I noticed that many people have quite a misguided and distorted view of communism; which is understandable, since we all grew up in the West hearing only the anti-communist interpretation (probably the same happens to people from communist countries in regards to our system). So I thought it might be a good idea to start a blog that would solve doubts and myths surrounding communism.

In this blog I’ll try to be as fair and impartial as possible when answering any questions; since I’m not a communist, an anti-communist, nor a capitalist. Just say that the purpose of this blog is neither to defend nor attack communism, but simply to set the record straight and help others with one of the most misunderstood and controversial political ideologies.


What is Communism?

Communism is the political philosophy and social movement that advocates and aims to create a classless, stateless, equalitarian and oppression-free society in which all decision-making is made democratically by all its members.

Are communism and socialism the same thing?

No. According to Karl Marx socialism would just be (if necessary) an intermediate step between other systems and communism; for the purpose of developing the productive forces that would lead to a superabundance of goods and services.

The main differences between communism and socialism are: communism is stateless, while socialism is controlled by the state; and communism is oppression-free, while state oppression can exist in socialism.

All those countries around the world known as "Communists" actually never made the final step into Communism, and therefore got stuck in Socialism. Furthermore, most got stuck on the most tyrannical form of socialism: Stalinism or Neo-Stalinism; an oppressive system in which the state has total control over its citizens.

Is communism a totalitarian ideology?

No. Totalitarianism is only possible in political systems where the state, a single organisation, a faction, a class or a single person recognise no limits to their authority and regulate every aspect of public and private life.

Since communism aims for a stateless and classless society, where everyone is allowed to take part democratically in all the decision-making, totalitarianism is not possible in communism.

Was there ever any successful example of communism?

No, there wasn't any country or state that represents a successful example of communism. Furthermore, since none of the so called "communist" countries and states evolved beyond the intermediate socialist stage (proposed by Marx for a transition between capitalism and communism) there simply was no example of a communist country or state in history.

All states known as "communists" in the west are in reality not only socialists, but the most tyrannical form of socialism; known as "Stalinism" or "Neo-Stalinism".

What is the relation between Communism and Judaism?

It is often said that communism has a Jewish origin and that communist movements and governments are run by Jews. So let’s look at any possible relations between communism and Judaism:

The basic idea of communism is as old as man itself, and it resembles the way in which men lived in communal or tribal groups during prehistoric times (before written history); common ownership of the land, sharing all the goods between the community, public participation in decision-making, sharing duties and obligations, social equality, no oppression, no monetary system, working for common purposes and goals, taking care of any member of the community in an altruistic way, and so on. So we could say that the basic principles of communism are not in any way a recent invention; therefore, the idea of communism surely predates Judaism.

However, on the other hand, the first example of communist ideals in writing come from the teachings of Jesus Christ; and in this case, Jesus was Jewish.

Seriously now, let’s analyse “communism” as such; popularised by the writings of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels; through a book titled “The Communist Manifesto” from 1848. On one hand we have that Engels was not Jewish, and neither had any relation with Judaism; not even the person who most influenced his ideals (Hegel) was Jewish. And on the other hand, Karl Marx was also not Jewish; he was baptised at the age of six. It is true that his origins were Jewish, but both his parents abandoned the Jewish faith and converted.

For some people, Marx’s origins might be enough to associate communism with Judaism. However, we have to take into account that Marx did not come up with communism. Apart from the fact that Engels also co-authored the book, it expressed the ideas of –and was commissioned by- an organisation called the “Communist League” (previously known as the “League of the Just”), which was actually a Christian group devoted to the ideas of Gracchus Babeuf (a French political agitator and journalist).

In regards to the claim that communist countries are/have been run by Jews, well, I found no evidences that suggest that China, Cuba, North Korea, Laos, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Benin, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Congo, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Ethiopia, Mongolia, Mozambique, Poland, Romania, Somalia, South Yemen or Yugoslavia ever had a Jewish leader or that their governments were predominantly Jewish.

The only one left is the USSR, which seems to be the target of these type of claims; so let's have a look. Here is a list of its leaders and their origin:
  • Vladimir Lenin (Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov): was baptized into the Russian Orthodox Church, and came from a mixed ethnical origin, which include: Mordovian, Kalmyk, Jewish, Volgan German, Swedish, and possibly others.

  • Joseph Stalin (Ioseb Besarionis dze Jughashvili): was the son of Vissarion Ivanovich Dzhugashvili and Ekaterina Georgievna -a family of peasants from Georgian origin- and of which contemporary witnesses and documented historical sources confirm instances of antisemitism.

  • Georgy Malenkov: of Macedonian origin from his father’s side, and his mother was the granddaughter of an Orthodox priest.

  • Nikolai Bulganin: son of an office worker, also not Jewish.

  • Nikita Khrushchev: was the son of Sergei Khrushchev and Ksenia Khrushcheva; also peasants of Russian origin.

  • Leonid Brezhnev: of Ukrainian or Russian origins.

  • Yuri Andropov: was a descendent from the Don Cossacks, a noble orthodox Christian family.

  • Konstantin Chernenko: son of Ustin Demidovich, who was of Ukrainian origin.

  • And Mikhail Gorbachev: also from a peasant family of Russian origin.

Are George Orwell’s “Animal Farm” and “1984” a critique of communism?

No, “Animal Farm” and “1984” are not a critique of communism; both novels attempt to criticise totalitarianism. In fact, Orwell himself was a Democratic-Socialist; and was actually under the surveillance by the MI5 as a suspected communist. In his part 2 of "The Road to Wigan Pier" Orwell defines: "a real Socialist is one who wishes – not merely conceives it as desirable, but actively wishes – to see tyranny overthrown."

For this reason, even though George Orwell was a socialist, he was also an anti-Stalinist; since he considered Stalin’s government a totalitarian regime. In 1936 he travelled to Spain to fight in the Spanish Civil War against the fascists. However, he did not fight alongside the Spanish Communist Party (PCE) -which was the main communist party at that time- as the PCE supported Stalin. Instead, he joined the Workers’ Party of Marxist Unification (POUM), as they were communists but also anti-Stalinists. During his days in Spain he wrote “Homage to Catalonia”, which praises the benefits of anarcho-syndicalism.

“Animal Farm” is believed to outline the corruption of the communist ideals set by Stalin. And “1984” depicts life under totalitarian rule.

Do people living in communist countries hate communism?

There is no doubt that some people never liked the idea of communism taking over their country, and there is also no doubt that “the American Dream” promised by capitalism seems too much of a temptation for many others.

But as an example of how most people living in communist countries felt, it is worth noting that a study carried out in 2004 revealed that 80% of Russians said they lived better under communism than under the current capitalist system. Also, during the last general elections in Cuba, Raul Castro got the support of practically the whole country; with 98% of all votes.

Did US bankers fund the Russian Communist Revolution?

Yes; they did not only fund the Russian revolution, but also during the first years of the Soviet Union well into Stalin’s regime.

In 1917 Trotsky received in New York $20 million from Jacob Schiff, and further money from Sir George Buchanan, the Warburg family, the Rockefellers family, the partners of J.P. Morgan (with at least another $1 million), Olaf Aschberg (of the Nye Bank of Stockholm, Sweden), the Rhine Westphalian Syndicate, a financier named Jovotovsky (whose daughter later married Trotsky himself), William Boyce Thompson (a director of Chase National Bank who contributed $1 million), and Albert H. Wiggin (President of Chase National Bank).

A report on file with the State Department shows that “Kuhn Loeb & Co” bankrolled the first five year plan for Stalin. And Schiff continued to send money to Russia long after the true character of the Bolsheviks and Stalin was known to the world. Schiff raised another futher $10 million for Russia, supposedly for Jewish war relief aid, but later events revealed it to be a cover-up for a good business investment.

Arsene de Goulevitch, an important White Russian General, wrote:
"The main purveyors of funds for the revolution, however, were neither the crackpot Russian millionaires nor the armed bandits of Lenin. The 'real' money primarily came from certain British and American circles which for a long time past had lent their support to the Russian revolutionary cause… The important part played by the wealthy American banker Jacob Schiff in the events in Russia, though as yet only partially revealed, is no longer a secret."

Why did US bankers fund the Russian Revolution?

The funding of the Russian Revolution by US bankers had nothing to do with their desire to spread communism or with sympathising with the communist cause. They funded the Bolsheviks for three main reasons: The Russian Oil fields, the establishment of a Central Bank, and getting rid of the last Tsar:

Both America’s Standard Oil, which belonged to the Rockefeller family, and the Royal Dutch Shell, of which the Rothschild family were the major stock holders, had interests in the rich Russian oil fields. But these oil fields belonged to the Tsar Nicholas II.

The last three Tsars of Russia (Alexander II, Alexander III and Nicholas II) had always opposed the creation of a Central Bank in Russia own by the international bankers.

The Tsar Nicholas II was not only in the way of the international bankers in regards to the Russian oil fields and the Central Bank, but was also well aware of the banker’s plot to take over the world. The Bolsheviks did not only kill Tsar Nicholas II, they also killed all the members of the Russian Royal family; including women and children.

Did Marx call for the extermination of ethnic minorities?

The whole idea that Karl Marx called ethnic minorities “racial trash” and that he wanted to exterminate them (i.e. Scottish Highlanders, Bretons, Basques, South Slavs, Slovenes, Croats, Serbs and Czechs) comes from a book titled “Politics and Literature in Modern Britain” and an article in the “Encounter”, both by literary historian George Watson, and published in 1977 and 1984 respectively. Also, in the film “The Soviet Story” Watson is the voice behind the phrase: “[Karl Marx was] the ancestor of the modern political genocide”. This is a popular extract from Watson’s work that can be found on the internet:
In the January and February 1849 issues of his journal ‘Neue Rheinische Zeitung’, Karl Marx published articles calling for the extermination of whole races in Europe. These articles were included in a book of the teachings of Marx, Engels and Lenin published in Germany during 1902 and again in 1913. It is most likely that Engels wrote them. This socialist programme considered the Slav nations to be ‘counter-revolutionary’. The Germans, Poles and Magyars (Hungarians) were considered to be ‘the bearers of progress’. The rest must go:

“The chief mission of all other races and peoples, large and small, is to perish in the revolutionary holocaust”.

It was explained that the Slavs had failed to pursue essential historic evolution, so were therefore counter-revolutionary. All European countries contain ‘left-overs of earlier inhabitants’, now rightly brought into subjugation by more advanced peoples. Amongst such ‘racial trash’ (Voekerabfall) were listed Scottish Highlanders, Bretons, Basques, South Slavs (Slovenes, Croats, Serbs) and Czechs.

“Until its complete extermination or loss of national status, this racial trash always becomes the most fanatical bearer there is of counter-revolution, and it remains that. That is because its entire existence is nothing more than a protest against a great historical revolution. … The next world war will cause not only reactionary classes and dynasties, but also entire reactionary peoples, to disappear from the earth. And that too is progress”.

As Marx and Engels aged, they took greater interest in Eugenics and Social Darwinism suggesting that progress was interpretable in racial terms.

For what I found, the article to which Watson is referring to is titled ‘The Magyar Struggle’, and was published in number 194 of the ‘Neue Rheinische Zeitung’ journal on the 13 of January 1849 (which can be found in full at: By reading this article you can clearly see that the main problem with Watson's theory is that Marx did not write that article!... Engels did!!! That's a huge mistake for an unbiased literary historian -though he latter seems to reluctantly admit the possibility that it was Engels, and not Marx, wrote it-.

Then we have Watson’s claim that Marx (Engels in any case) called for the extermination of whole races in Europe. Of course, if we pick and choose phrases from the article and take them out of context, then it does look like Engels (not Marx) wanted to get rid of certain ethnic minorities (and not races). But if we read the whole article it seems clear that Engels was talking about those ethnic minorities in the context of the European Revolution of 1848 (a year previous to the publication of the article), on the role that these played in previous conflicts (as fanatical standard-bearers of counter-revolution and supporters of European monarchies), and on them being taken into account in any future revolution as dangerous reactionaries and counter revolutionaries; and not because they were from an ethnic minority or from a different race, as Watson tries to make us believe.

Then we also have the issue of the "Völkerabfälle", which by the way, doesn't even mean “racial trash”; it literally translates as “residual fragments of people”, and this is how it's translated in the English version of the “The Magyar Struggle”. This term was not used by Marx (as he didn’t even write the article in the first place), and it was neither from Engels. It was from Hegel! as Engels explains in the article.

Therefore, it looks to me like the answer to the question on the title of this post is clear: Absolutely not; Marx did not call for the extermination of any ethnic minorities or races. This rumour is nothing more than false anti-communist propaganda and a deliberate and malicious attempt to demonise Karl Mark. As Latvian political scientist and cultural commentator Ivars Ījabs explained: “To present Karl Marx as the progenitor of modern genocide is simply to lie”.

Is communism an homicidal ideology? (Part 1)

Or, should I ask: are communists homicidal? I’ve been trying to find an answer to this question for a long time, but answering it in a completely fair way has proven more difficult than I thought. The difficulty does not lay on finding out how many people died, that’s easy. The difficulty lays on determining how many of those deaths can be attributed to cultural influences instead of communism, determining if the figures provided by historians are unbiased and even accurate, if the deaths happened during a period of war-time or a period of peace-time, if those figures are significative when compared to the total population (for which I'm using a census are near as possible to the year of the events), and, most important, determining if those self-proclaimed communist states actually follow a communist ideology or something else.

Obviously, I’m not going to analyse every single state that proclaimed itself as communist; that would take forever. So I’m going to pick the three most well known examples: The Soviet Union, The People’s Republic of China, and The Republic of Cuba. And then, I will try to analyse their death toll; taking into account the factors explained above.

I would like to clarify now that at the end of this essay I will not reach any conclusions; but hopefully, you will (please post them). I’m not here to judge communism; just to present the facts in a fair and impartial manner, whatever the result.

The Soviet Union: (1920 population estimate 137,727,000)
  • Previous regime (Tsar Nicholas II, 1900-17)

    Sources vary from 95,000 to 1,070,000 people killed by the Romanov regime. It is believed that between two thirds and half of the total deaths were Jews killed by the Tsar’s pogroms.

    This comes down to a media of ±582,500 deaths (±0.004229% of the population), or ±34,264 deaths (±0.000249%) per year, during a period of 17 years of peace-time.

  • The Russian Revolution (Lenin, 1917-22)

    Sources vary, but the media is between 8,800,000 and 9,000,000 deaths. However, western historians don’t tell you that these figures also include deaths by famine (±5,000,000) and deaths by diseases (±2,000,000). So, if we are to be fair, only ±1,900,000 deaths can be considered deliberate; of which ±1,000,000 deaths were actually communists (of which Lenin cannot be held accountable). It's also worth noting that Russia was involved in the Russo-Polish War at the same time as the revolution.

    This comes down to a media of ±900,000 deaths (±0.006535% of the population) and ±180,000 deaths (±0.001307%) per year; during a period of 5 years of war-time.

  • Stalin’s regime (1924-53)

    On this one the sources vary enormously, so much that they have been divided into two different schools: the big numbers school and the low numbers school; the first with a media of around 50,000,000 total deaths and the second with 8,500,000. For this reason, if we are to be fair, the only option is to go with the opinion of historians that are the middle of both; with a death toll of approximately 25,000,000. The three main causes during the 30 years of Stalin’s regime were: famine (±7,000,000), prison camps (±12,000,000), executions (±1,000,000), and the rest attributed to other causes. Let’s not forget that the Soviet Union was involved in WWII during Stalin’s regime, and that the Nazis wiped out the whole of Western Russia (Belorussia); all the way to the doors of Moscow. Therefore, it’s fair to only take prison camps and executions into account for Stalin’s total; even though prison camps could be also argued as non-deliberate deaths.

    This comes down to a media of ±13,000,000 deaths (±0.094390% of the population), or ±448,275 deaths (±0.003255%) per year; during a period of 29 years of peace-time.

