Marxists do not need to become the majority to take power away from the powers that be or even the country as a whole. They do not need the Communist Party to be a majority party. Nor do they need a majority of the people to like or understand Marxism. History attests to this reality.
In Russian, the term Bolshevik means majority, and Menshevik means minority. But in Russia, the terms were used opposite of their definitions, and here is why. Lenin led the Bolsheviks, and Julius Martov, a politician and revolutionary in Russia, led the Mensheviks. Historian Kotkin tells how the change came about; he writes, “Most fundamentally, Lenin sought a party of professional revolutionaries to overcome the well-organized tsarist state, whose hyperrepressiveness [sic] militated against ordinary organizational work. Lenin, however, could not convince the others: at the 1903 Congress, even though there were only four genuine workers out of fifty-one delegates, Martov’s vision—a party organization more capacious than just “professional” revolutionaries—won the vote in a slim majority (28 to 23). Lenin refused to accept the result and announced the formation of a faction, which he called Bolsheviks (majoritarians) because he had won a majority on other, secondary questions. Martov’s majority, incredibly, allowed itself to become known as Mensheviks (minoritarians).”[1]
In this crucial vote regarding who would lead the revolution (Lenin’s professionals or Martov’s diversely populated revolutionaries), Lenin lost—was in the minority—but he assumed the title of majority. There may be other reasons for taking this title, but surely propaganda was one of them. Every time a Russian heard the term Bolshevik, he heard majority. Kotkin also says, “Bolshevism itself was nothing if not a faction, a minority.”[2] Even though they were the minority, they, through strategy, the force of persuasion, and tenacity, did win over the Mensheviks, tsarists, anarchists, and socialists. Within about a year, they changed and became known as communists
The number of members needed to establish a putsch or coup d’état is not as many as you may think. We Americans tend to think in majorities because votes are won by a majority. While the communists may need a majority to win a vote within its party, that is not required to seize power from the ruling majority in a country. This change can happen while they still lack majority support among the proletariat and peasants—today, the poor, minorities, and other dissidents.
On January 22, a messenger brought the following message to Trotsky, “on January 21 [1924] at 6:50 p.m., comrade Lenin died prematurely. Death followed from paralysis of his respiratory center. Burial on Saturday, January 26.”[3] Referring to Stalin’s first words about Lenin after his death, Kotkin says, “For Stalin, Lenin’s death presented a different kind of opportunity, and he seized it. With more than 2,000 delegates inside the Bolshoi [a theatre in Moscow] on January 26, [1924), the Second USSR Congress of Soviets opened, devoting its first day to Lenin’s memory . . . Stalin . . . evoked a mystical calling. “Comrades, we Communists are people of a special mold . . . We are made of special stuff. We are those who constitute the army of the great proletarian strategist, the army of comrade Lenin. There is nothing higher than the honor of belonging to this army. There is nothing higher than the title of member of the party whose founder and leader was comrade Lenin. It is not given to everyone to be a member of such a party“‘[4] (emphasis added).
Stalin made it crystal clear that belonging to the communist party was a distinct honor for a select few, and they would lead the masses until they reached utopia. Consequently, when we read that only about 10% of people in America claim to be Marxists, and about 25% identify as socialists, we do well to remember that Marxists have advanced without being the majority.
George Barna’s research reports, “The American Worldview Inventory 2021 reports that . . . 27% believe that allowing people to own property facilitates economic injustice, and almost as many (23%) believe that individual property ownership is bad for society.”[5] This is the core of Marxism. In Marxism, private property is a part of capitalism, and it is evil to have private property because virtually all evil stems from it. Barna says, “The youngest adult generation, aged 18–36 at the time of the survey, is leading the way toward adopting ideas that facilitate socialist and Marxist activity.”[6]
Stalin continued in his speech to the USSR congress about Lenin’s death, “Departing from us, comrade Lenin enjoined us to hold high and safeguard the purity of the great title of member of the party. We vow to thee, comrade Lenin, we shall fulfill thy behest with honor . . . Departing from us, Comrade Lenin enjoined us to safeguard the unity of the party as the apple of our eye. We vow to thee, comrade Lenin, that this behest, too, we shall fulfill with honor!”[7] Stalin’s words remind us that those of the communist party live and breathe communism. And communism is the belief and goal that capitalism must be destroyed around the globe and replaced with communism in order to usher in utopia. Whatever the sacrifice and cost, even the destruction of millions and millions of lives, it will be worth it all. Again, we see they do not need a majority to advance communism.
