SECTION V
Chapter 20 - The Russian Marxist Communist Revolution

"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint.
 When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist."

                                                --Dom Helder Camara


 "[W]e should not make the mistake of blaming capitalism for all existing
social and political evils, and of assuming that the very establishment of
socialism would be able to cure all the social and political ills of
humanity.  The danger of such a belief lies, first, in the fact that it
encourages fanatical intolerance on the part of all the 'faithful' by
making a possible social method into a type of church which brands all those
who do not belong to it as traitors or as nasty evildoers...You know, I am
sure, from history how much unnecessary suffering such rigid beliefs have
inflicted upon mankind."

                                        -- Albert Einstein
                                           "A Reply to the Soviet Scientists"
                                            (1948)

"One strength of the Communist system ... is that it has some of the 
characteristics of a religion and inspires the emotions of a religion."                                                
                               -- Albert Einstein (Out Of My Later Years (1950))

Liberalism, Socialism, Communism

  The Industrial Revolution had transformed the West from an agrarian economy,
to one built around trade and industry.  However, especially in the early
years, it created appalling social evils. Exploited laborers (including
children) were forced to work long hours for meager earnings, often under
unsafe or unsanitary conditions. Many of the new working class were forced
to live in slums with no hopes for an education or improvement to their
condition. Great fortunes, on the other hand, were made by a very small
group of capitalists--whose incomes were not yet taxed to help redistribute
income throughout society (as would later develop during the twentieth
century).

  During the early 1800's, driven partly by the spread of the ideals of
liberty and equality from the French Revolution, a new doctrine of reform
spread throughout Europe. Known as liberalism, it found favor with a
growing class of merchants, factory owners, and certain professionals
who had come to challenge the special privileges of the old landed
aristocracy.

  Inspired by such English philosophers as Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and
John Stuart Mill (1806-73), liberalism developed the basic tenets of respect
for individual rights and freedoms that led to the modern concept of
parliamentary democracy, and also pushed for government responsibility in
such concerns as public health, education, and welfare services.

  Liberals in England (as had Voltaire), had stressed POLITICAL over SOCIAL
rights--ie they believed in the importance of keeping property in private
hands.  Socialists--who were more radical than liberals, believed in the
importance of ABOLISHING the individual's property rights, and replacing
these with communal or government owned collective farms and factories.
Early socialists, such as Robert Owen (1771-1858) and Charles Fourier
(1772-1837) experimented with small self-sufficient communities, which were
owned collectively by the people.

  The most radical of the socialists believed that conditions had grown 
so bad for the working class, that it would take a violent overthrow of
existing governments--such as had occurred during the French Revolution.
Karl Marx (1818-83), eventually became the leading champion of this form of 
revolutionary socialism, which later evolved into communism. (Today the main 
difference between socialism and communism, is the DEGREE to which the 
individual is allowed property rights.  Most socialist countries today 
typically nationalize only large industries, while allowing personal property 
rights.  Pure communism does not permit the ownership of personal property. 
Instead all property is owned by the community or State.)

Karl Marx (1818-83)

  During the mid 1800's, Karl Marx witnessed the repeated cycles of trade
expansion and depression, arising from capitalism. He predicted that
conditions for the working poor would grow even worse over time.-- Society
would become more and more sharply divided between the very rich and very
poor, squeezing out the middle class so that they too would wake up one
day without a job--and be forced to join in with the ranks of the poor.

   However, although conditions were indeed bad during the middle of the
nineteenth century, Marx did not foresee that important improvements would
be made from 1871 to 1914.  While the middle class did lose some of its jobs 
from the Industrial Revolution (ie small entrepreneurs were replaced by large 
mechanized industries)--new middle class jobs were ALSO created from the new 
capitalistic societies.  And with them, this spurred the growth of "white 
collar" workers. Even among "blue collar" workers, poverty had greatly 
declined over the century before.

  Liberal reformers and humanitarians had aroused public concern regarding
the conditions of the laboring poor, and legislation was passed to remove
the worst abuses out of the system.  For example, in England, Robert Owen,
the "utopian" socialist, helped lead the effort to enact a series of reforms
on child labor in textile plants in 1833.

  Trade-unionism, which had grown in power and influence since the 1850's,
made it possible for laborers to bargain for higher wages and better working
conditions. In 1867, the working class was given the political right to
vote--and thus could elect government representatives that would legislate
even more protective privileges and various social services. By the early
1900's, acts had been passed which included a new Workman's Compensation
Act (increasing the employer's liability for industrial accidents and
illnesses), and various minimum wage statutes. All these political-economic
gains helped to defuse the revolutionary image of the workers bound in chains
by the State. Indeed once the working class was given the opportunity to
share (albeit limited) in the wealth of their country, they now held a vested
interest in helping to maintain the social order.