People’s Republic of China: (1950 population estimate 552,000,000)
  • Previous regime (Nationalist Era, 1928-37)

    3,100,000 people were killed during this period.

    This comes down to a media of ±3,100,000 deaths (±0.005616% of the population), or ±344,444 deaths (±0.000624%) per year; during a period of 9 years of peace-time.

  • The Communist Revolution (Mao, 1945-49)

    Around 2,500,000 people were killed during the revolution.

    This comes down to a media of ±2,500,000 deaths (±0.004529% of the population), or ±625,000 deaths (±0.001132%) per year; during a period of 4 years of war-time.

  • Mao’s regime (1949-1975)

    Again, historians do not reach a consensus in regards to the death toll under Mao’s regime. The media seems to be around 40,000,000 deaths; which can be divided into: famines (±20,000,000), labour camps (±15,000,000), and purges/executions (±2,000,000). It’s worth noting that China was involved in various internal and external conflicts during Mao’s regime; including the Korean War. Therefore, it is only fair to include labour camps and executions in Mao’s total; even though, again, we could also argue that the labour camps are non-deliberate deaths.

    This comes down to a media of ±17,000,000 deaths (±0.030797% of the population), or ±653,846 deaths (±0.001185%) per year; during a period of 26 years of peace-time.

The Republic of Cuba: (1950 population estimate 5,516,000)
  • Previous regime (Batista, 1952-59)

    20,000 people were killed just in the 2 years previous to the Revolution.

    This comes down to a media of at least ±20,000 deaths (±0.003626% of the population), or ±10,000 deaths (±0.001813%) per year; during a period of 2 years of peace-time.

  • The Cuban Revolution (Castro, 1958-59)

    5,000 people were killed during the Cuban Revolution.

    This comes down to a media of ±5,000 deaths (±0.000906% of the population), or ±5,000 deaths (±0.000906%) per year; during a period of 1 year of war-time.

  • Castro’s Regime (1959-2008)

    Sources vary enormously, but the media ranges between 5,000 and 12,000 people killed in the last 50 years; so we'll settle the figure in approximately 8,500 people. The main causes seem to be: executions (±2,125), prison deaths (±1,062) and drowning in boats (±5,312). Obviously, I'm not going to blame Castro for those who drowned on a boat on their way to Miami. And again, it's also arguable whether or not the deaths in prison were deliberate; but I'll include them anyway.

    This comes down to a media of ±3,187 deaths (±0.000578% of the population), or ±65 deaths (±0.000012%) per year; during a period of 49 years of peace-time.

(To be continued...)

Note: the death tolls included in this essay are a media from the figures proposed by all foremost historians and renown encyclopaedias, with the purpose of guaranteeing an unbiased result (Source: Matthew White, “Historical Atlas of the Twentieth Century“,

Is communism an homicidal ideology? (Part 2)

Death Toll
So, what do all those figures mean? Well, let’s start first from the last factor that would help us determining if communism is a homicidal ideology: establishing whether or not those states are actually communist. We said that communism’s goals were a stateless, classless and oppression-free society. So, it seems clear that none of those three states match that definition in any of the points; they have a totalitarian state, they have a ruling class, and they seem to oppress their people. That would end the discussion; they are not communists. However, so that we can continue, we are going to assume for a moment that they really are communists; just that they didn’t have enough time or the means to make that final step from socialism to communism. This is where the data comes in handy.

The first thing we notice is that all three countries did not pass from an oppression-free society to communism; we can clearly see that all three had already a regime before communism. Actually, they didn’t only have a previous regime, that regime was also quite oppressive and homicidal. In the case of Russia, we see that the Tsar killed half a million people in peace time, which is just half of what Lenin is attributed during war time. And in China we also see that the Nationalists (previous to the communists) had actually killed half a million more people in peace time than Mao during the whole revolution. In Cuba is even more evident, since Batista actually killed 4 times more people during peace time than the whole death toll from Castro’s revolution. We could even go as far as saying that Castro saved thousands of lives (10,000 minus 65 every year)! So you see, before you judge communism by what happened in Russia, China and Cuba you should ask yourself this questions: were the Russian, Chinese and Cuban communists violent; or were the Russians, Chinese and Cubans already violent whether or not they were communists? Were they also predisposed to live under an oppressive regime, or was socialism the first to bring the oppression?

Finally, we need to determine if the death tolls are significative when compared to the total population. It’s not the same killing 1,000,000 people in a tiny country like Cuba, as killing 1,000,000 in a vast and overpopulated country like China. Here, we can clearly see that Cuba considerably decreased the percentage of deaths per year over the total population; as compared with Batista’s regime. But on the other hand, we also notice that Mao continued killing at the same rate after the revolution as during the revolution; which nearly doubles the killing rate of the previous regime. And we also clearly see that Stalin actually nearly tripled the rate during his regime; as compared to Lenin’s revolution. So, why did this happen; why did one communist kill three times more people in peace time than another fellow communism in war time? Well, maybe it is that he didn’t kill people because he was communist, but because he was simply a homicidal psychopath. And this idea would be definitely consistent with the fact that way before communism, in 1906, Stalin killed 40 people while trying to rob a train. But it could also be that Stalin had a different idea of communism, some idea that neither Lenin nor Marx shared. And this would also be consistent with the fact that Stalin’s idea of communism created a whole new branch of socialism, called “Stalinism”; which actually Mao followed (known as Neo-Stalinism), and which would be consistent with Mao’s regime having a high death rate during peace time.

But what about Castro? Well, if you consider that George Bush actually killed 1,366,350 people in Iraq. You will see that George Bush alone killed 1,358,163 more people in 5 years than Castro in the whole of his 40 years regime (including the revolution). And if you consider that Iraq has a population of 31,234,000, the death rate comes down to 4.37% of the Iraqi population; which is actually around half of Stalin’s rate, 1.298% more than Mao’s rate, and a staggering 75 times more than Castro’s rate. So, is Castro a homicidal tyrant? He probably is -a single death is one too many- but definitely nowhere nearly as much as our own anti-communist tyrants (Kings, Queens, presidents, prime-ministers, and so on; all of which were involved, not only in Iraq, but in many other massacres of civilians).

So, we’re back to the main question: are communists homicidal?... Well, now that you have all the facts presented in an unbiased manner… you decide.

Was Jesus Christ a communist?

Obviously, the concept of communism did not exist in the times of Jesus; and actually the word "communist" was not used until the 19th century, when Goodwyn Barmby first used it to refer to the disciples of Gracchus Babeuf; a 18th century French political agitator and journalist.

However, Jesus’ teachings, as written in the New Testament, do resemble communism as described by Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifest. For example:
  • Regarding class and equality:

    “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28).
  • Regarding capital:

    “For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle’s eye, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God” (Luke 18:25)

    “If thou wilt be perfect, go [and] sell that thou hast, and give to the poor” (Matthew, 19:21)

    “How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!" (Mark 10:23)

    “How hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!" (Mark 10:24)

    “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God” (Mark 10:25)

    “No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.” (Luke 16:13)
  • Regarding private property:

    “Carry neither purse, nor scrip, nor shoes…” (Luke 10:4)

    “For [I mean] not that other men be eased, and ye burdened. But by an equality, [that] now at this time your abundance [may be a supply] for their want, that their abundance also may be [a supply] for your want: that there may be equality. As it is written, he that [had gathered] much had nothing over; and he that [had gathered] little had no lack.” (Corinthians II, 8:13-15).
  • Regarding Freedom:

    “We be Abraham’s seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?” (John, 8:33)

    “Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.” (Galatians, 5:1)
Therefore, according to the Lord and to his son Jesus Christ, anyone who opposes the principles of communism is a blasphemous, a heretic and a sinner; and he will not only loose his place in heaven besides God and Jesus, he will burn in hell for eternity. :-)

Does the elite want communism?

Absolutely not!

There is nothing that the elite (TPTB) fears more than communism. They would do anything to stop the advances of communism, and the advances of socialism as well; as history shows.