Now, to the question of how they grow the number of those who will champion the revolution; to wit, how do they increase support for Marxism over capitalism even among those who are not enthralled with Marxism? Here is one example. In an interview in 1926 with Yale Professor Jerome Davis, Stalin spoke of winning over the peasants from capitalism, saying, “We hope we’ll attract the peasants because we will create the material conditions for pushing the peasants onto the Bolshevik side. I would not say they are in ecstasy over the Bolsheviks. But . . . they come to the conclusion that it’s better with us. They do not take us for the ideal, but they consider us as better than the others.”[8]
To accomplish moving people to choose Marxism over capitalism, Marxists now employ Max Horkheimer’s critical theory (CT), which focuses on only the flaws and failures of a country, even to the point of creating them, often called contradictions by Marxists, and comparing it to their promised utopia. Inherent in CT is the idea that some people are oppressed and need to be liberated from their oppressors. Every disparity exists because of injustice (remember, Marxism promises to make everyone the same, though they have never accomplished this). In America’s case, the oppressed are minorities of any class or color, but particularly blacks and sexual minorities—homosexuals, transgenders, pedophiles (euphemistically referred to often as having a minority-attracted identity), and the list grows.
How do they win them over? Elevate the flaws and weaknesses of our current system, and then, make promises, promises, promises that communism will eliminate every disparity. They make promises of equal outcomes, free healthcare, free college, eliminating meritocracy, poverty, and crime, and allege every disparity is an evil of capitalism. While neo-Marxist Herbert Marcuse has been forced by the facts to admit capitalism works, he still strongly believes it is evil and must be replaced with Marxism. The leading neo-Marxists that influence our own day almost always present capitalism as villainous and a source of evil, and Marxian-socialism as benevolently good. Critical Race Theory (CRT), founders and leaders do the same. They almost always present capitalism as fiendishly evil and Marxian-socialism as virtuous. It consistently employs CT and, thereby, makes every disparity the result of injustice by capitalists and white people
CT problematizes everything in order to lead people to hate America and become disgruntled and radicalized revolutionaries. For example, Davis asked Stalin how he became a communist. Here is Stalin’s answer. “That’s difficult to say. At first people go over to [the] opposition, then they become revolutionaries, then they choose for themselves a party. We had a lot of parties—SRs, Mensheviks, Anarchists, Bolsheviks.” Davis pressed: “Why a Communist?” Stalin: “We had so many Communists because Russian capitalism was the most savage . . . We had the most severe political system so that even the most peaceable types went into opposition; and because a simple opposition could not help the oppositionists. From the rich to the laborers, they were sent to exile in Siberia, [so] they strove to create a party that was the sharpest in standing against the government and acted the most decisively. Therefore all those inclined to opposition sympathized with the Bolsheviks and looked upon them as heroes.”[9]
Three things stand out to me in Stalin’s comments. First, note the progression from being in opposition to being radicalized and then joining the party. This process is taking place in our public education system with young children and our public life through CRT, Marxists, socialists, and proponents of the welfare state who demonize capitalism and meritocracy. Second, while there is no doubt tsarist Russia under Nicolaus II was onerously difficult, Stalin presents it as “the most savage” and “most severe” which is typical of CT’s approach to presenting anything that is not Marxian-socialism as the worst of the worst. But tsarist Russia has, in fact, been surpassed in savagery and severity by communism. Third, Stalin’s words remind us that we should not excuse everything in capitalism as just. Instead, we can support capitalism and America’s form of government while simultaneously fighting to make her a better country.