  Marx had viewed the unequal distribution of property as the "cause" of 
society's suffering and unhappiness. It was religion that taught that man 
should not take property away from another by force ("Thou shalt not steal") 
or to covet the property rights of others ("Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's
goods").  Marx therefore reasoned that religion was the mechanism through
which the wealthy kept the poor downtrodden in this state of poverty.  Religion
operated as the "opiate of the people", in keeping them content in their
dejected state. 

  The anarchist Mikhail Bakunin analyzed Marx as follows:
  
  "Since Marx rejected God, he could not explain the 'human condition' as 
   the result of sin.  He blamed all evil, both moral and psychological, on 
   the economic system which he said had to be overthrown by revolution so 
   that the society of man could be restructured."

     Marx and Engels had actually targeted their communist revolution for
Germany. Here monarchies still held onto absolutist powers, long after
the English and French populace had gained important political rights from their
rulers.  Both Karl Marx and Engels had stressed violent revolution in their
early writings.  In his COMMUNIST MANIFESTO (1848), Marx advocated the
formation of a Communist Party to inspire the proletariat or working classes
to seize political power to form a just and democratic Socialist utopian
society.  Marx urged communists everywhere to "openly declare that their
ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social
institutions." In 1850, Marx was hopeful that his revolution would take hold
in Germany. (We have already seen how the rising power of communists in
Germany led the churches and aristocracy to embrace fascism, in the belief
that fascism would protect them against the communists).

  Engels softened his views on revolution in his later years, arguing
that instead of revolution, workers should take over governments LEGALLY
through their newly acquired rights to vote in government elections. As
an ex-military man (he had spent time in the Prussian army), Engels also
knew that popular insurrections would have little chance against
well-disciplined and heavily armed government military forces.

  Karl Marx disagreed with Engels that change should take place peacefully
through the power of the ballet box.  Marx believed that the State--with
its strong police and military forces--was too firmly entrenched in the
hands of the upper classes for workers to ever take power (assuming that
they captured a majority of the vote in the elections).  Only by overthrowing
the existing social order and transferring property from the wealthy to
the working classes-- could any meaningful change take place.  Even the
new republican rights, whereby the masses had gained the right to vote, were
viewed with suspicion by Marxists.  After all, had not the enfranchised
masses been responsible for Napoleon's rise to power?

  To Marx, any POLITICAL freedom under a republic form of government such as
existed in France was merely an illusion! The problem was that the masses were
simply too ignorant, AND too pre-occupied with their day-to-day lives in
earning a living, to be allowed governmental powers. Instead, what was needed
was an "enlightened minority" who would seize power on behalf of the working
masses. Unlike a democracy where worker's rights could be weakened at a
moment's notice through flip-flops in popular opinion, communism would be
preserved eternally by this elite governmental body--whose only goal would
be to improve society.

  Marx's lack of regard for the worth of the individual led him to argue
that it was only the future of society--and a "communist" one at that--that
mattered. Marx apparently never read some of the great philosophical classics--
such as Locke's ESSAY CONCERNING HUMAN UNDERSTANDING or Hume's TREATISE OF
HUMAN NATURE.  If he ever did read them, he never felt it necessary to
address basic doctrines within these works that would represent major
challenges to his ideals.  Indeed, Marx never acknowledged the existence
of any doctrines that would challenge his premise, nor did he show any
interest in testing his theories. (see Section VIII, Chapter 3).

  It is ironic that Karl Marx never lived to see any country successfully
implement his revolution. It was some thirty years after his death,
that Lenin (a follower of Marx) would seize control over the Russian
government in 1917.

Early Criticism of Marx.

  Karl Marx faced critics very early in his career. Even by 1844, Arnold
Ruge was protesting that the realization of Marx's new society would result 
in "a police and slave state."

  In 1874 and 1875, Marx claimed that "in the transition to the abolition
of all classes and to a classless society" that "the class struggle 
necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat". Bakunin wrote 
in his STATEHOOD AND ANARCHY, that such "proletarian rule" would in fact lead 
to "despotism" by the "ruling minority":

   "the result is that the vast majority of the people is governed by a 
   privileged minority... it may perhaps consist of former workmen, but 
   as soon as they become representatives of rulers of the people they
   CEASE TO BE WORKMEN and view all ordinary workers from the eminence of
   state; they will then no longer represent the people, but only themselves
   and their pretensions to govern the people."

