Marxism: The Most Destructive Superstition



As we watch yet another Marxist nation, Venezuela, near complete economic collapse, it is a good time to recall that this is all occurring because so many intellectuals around the globe, including our current Pope, embrace, in part or in full, the nineteenth century superstition dreamed up by Karl Marx.  Presented ostensibly as a description of how economics and history works, Marxism in practice served as an excuse for tyrants and would be tyrants to create regimes that would impose regimes of slavery on populations that would put to shame every other form of tyranny dreamed up in the lamentable chronicles of human crime and folly.  Richard Fernandez in a brilliant post at PJ Media takes a look at the destructive power of Marxism:


A German friend once remarked that Hitler was only the second most destructive thing his country had unleashed upon the world.  Worse by far, he said, were the ideas of Karl Marx. The notion  an idea could be more destructive than fleets of bombers and Panzer divisions is a large claim but there is evidence in support of it.  John Walters says that in sheer destructiveness Hitler beats Marx only if you add the Kaiser’s war.  If you add famine into the equation, Marx beats Hitler, Tojo and the Kaiser put together.

According to a disturbingly pleasant graphic from Information is Beautiful entitled simply 20th Century Death, communism was the leading ideological cause of death between 1900 and 2000. The 94 million that perished in China, the Soviet Union, North Korea, Afghanistan, and Eastern Europe easily (and tragically) trump the 28 million that died under fascist regimes during the same period.During the century measured, more people died as a result of communism than from homicide (58 million) and genocide (30 million) put together. The combined death tolls of WWI (37 million) and WWII (66 million) exceed communism’s total by only 9 million.

It gets worse when you look at the … Natural World … famine (101 million). Curiously, all of the world’s worst famines during the 20th century were in communist countries: China (twice!), the Soviet Union, and North Korea.

Yet despite this unparalleled record of destructiveness Walters notes that Communism retains enormously good press. “According to a 2011 Rasmussen poll, 11% of Americans think that communism would better serve this country’s needs than our current system.” Its core ideas are popular with Bernie Sanders’ followers. Only 3 years ago Jeremy Corbyn, the current leader of Britain’s Labor Party, expressed satisfaction with the program of the Venezuelan Bolivarian revolutionists. He tweeted “thanks Hugo Chavez for showing that the poor matter and wealth can be shared. He made massive contributions to Venezuela & a very wide world.” David Sirota writing in Salon at almost the same time as Corbyn’s tweet fulsomely praised “Hugo Chavez’s economic miracle.”

Miracle: for there was no other word for it.
according to data compiled by the UK Guardian, Chavez’s first decade in office saw Venezuelan GDP more than double and both infant mortality and unemployment almost halved. Then there is a remarkable graph from the World Bank that shows that under Chavez’s brand of socialism, poverty in Venezuela plummeted (the Guardian reports that its “extreme poverty” rate fell from 23.4 percent in 1999 to 8.5 percent just a decade later). In all, that left the country with the third lowest poverty rate in Latin America. Additionally, as Weisbrot points out, “college enrollment has more than doubled, millions of people have access to health care for the first time and the number of people eligible for public pensions has quadrupled.”

How this “miracle” crashed down into ruin is something yet to be explained. Suffice it so say there is unexpectedly no food, no electricity, nor even gasoline in this oil-rich nation. In the ultimate irony “gasoline-making fluid catalytic cracking units … are currently down … with critics blaming shortages of spare parts, lack of maintenance, and a shaky electrical grid for outages and unplanned stoppages.” Looting is epidemic. Trucks are being swarmed by mobs on the highway. Army troops — crucial for regime survival — have been reduced to foraging to make up a meal. The Atlantic, hardly a right-wing publication, writes “Venezuela is falling apart”.

Go here to read the rest.  Ironically, considering how infested with Marxism the Catholic left is, the main attraction of this superstition for intellectuals is largely the atheism that is at the core of Marxism.  There is no God, merely an inevitable historical path laid out by Marx. Traditional morality was done away with:  cooperating with the inevitable historical process, the ultimate triumph of Marxism, was moral, and anything that opposed it was immoral.  Thus morality becomes a mere matter of political labels.  How convenient that this allowed movements dedicated to Marxism to commit any crime, no matter how vile, in the scramble for supreme power.  That Marxism has never been anything but a transparent fraud, with no more intellectual validity than a tale from The Arabian Nights, is a damning indictment of the human capacity to embrace any fable if it gives an excuse to engage in wretched conduct with an ostensibly clean conscience. Fernandez sums up all of this neatly:



