Monday, November 20th | 2 Kislev 5778


Be in the know!

Get our exclusive daily news briefing.

June 13, 2012 3:51 pm

An Alliance of Communism and Islam: Chavez and Ahmadinejad

avatar by George Jochnowitz

Email a copy of "An Alliance of Communism and Islam: Chavez and Ahmadinejad" to a friend

Hugo Chavez. Photo: wiki commons.

Hugo Chavez is a good Marxist.  That’s why he believes in a world where everybody thinks alike.  Marx looked forward to the day when the “final stage of communism” would come and the state would wither away, since without economic differences people would no longer disagree with each other.  Like any good Marxist leader, Chavez runs a state with no opposition.  According to the New York Times in a news story entitled “Chavez Forces Venezuela to Contemplate a Void” (June 12), “President Hugo Chavez is the undisputed, 24-7, one-man show of Venezuelan politics, its be-all and end-all.  He makes laws on his own, with the stroke of a pen.  He expropriates buildings and businesses with a wave of his hand.  His face smiles on billboards and posters.”  Those are strong words for the New York Times to use, but they reflect reality.

Chavez, a good Marxist, is actively pursuing a policy of friendship with Iran, as all Marxists have done ever since Khomeini turned Iran into a theocracy.  On February 9, 2007, the Associated Press ran a story under the headline “Iran, Venezuela to begin direct flights.”  In the article we read, “Relations between the two countries have tightened under Chavez and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who are united in their antagonism to the U.S. government.”

They are united in more ways than one.  Hugo Chavez, like all Marxists leaders, has allied himself with radical Islam.  Chavez, who called President Bush “el Diablo,” has always been in total agreement with Iran’s President Ahmadinejad, who refers to America as the Great Satan.  Iran, in turn, has officially recognized Chavez as an ally.  The August 1, 2006, issue of the official English-language newspaper China Daily printed a news story entitled “Chavez receives Iran’s highest award.”  We learn from this news item that “Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad presented Chavez with the Iranian Republic Medal in a ceremony at Tehran University.”   The medal was awarded to show gratitude to Chavez for his “support for Iran’s stance on the international scene, especially its opposition to a resolution by the International Atomic Energy Agency.”   The resolution in question was a decision to report Iran to the Security Council over its nuclear program.

Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez talks about helping the poor, but what he really wants to do is to end freedom and bring about a Marxist society.  That is why the National Assembly of Venezuela has granted him free rein to rule by presidential decree for 18 months.  The purpose is ostensibly to accelerate changes in society.  Chavez doesn’t need free rein.  The National Assembly supports him.  He has asked for free rein in order to end democracy and civil society.  He is doing what Marx advocated.

Related coverage

February 26, 2016 12:55 pm

Rubio Comes Out Swinging

US Senator Marco Rubio was cool as a cucumber, appropriately aggressive, and sharp as a tack in Thursday's Republican presidential debate. In...

Marx was opposed to the idea of civil society.  In his essay “On the Jewish Question,” he said, “Practical need, egoism, is the principle of civil society, and is revealed as such in its pure form as soon as civil society has fully engendered the political state.  The god of practical need and self-interest is money” [emphasis in original].  But these words did not sufficiently express Marx’s disgust with the idea.  In the same essay, he went on to say, “It is from its own entrails that civil society ceaselessly engenders the Jew.”

The Marxist vision of the future implies the realization of a society without disagreement and, therefore, the end of history.  That is why thought reform is considered a desirable and realizable goal.  Those societies that have attempted to reshape human nature have been noted for their ruthlessness.  All of the cruelty of Communist states, all of the evils committed by Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot, are implicit in the Marxist idea of the withering away of the state.

Lenin, in Chapter 5 of The State and Revolution, says that “The State will be able to wither away completely . . . when people have become accustomed to observe the fundamental rules of social life, and their labor is so productive, that they voluntarily work according to their ability.  Until the ‘higher’ phase of Communism arrives, the Socialists demand the strictest control, by society and by the State, of the quantity of labour and the quantity of consumption” [emphasis in original].  Lenin (who used the word “Socialism” to mean “Communism”) sounds hypocritical and contradictory: strictest control seems a peculiar way to arrive at a stage where there is no control.  Unfortunately, there is no contradiction.  The “strictest control” called for by Lenin was needed because human nature would have to be altered in order to produce the society he envisioned, otherwise people might not “voluntarily work according to their ability.”  Indeed, such a stateless world would be unchanging and without strife, or else government would have to reappear.

Thought reform was an explicit Chinese goal in the days of Mao Zedong and remains so today, although the words themselves [sixiang gaizao in Chinese] have fallen out of favor.  Chairman Mao claimed that all power came from the barrel of a gun, but he ruled not only through force but through something akin to divine right: he was revered not only as an individual but as the symbol of the inevitable triumph of Communism.

The extreme form of Islam espoused by Ahmadinejad is like the world envisioned by Marx, a world where everyone thinks alike.  It is a world that fears freedom and diversity.  Chavez is on the road to making his country another North Korea – a place where everyone will obey the Dear Leader.  China and Russia have embraced capitalism but have not renounced Marxism.  They too are friends of Ahmadinejad.  The Marxist-Islamic alliance is alive and well.

Chavez is suffering from cancer and elections are scheduled for October.  If Chavez is still alive and well, he will win, as Marxist dictators always do.  Nobody knows what will happen if he is unable to run, or if he dies or resigns after being elected.  Will a new Venezuelan president rethink Venezuela’s commitment to Ahmadinejad?  We can only hope.

Share this Story: Share On Facebook Share On Twitter Email This Article

Let your voice be heard!

Join the Algemeiner
  • kevobx

    Levite priests are exposed, they keep charge of money? 2nd Kings 12:16 The trespass money and the sin money was not brought into the house of the Lord: it was the priests’. *Number 8:26 But shall minister with their brethren in the tabernacle of the congregation (Proverbs 21:16), to keep the charge, and shall do no more service. Thus shalt thou do unto the Levites touching their charge. (Acts 21:25) *Genesis 42:8 And Joseph knew his brethren, but they knew not him. (Matthew 1:2 Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren;) *The forbidden fruit is the fig *Mark 8:24 And he looked up, and said, I see men as trees, walking. (Romans 11:21)

  • kevobx

    The tribe of Juda is black people, the real Jews. Our downfall was sleeping with the canaanites (Genesis 38:2) like Esau the twin elder did (Genesis 36:2). Heritage is tribal, culture is worldly, art? *Genesis 24:37 And my master made me swear, saying, Thou shalt not take a wife to my son of the daughters of the Canaanites, in whose land I dwell: (The state of Israel *Genesis 34:30* is exposed by grace and truth, repentance means acknowlegding truth but the world is going the broad way through peradventure. *Genesis 18:32 (2nd Timothy 2:25). *Luke 22:31 And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: *Number 2:33 But the Levites were not numbered among the children of Israel; as the Lord commanded Moses. (Hebrews 7:14)

  • Prof. Jochnowitz makes a very good point on the central issue of “thought control.” This unholy alliance between the radical Left and radical Islam has been most apparent in Europe and mainly in France where “la pensée unique” seems to have penetrated the media and academia.

    In France, there is a third party to that alliance which goes by the name “brun-rouge-vert” and where the “brun” part refers to the extreme-right. I wonder how long it will take for the inner inconsistencies of this alliance to burst out in the open.

  • George Jochnowitz you’re full of it: total ignorance

  • albert rosenblatt

    we forget that Social Democratic parties [also called Labor Parties] are (theoretically) Marxist –although reformed ones — the Social Democrats and Communists were in the same International until it split over participation in World War I. To this day, Social Democrats call each other ‘comrades’ [Genossen in German] and sing the Internationale at their meetings.

    how does the author of the above essay reconcile the fact that socialist parties [Poale Tsion, Mapam etc.] founded the state of Israel?

    does he also see these parties as misguided and dictatorial?

  • albert rosenblatt

    we forget that Social Democratic parties [also called Labor Parties] are (theoretically) Marxist –although reformed ones — the Social Democrats and Communists were in the same International until it split over participation in World War I. To this day, Social Democrats call each other ‘comrades’ [Genossen in German] and sing the Internationale at their meetings.

    how does the author of the above essay reconcile the fact that socialist parties [Poale Tsion, Mapam etc.] founded the state of Israel?

    does he also see these parties as misguided and dictatorial?

    • Social Democratic parties are democratic. That separates them from Marxism. Marx thought he was writing about economics, but he was wrong. What he really wrote about was thought control. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and the Kim Dynasty understood him perfectly.

      • albert rosenblatt

        Marx wrote a critique of Capitalism at the time. He never gave a blue print of how to get to the future ideal society. –That’s why there were so many schools of Marxism after he died –including Communism [Stalinist and Trotskyist] and Social Democracy — which goes back to Marx as well. [Social Democrats and Communists belonged at the beginning to the same International. They both sing the Internationale after meetings–and call each other Genosse, Khaver, Camarade, or Companero–and address each other with the informal You: Du/Tu. Their flag is still red. The reason is that their origins are the same.]

        • According to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), the word “socialism” was attested as existing in 1832. Marx, born in 1818, had not yet written any works that are known today.