Tags: Who | Rules | China | and | Why?

Who Rules China – and Why?

Thursday, 30 September 2004 12:00 AM

John Stuart Mill drew attention way back in 1859 to the negative side of this arrangement: The greater the number of voters electing a head of government, the lower their average mental level and hence the mental level of the statesman they elect.

But even Mill himself could not suggest anything better than universal suffrage. In his time women were disenfranchised (deprived of the right to vote) as mentally inferior to men. Mill disagreed – he said that his wife was more intelligent than he was.

However, for the society envisioned by Marx, ANY government was coercive, tyrannical and obsolete, just as were ANY police, prisons or armed forces.

The Communist Party of Russia took power in 1917, and the Chinese Communist Party originated in 1921 and took power in 1949.

At first the solution was easy. Of course, no government or any other obsolete coercive institutions! But the population was not ready for Communism. No government, no police, no armed forces? My God, the country will become a robbers’ den. Criminals will rob, rape and kill with impunity – well, everyone will kill so as not to be killed, and the country will consist of gangs or mafias at war with one another.

Fortunately, Lenin and Mao, in contrast to Marx, lived in the age of “political parties,” and so they were the leaders of Communist parties.

Hence, Lenin in post-1917 Russia became the chairman of the Council of People’s Commissars and Mao in post-1949 China, the chairman of the Central People’s Council of the People’s Republic of China. Before Mussolini became Italy’s dictator in 1922, the word “dictator” was not bad, and Lenin was not against calling himself a “dictator.”

You see, Marx was against ANY government in a Communist world, but he said nothing about a dictator. In fact, he spoke about the need for the dictatorship of the proletariat to defeat the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, which called itself democracy. And Lenin argued that it is a superfluous hairsplitting to distinguish between the dictatorship of the working class and the dictatorship of one individual like Lenin (a son of a high-ranking official under Nicholas II and a lawyer by education), for he can express the interests of the working class better than the class itself can.

In 1949 (after Hitler!) the word “dictator” had become so obnoxious that Mao never tried to apply it to himself.

So far, so good. The best, most progressive and strictly Marxist form of government had been found: Here was the dictator, who should not, after 1922, be called the dictator.

The trouble was that Lenin became sick (he had been shot at by a Social-Revolutionary) and died in 1924, while Mao, 83 years old in 1976, also died. True, Marx had claimed that man can become immortal under Communism when science, and in particular medicine, will develop so tremendously that they will solve this problem as well. Indeed, our country house neighbor Olga Lepeshinskaya was expected to obtain a medicine ensuring immortality for Stalin. Yet Stalin died. As did Lenin and Mao.

The question was: Who was to be the dictator (without being called the dictator) after Lenin’s death in 1924 and Mao’s in 1976?

To answer this question was as impossible as it is to say who ought to be the godfather of a certain mafia.

Many were sure that the successor to Lenin should and/or would be Trotsky. In fact, it was not clear why he had not been the dictator instead of Lenin. He was a better public speaker than Lenin, and he was versatile, knowledgeable and even witty, while Lenin was humorless, dull and narrow-minded.

But when Lenin became sick, Stalin began to intrigue WITH Trotsky to prevent Lenin’s return to power. After Lenin’s death, Stalin intrigued AGAINST Trotsky to deprive him of his succession to Lenin. Then Stalin murdered both Trotsky and all those who intrigued WITH Stalin AGAINST Trotsky.

Universal suffrage? The leaders of Communist parties did not want it because they would not be elected by a majority: Lenin’s party received in free elections only 25 percent of the seats in the Constituent Assembly. Ironically, Stalin established in the mid-1930s general elections with universal suffrage and secret ballot. He received over 99.9 percent of the votes cast, so afraid the voters were to vote against him. I did vote against him, but desperados like myself accounted for a fraction of 0.1 percent.

As of today, China has not yet reached Stalin’s general elections with universal suffrage and secret ballot. On Sept. 15, 2004, Hu Jintao, China’s dictator, who is called in both East and West NOT the dictator, but the president, said on the anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic of China that democracy is a “blind alley.” My source? The People’s Daily of the Chinese Communist Party.

In the last 15 years of his dictatorship, Stalin played at democracy and said that his dictatorship was a true democracy, whereas democracy in the West was the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Hu is afraid even to play at democracy in 2004, as Stalin and his successors in Soviet Russia did from 1936 to 1991.

Otherwise, politically, post-1949 China seems to be Stalin’s Chinese-speaking Russia. No wonder! One example is especially memorable.

I hated the Soviet propaganda-contaminated humanities, and after school I joined the Moscow Energy Institute. Studying at the Institute were Chinese orthodox Stalinists. One of them, Li Peng, arrived even before Mao came to power, graduated from the Institute and left Russia for China about the time the Soviet tanks crushed Hungary’s attempt at independence.

Many Russians were enraged by the Soviet invasion – the mood that led to the fall of the Soviet dictatorship in 1991. When the Chinese students were invited to join the protest against the Soviet invasion, they said: “Comrade Mao has sent us here to study, and not to protest. Besides, why should Hungary be independent if all countries are to become under Communism one world?”

Yes, Li Peng was one of those who transferred Stalin’s Russia to China.

In 1981 he became in China the minister of energy, and he climbed to the top of power, where he declared martial law to crush the Tiananmen Square movement. What helped his climb to the top was the fact that he was the adopted son of the “great Zhou Enlai,” Mao’s right hand. Nepotism is rife at the top in China – the result is a kind of family mafia, aware of its interests and in particular of the need to establish world domination in order to preserve its omnipotence.

Li Peng was instrumental in the dismissal and arrest of Zhao Ziyang, the general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party. But about a decade later, in 1998, Li Peng was kicked out of his top post, just as he had kicked out (and had arrested!) Zhao Ziyang.

In Communism, there will be no violence, and hence no need for the government, the police or the armed forces. This is why Communism will have to be global, according to Marx, or bourgeois countries will conquer Communist countries having no armed forces.

When Communists use the word “Communism” they mean “world Communism.” To establish it requires a global effort, such as a molecular nano strike. This is why the flag is red, the color of blood. And the five-pronged star? When it was designed, it was believed that there are five continents (Europe, Asia, Africa, and two Americas) to be united under Communism. Certainly in world Communism there will be no government or police. Only the General Secretary of the World Communist Party and the Ministry of World Security.

The cause for which Li Peng lived in Stalin’s Russia, studied at the Moscow Energy Institute, and later proclaimed martial law to crush the Tiananmen movement has not been lost, but, on the contrary, has been advancing to its global realization. On December 26, 2003 (the 110th anniversary of Mao’s birth) the Daily of the People’s Liberation Army published his effigy against the red banners with the inscription “Mao Zedong: Great Forever” and offered his selected military works. The creed is “Marxism-Leninism-Mao Zedong Thought.” Yes, Marx, Lenin and Mao envisioned Communism as the future of all mankind.

For information about the Center for the Survival of Western Democracies, Inc., including how you can help, please e-mail me at

The link to my book online is www.levnavrozov.com. You can also request our


© 2019 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

1Like our page
John Stuart Mill drew attention way back in 1859 to the negative side of this arrangement:The greater the number of voters electing a head of government, the lower their average mental level and hence the mental level of the statesman they elect. But even Mill himself...
Thursday, 30 September 2004 12:00 AM
Newsmax Media, Inc.

Newsmax, Moneynews, Newsmax Health, and Independent. American. are registered trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc. Newsmax TV, and Newsmax World are trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc.

America's News Page
© Newsmax Media, Inc.
All Rights Reserved