  The fact that Marx never seems to have made any effort to respond to these 
criticism shows that Marx was no more dedicated to the principles of human 
freedom than to the discovery of scientific proof. (Antony Flew, "Was Karl 
Marx a Social Scientist?" FREE INQUIRY, Spring 1991, Vol. 11, No. 2, p 57)

Communism as a Philosophy and a Religion

  Karl Marx was strongly influenced by Hegel's philosophy when a student at
the University of Berlin.  Hegel's philosophy was centered around the
concept of a universal SPIRIT, or MIND.  Hegel interpreted this Absolute
Spirit or Mind as the true nature/essence of God. History was seen as a
continuous struggle (via the dialectic process of thesis, antithesis, and
synthesis) whereby this Absolute Mind or Idea attempts to realize itself in
perfect form.

   Marx borrowed from Hegel his view that all history is a progression from 
less to more perfect forms.  However, the struggle was now perceived by
Marx to be the result from MAN's attempt to realize himself in perfect form--
as opposed to a universal Mind or Spirit. Marx described how he deviated
from Hegel, as follows:

  "To Hegel, the process of thinking...is the [creator] of the real world...
   with me, on the contrary, the ideal is nothing else than the material
   world reflected by the human mind, and translated into forms of thought."

  Karl Marx had the vision that there would be a conflict that would end
in "the class to end all classes" which would shortly thereafter establish
a utopia for all.

  Some have claimed that Marxism communism could also be described as
a religion--because its members  were REQUIRED to believe in a creed that
believes some invisible force is moving civilization towards a progressive
path over time. Thus, Marxist communists were, in effect, REPLACING the divine
"God" of theology with a veneration and blind faith in the Party's leadership
and direction.

  One historian put it this way:

   "Their 'god', the prime mover, is dialectical materialism, and Marx
   is its prophet.  There are Marxist apostles and saints--as well as
   despised heretics.  The sacred books are his writings, which are
   defended by dialectical theologians.  The 'visible church' is the
   party, and the true believers must have unquestioning faith in its
   gospel and its works.  The Day of Judgment is the day of revolution.
   The Marxist heaven is the classless society to come." (Thomas H. Greer,
   A BRIEF HISTORY OF WESTERN MAN, Second Edition, Harcourt Brace 
   Jovanovich, Inc.,1972.)

    It is the ATTITUDE of the individual communist towards his or her
doctrine that determines whether it is a "religion" for them. That is,
those communists who believe in a "mystical" force pulling all society in
a direction towards a worker's utopia, are in essence "believers" in a form
of religion.  This is not true of those communists who see history primarily
as a human-driven endeavor.

Bertrand Russell's Crusade Against Communism

  During the early twentieth century, a large number of atheists and
agnostics were attracted to communism under the naive belief that ANYTHING
had to be better than a system based on orthodox religion.  Bertrand Russell,
however, was one important exception.

  Bertrand Russell (1872-1970), world famous mathematician, philosopher,
and avowed atheist-- wrote and taught prior to the Russian Revolution of 1920.
A socialist, Russell was originally sympathetic towards the communists,
although he remained suspicious that by throwing away freedom, that they had
bypassed an important axiom of liberalism.  He took a trip to the Soviet
Union shortly after the communist revolution, which confirmed his worst
fears on Marxist totalitarianism. He wrote on his experience in his
autobiography:

  "For my part, the time I spent in Russia was one of continually increasing
  nightmare...Cruelty, poverty, suspicion, persecution formed the very air we
  breathed.  Our conversations were continually spied upon.  In the middle
  of the night one would hear shots, and know that idealists were being killed
  in prison...I felt that everything that I valued in human life was being
  destroyed in the interests of a glib and narrow philosophy, and that in
  the process untold misery was being inflicted upon many millions of people."

  Many liberals had asked Russell to soften his public attack against the
communists (expressing the fear that reactionaries would use his arguments
to attack ALL socialist views).  Russell however refused. He now declared
Russian communism to be the WORST of contemporary dogmas! In his work,
"Ideas That Have Harmed Mankind", Russell declared: "In our day the sword of 
the Lord has passed to the hand of the Marxists... This doctrine has kinship 
with the earlier doctrines of the Chosen People and Manifest Destiny.  In 
its character of fatalism it has viewed the struggle of opponents as one 
against destiny."

  According to Russell, Marxism-Leninism, which purported to be scientific
in nature, instead violated the very principles of scientific thinking by
not allowing a free forum for the testing of its ideas. Instead Russell
declared it to be a religion--a crusading mystical faith dependant on some
vaguely defined divine power invisibly guiding society through the course
of history towards a workman's utopia.

  Russell argued that Marxism operated as a Church, with Lenin authoritatively
held up as its first prophet followed by a succession of Soviet popes starting
with Stalin to the present. To Russell, Soviet communism represented a more
dangerous threat than traditional religions because it was new--and NEW
fanaticisms are more dangerous than those mellowed by the passage of time.

