revolution,” or has become “revisionist” and has “rejected real socialism.” And yet, regardless of the nuances and apparent divisions, the end goal remains: global social change.

It was in this setting that an interesting book emerged during the perestroika years, aptly titled Perestroika: Global Challenge (published by Spokesman, 1988). Here, presented in one volume, was the aspiration of Soviet Communism under Mikhail Gorbachev - “a possible new organisation of life in our common planetary home” - along with the near-identical hopes of the Socialist International (SI) and the World Commission on the Environment (a UN-linked project that birthed the landmark report Our Common Future). All three elements, Soviet Perestroika under Gorbachev, the SI, and the World Commission, looked to a point in time when an international system would guide human development - one based on socialist principles, under the mandate of a reformed United Nations. In the Afterward, Ken Coates of the Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation, explained that,

“Our common future... must rest on a degree of international co-operation scarcely imagined by our most cosmopolitan forebears. A great new alliance of democrats will be necessary if such co-operation is to become practical and effective.”

Global social change is the goal, and Marxism -- as the “science of socialism” and focal point for Communism -- is a tool for that end. That was the case before the fall of the Berlin Wall, and after.

As Communist defector Anatoliy Golitsyn said in The Perestroika Deception; “The Cold War may be ‘over’ for the West. For the Soviets it has entered a new, active and promising phase.”(p.127). Is this accurate? Maybe more than we care to admit.

With these thoughts in mind, the purpose of this edition of Forcing Change is to educate you in respect to how Communism/Marxism leverages itself. The first article, by J.R. Nyquist, provides an overview of the strategic element. Secondly, William F. Jasper takes you inside the Socialist International, one of the most under-reported political players in the international community – and one of the most influential.

Next, Trevor Loudon from NewZeal gives some insights on how Russia, China, and Central Asian powers are aligning. NOTE: If you recall, Forcing Change touched on the SCO earlier this year, hence, you’ll want to review Mr. Loudon’s piece. Henry Lamb offers a short introduction into the local, bridging
international management with here-at-home realities. And a comprehensive list is provided of Socialist International members at the back-end of this edition [The Canadian member is… the New Democratic Party]. Finally, I provide extensive explanatory notes throughout this edition. FC

---

The next part will be posted on Wednesday, January 5.

Home  |  Index to previous articles

Other articles on Globalism and Communism:

Gorbachev's Plan For A United World

Mandatory Training in Orwellian Thinking

 Was Marx a Satanist? | Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals

Re-zoning the World: The Merging of the Americas in a New Global Order