Here is an incident that gives insight into how the Bolsheviks work. Before the Second All-Russia Congress of Soviets, “Trotsky hatched the brilliant idea of having a seizure of power simultaneously with the congress, appropriating a source of critical legitimacy while imposing a fait accompli on all other socialists.”[10] A fait accompli means a thing already done. It was a Bolshevik putsch (a plotted sudden overthrow of the provisional government). When Lenin entered the congress, “He started screaming for an immediate coup. He was wasting his breath: the putsch was already well underway.”[11]
“More than 500 delegates recognized the time had come for “all power to the soviets,” but, confronted with a Bolshevik fait accompli, many were angry, especially the moderate socialists . . . a resolution calling for a “peaceful solution” and immediate negotiations for an inclusive “all-democratic government”. . . passed unanimously, amid “roaring applause.” But then vociferous critics of Bolshevism rose to condemn their conspiracy to arrest the Provisional Government “behind the back of the Congress” and foment “civil war,” thereby prompting most Menshevik and Socialist Revolutionary delegates to demonstrate their disapproval of the Bolsheviks by walking out.”[12]
“After months of open discussion in newspapers, barracks, factories, street corners, and drawing rooms, the Bolshevik putsch was over and done before the vast majority of the population knew it had happened.”[13] While there were other factors, Kotkin says, “The critical issue was who would wield the upper hand at the Soviet . . .the socialist opponents of the Bolshevik coup unwittingly did the rest in their abandonment of the congress hall.”[14]
Their strategy: promise, promise, promise, everything will be better, everything will be free, and every outcome will be equal. Do this without sufficient clarification that the strong arm of government, in the final analysis, will supposedly ensure these things happen. Do this while ignoring that neither socialists nor Marxists have produced anything even near the utopic vision they cast; usually the opposite occurs and they produce a dystopia. Many will buy into their empty promises, but we will facilitate their success if we give up and walk away from speaking and voting, which are our rights and duties to employ as servants of God.
If we do not give up, who knows what God will do? If we give up, we know the outcome; they win.
[1] Stephen Kotkin, Stalin: Paradoxes of Power, 1878–1928 (New York: Penguin, 2014), 79.
[2] Stephen Kotkin, Stalin: Paradoxes of Power, 1878–1928 (New York: Penguin, 2014), 519.
[3] Stephen Kotkin, Stalin: Paradoxes of Power, 1878–1928 (New York: Penguin, 2014), 537.
[4] Stephen Kotkin, Stalin: Paradoxes of Power, 1878–1928 (New York: Penguin, 2014), 539.
[5] George Barna, American Worldview Inventory 2021–22: The Annual Report on the State of Worldview in the United States (Glendale, AZ: Arizona Christian University Press, 2022), 30.
[6] George Barna, American Worldview Inventory 2021–22: The Annual Report on the State of Worldview in the United States (Glendale, AZ: Arizona Christian University Press, 2022), 38.
[7] Stephen Kotkin, Stalin: Paradoxes of Power, 1878–1928 (New York: Penguin, 2014), 539.
[8] Stephen Kotkin, Stalin: Paradoxes of Power, 1878–1928 (New York: Penguin, 2014), 611.
[9] Stephen Kotkin, Stalin: Paradoxes of Power, 1878–1928 (New York: Penguin, 2014), 610.
[10] Stephen Kotkin, Stalin: Paradoxes of Power, 1878–1928 (New York: Penguin, 2014), 215.
[11] Stephen Kotkin, Stalin: Paradoxes of Power, 1878–1928 (New York: Penguin, 2014), 217.
[12] Stephen Kotkin, Stalin: Paradoxes of Power, 1878–1928 (New York: Penguin, 2014), 218.
[13] Stephen Kotkin, Stalin: Paradoxes of Power, 1878–1928 (New York: Penguin, 2014), 218.
[14] Stephen Kotkin, Stalin: Paradoxes of Power, 1878–1928 (New York: Penguin, 2014), 218–19.