Explosives can achieve gross destruction.  But it misses things between the craters;  by contrast a mental bomb can destroy civilization itself; its values, institutions, goals and even its grip upon reality.  In the contest between Panzer division and Manifesto, the manifesto appears far the more powerful. The computer revolution has given us the tools to understand why Communism has so much devastating power.  We can now recognize it as history’s greatest and most dangerous piece of intellectual malware, whose only true rival is radical Islam.  It tricks the social network into thinking you can get something for nothing; it promises freedom in exchange for enslavement.  It presents a deceptive interface but its inner methods are all destructors. It subverts the operating system and like the computer viruses we are familiar with uses the host’s own processing power to spawn more copies of itself.  The more powerful and resource-endowed a host is, the more powerfully the malware can attack it.  In the end it trashes everything and only a complete reinstall and rebuild can fix it.

More to explorer


  1. The allure of Marxism proves the reality of the battle between Jesus Christ and Lucifer for the minds of God’s children, redeemed or not. The battle is microscopic in nature in the inner realm of the hearts of every individual of living humanity. It consists of the struggle of Truth against Lies; and Lucifer’s lies are diabolically so very similar to Truth, just a few small degrees off the straight line to Heaven while avoiding all the hard parts of the straight narrow path. Lucifer’s best lies sound very much like Gospel Truth. A person can proclaim them boldly and sound very much like a Christian with a message of easy deliverance for the average person. An angel of light, the liar is, who presents himself as a humanitarian who cares only for the “People”. But somehow,mint jst never works.

    The Great Commission is intended for just such a task as this: changing the hearts and minds of billions of individual souls at the microscopic inner recesses of the heart that drive eternal destinies. It is NOT intended for great political movements or vast social causes, loved by U.N. bureaucrats. It is grassroots work that is individual and largely invisible but which alters the hearts and minds of humanity that starves demonic philosophies like Marxism and feeds true Christian communion.

    The battle is about whether reality is centered around God ….. or Man. The lies of this Age shine a bright light on Man, while God is obscured by clouds of lies and obfuscations. Our Commission is to turn the Light away from Man, on to the loving face of Jesus, Who since Eden has been the only point of human existence, and will continue to be until the end of time.

  2. One small good thing that came from the recognition that Marxism is a superstition is Karl Popper’s philosophy of science. Popper was a Marxist for about two weeks in 1930’s Vienna, and quit in disgust after hearing one too many lectures on how “scientific socialism” would triumph. Popper realized that there was nothing scientific about Marxism, and he developed what probably is the best philosophy of science in response.

  3. Arguably, Nazism was nothing more than Marxism’s more-evil twin, a mirror image that substituted hyper-nationalism for Marxism’s [alleged] internationalism.

  4. One point should be made: the anti-humanism of Stalin’s dictatorship was a very real part of the immensely wasteful battlefield tactics adopted by the Soviet Army during the Second World War. Soviet troops were thrown into battle with little regard for minimizing causalities. It can be argued that those deaths should be counted twice, once in Hitler’s column and once in Stalin’s.

  5. Socialism is any form is Anti-God, Anti-Christ, anti-family, and anti-private property. It demands that everything be subjected to its dictates. Nothing outside the state, nothing against the state, everything subjected to the state, to paraphrase Mussolini. Some idiots will try to tell you there’s a difference between National Socialism (Nazism) and International Socialism (Communism), but their similarities are greater than their differences. Both are totalitarian systems of government that demand the absolute subjection all of society’s members and institutions to it’s dictates.

  6. My only comment is this: Marxism is in a race with Islam for being the most destructive superstition. And at the end of the world, God will throw these two horns of Satan’s head into hell to burn forever and ever.

  7. thank you for this post Donald McClarey. Absolutely great comments too.
    I just have this chilling memory of our newly elected Obama with that Venezuelan ‘man of the people” Chavez.

  8. I maybe a bit cynical, but if I hear that someone promised big improvements, got them right off the bat, and then just as quickly took a nose-dive– my first question is who was collecting the statistics.
    It is really easy to massage data, even if you’re not willing to all-out lie. Infant mortality, for example– just adopt the definitions of a country that is stricter about declaring early deaths to be a miscarriage; we’re all familiar, here, with the way the US records anybody who shows signs of life after birth as a “child mortality” stat, while other gov’ts have much different definitions.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: