At the American Thinker today, Yaacov ben Moshe tells the story of Stalin's forcing of the Kulaks off the land by starvation, and murder, in order to achieve his version of "'Utopia" by collectivizing farms. The story, entitled Kulak is the Russian Word for 'Deplorable' can be found at the link. But ben Moshe doesn't tell the story for historical purposes, but to show what we face if we elect one of the Democrat candidates. In the process, he makes the same point that I have made ever since I read Marx's Communist Manifesto at age 16 and reported on it to my classmates. Communism violates human nature and God's laws.
The atrocity of the de-kulakization -- the heartless butchery and wanton waste of life, the inhumane genocide of a culture, the destruction of the productive economic heart of Russia -- seems a brutal insanity unless you understand the real motivation behind it. As Stephen Kotkin has revealed in his biography of the man, Stalin was tough and cold, but he was not a madman. He did what he did, as Kotkin, proves, not out of murderous insanity but, even more chillingly, simply because he was a communist.
Stalin had studied and subscribed to Marxist theory and would now apply that theory, by force, to the entire Russian Empire. He saw with clarity, more so than any of his Soviet contemporaries, that the farmers as a class within Russian society were the most formidable obstacle (both economic and cultural) to his efforts to "build socialism" and pave the way to the communist utopia he believed in. Stalin was right; their interests, their traditions, their hearts and their independence were bulwarks against socialism and collectivization.
Their knowledge of how to farm the land seemed to guarantee them exemption from collectivization. Stalin’s answer was brutal and direct. His goal was communism, so the kulaks had to go no matter the cost.
The only thing Stalin was mistaken about was that he did not understand that the kulaks were not just a stubborn problem, they were the embodiment of human nature in its immutable unsuitability for socialism. He could not see that even though he could murder them he could not change human nature and that he and the socialist/communist project was (and is!) destined always to fail. It must fail because its promise of utopian equality of results is not just opposed to human nature, it defies the laws of nature and God. The tens of millions of people tortured, lives wasted, and the vast suffering were a great, horrible futility.
Why do I dwell on this now? Because it has become clear to me that the project of globalization by the Progressive administrative/political/intellectual elite, is, if not a twin brother, at least a blood relation to the Stalinist project. Globalization is a collectivist ideological movement, as is communism. It manifests itself as incremental (we might as well say progressive) socialism. Solzhenitsyn, who saw it first hand, said this about socialism: “Socialism of any type leads to a total destruction of the human spirit and to a leveling of mankind into death..” Still, various national and international elites have been pushing it along for several decades. It is the goal for most of the powerful, intellectual and political leaders in the world. It is the raison d'être for the European Union and the underlying rationale behind multiculturalism, the rise of pan-national corporations and open borders. Like Stalinism it is a secular ideology callous to the well-being, liberty, and even, when necessary, the life of anyone who stands in its way.Might I add that it is also the reason for the Progressive (read Democrat) push for gun control. They won't say it, but they fully understand that at some point, the American people will not stand for the policies they are pushing, therefor they must separate us from our guns. Remember, it was Obama communications director Anita Dunn who quoted Mao Tse Tung as saying that power grows out of the barrel of a gun. And power is what these people crave for themselves and their families. But they couldn't care less about the Kulaks, or you.
It is said that history repeats. History doesn't repeat, but it does rhyme.