Communism would mean the end of their dominion and control over the rest of us; it would mean no state protecting the “do haves” (them) and their interests from the “have-nots” (us); it would mean that the 80% of the total world wealth, in hands of the privileged 20%, would be returned to the unprivileged 80%, it would mean losing the exclusive rights to exploit the world’s natural resources for their own benefit, and it would mean that their wealth would not set them apart as a different privileged class (upper class).

In the same way, they would also do anything to stop socialism, mainly because socialism would mean that all the resources of a country would be for the benefit of its people, and not for the benefit of the corporations they own; making them loose the privilege to exclusively exploit the natural resources that belong to all of us, and therefore, would take away their main source of income. It would also mean that the state would provide most essential needs to its people, which would make their corporations –that exploit those basic needs- obsolete. And it would mean that the state would work to protect the rights of all its people, and not the rights of the privileged class; who appoint them as their candidates, fund their campaigns, and guarantee them comfortable executive positions in their corporations at the end of their political term.

There is the theory that, since they control the state, socialism would benefit the elite; as everything would come under their total control through the state. But in this case, since the state does not look after the interests of the people, but after the interests of the capital (the elite), this political system would not be socialism; it would be fascism (i.e. Franco’s Nationalist Spain, Mussolini’s Italy, and Hitler’s National Socialism or Nazism; all of which had a total control over the state, for the benefit of the capital, and which actually prosecuted both socialists and communists).

Examples of what the PTB would do to stop the advances of communism and socialism at a national level can be found in the form of: anti-communist propaganda (biased historical records, films and television, etc.), governmental policies (i.e. McCarthyism, also known as “the Red Scare” or “the communist witch hunt”), surveillance of individuals and organisations by the intelligence services (e.g. MI5 investigating George Orwell under the suspicion of communism), and up to outlawing communist organisations and imprisoning or even murdering communists.

And the examples of what the PTB would do to stop communism/socialism in other countries ranges from: Chile, with the CIA funding Pinochet's coup to put an end to Salvador Allende’s democratically elected socialist government; passing through Castro’s seven assassination attempts by the CIA, and the failed invasion of Cuba (Bay of Pigs); the funding and training of terrorist groups -like the Mujahidin- to fight the Soviets; the training of 2,000 Bolivian soldiers by the CIA just to hunt down ‘Che’ Guevara; and all the way up to former Yugoslavia, Iraq, and now Venezuela being targeted, according to political analyst Michael Parenti, mainly because they started using the profits generated by their natural resources to build social infrastructures, instead of allowing foreign corporations to profit from them.

Am I middle class?

There seems to be some discrepancy between what classes are believed to be in the western world and what they really are; there is specially a lot of confusion with the middle class. We tend to believe that all of us that have a job, a car and a TV at home, are middle class. That seems reasonable; after all we are the majority of the population and we are in the middle between the rich and the poor. Anyway, who want's to say that they belong to the working or lower class.

The case is that classes are not defined in that way. The upper class are not the executives and politicians; those are in many cases middle class and in some cases even working class; unless they are very rich or belong to a wealthy dynasty (like John F. Kennedy or G.W. Bush). The upper class or ruling class are, as mentioned before, the wealthy dynasties, the different monarchies, the bank and corporate owners (not to confuse with directors), and other aristocrats and awfully rich people. Basically anyone who can maintain a lavish life style without working, not only for the rest of his natural life, but for many generations to come.

Also as explained above, the middle class are not the vast majority of us in the middle. The middle class, or bourgeoisie, are many of those we work for; for example, business owners and investors; or mildly wealthy people. Basically, the middle class are those who can live from their businesses, investments or interests without working another day in their life; though they might choose to do so.

And the working class, also called laboring class and proletariat, are those who need to work for a living or depend on another activity to sustain themselves; whether they manage to secure a job or not, or whether they are white, blue, or any other collar workers.

So, classes do not depend on percentages of the population or the distribution of wealth (e.g. the popular 99% vs the 1%, or the 20% and 80%), or whether you earn more or less as the rest of the people around you. Classes depend on who needs to work for a living and who doesn't. If you need to work sometime along your life, you are working class; if you depend on a business or investment but don't need to work, you are middle class; and if you and generations of your family can live of what you already have right now, you are upper class.