  Bertrand Russell pushed instead for a socialism that stressed freedom and 
individualism (such as exists today in such European countries as Sweden). 
The problem with capitalism, was that it concentrated power into the hands 
of a few wealthy people. Communism also concentrated power into the hands of 
an elite group--but this was combined with absolute totalitarian powers over 
all the freedom of the people. When Russell become an international leader 
for disarmament and peace during the 1960's, it was because he felt a
militaristic reactionary response (ie such as McCarthism or fascism) to the
communism danger was not the answer.  Instead he believed that the more
enlightened democratic pluralism -- as laid down by of Jefferson, Madison, and
Franklin Roosevelt was the best long term response to Soviet totalitarianism.

Communist Russia as Totalitarian State.

   When the Marxists took over Russia, all the predictions of it becoming
a PERMANENT totalitarian state came true. Communist Russia was structured
in many ways similar to the Inquisition of the Middle Ages.  Both had rigid
authoritarian hierarchies complete with dogmas which were not to be questioned.
Human rights and individualism were demoted for the "good" of society.  Any
deviation from Church/State doctrine was quickly labeled as heresy. In the
Catholic church of the Middle Ages this could lead to trials, imprisonment,
torture, and execution (burning at the stake was especially popular). In 
Communist Russia this would lead to trials, imprisonment, torture, and
execution. It is not a coincidence that in the USSR, not only the printing
presses, but even mimeograph machines were strictly guarded to prevent the
dissemination of capitalistic ideas (ie the new "heresy").

  Just as the religious dogmatists destroyed science in the early Dark Ages, 
Marxist dogmatists would likewise replace science with pseudo-science.  Marx 
proclaimed his new methods as "scientific socialism", but as we shall this  
term had as much similarity to science as does the organization "Christian 
Science" and "Creation science".  True, Marx talked in general terms, about 
the use of the "scientific method"--Still his was bounded (in his mind) by 
the Hegelian concept that all of history moves in accordance with the law of 
dialectic--thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. As Marx believed that these laws 
of history were moral "truths"-- he held that any questioning of these 
assumptions was tantamount to "heresy".

   It is probably no coincidence that communism came to embrace mysticism over
science.  Russian communists generously funded ESP, clairvoyance and other
endeavors considered to be of questionable scientific value by most scientists
in the West. They also demolished much of their practical sciences and
mathematics-- most noticeably in the area of genetics-- because of its obvious
conflict with Marxist dogma. Artists and writers were likewise persecuted and
imprisoned, if they deviated from the "official" Party line.

How Marxist Dogma Turned Russian Agriculture Back Twenty Five Years

  There have been numerous pseudo-scientific theories pushed hard by various
social-religious-political groups in the West.  However, wherever there was
any semblance of democratic freedom, at no time were these groups ever able
to ENFORCE their views on the scientific community. This was not true under
authoritative regimes such as Russia and China. Russia embarked on a
disastrous agricultural policy, that arose from communist ideology which
had interpreted Darwinian genetics as an enemy of the Soviet people.  Instead,
Soviet bureaucrats determined that Larmarck's views on biology  were more
closely allied to communist ideology.

Background on Lamarckan Evolution

  In the eighteenth century (and roughly half a century BEFORE Charles Darwin
publish his ORIGIN OF THE SPECIES) a French scientist named Jean Lamarck
wrote on a different theory of evolution that envisioned "improvements" in
the parents being passed on to their children. The classic example of Lamarck's
"inheritance of acquired characters" is his example of how giraffes evolved
over time to acquire their long necks.-- That is, as giraffes found themselves
living in areas where it was necessary to eat leaves off tall trees, they
progressively kept stretching their necks--passing the "progress" they had
made in their lifetime in stretching, along to their children.

  The difference in Darwin's theory of evolution, is in its use of genetics
(later reinforced by Gregor Mendel's work ) to explain the mechanism of
evolution:  That is, Darwinism held that every baby animal had acquired
genes from both its parents, but had combined them together in a slightly
different way.  Sometimes in this process, a gene would change and a mutation
in the animal occur. These mutations were believed to occur randomly (i.e.,
not connected in anyway to the Lamarckan view that they were related to the 
PARENT's activities--such as stretching.)  When a mutation is harmful, it is
less likely the animal will survive.  When a mutation is beneficial, it is
more likely the animal will live and pass this characteristic on to its
children. Individually, these mutations might not be significant, but over a
long period of time, they can accumulate into a major change for the species
(even forming new species).

  A host of experiments were conducted to test the Lamarckian view vs. the
Darwinian view.  In this process, literally tens of thousands of experiments--
reported in scientific journals all over the world,  verified the Darwinian
view -- while none purported to see any evidence of the Lamarckian view.
Still, the EMOTIONAL implications of the Darwinian view led many people to
cling onto the tenets of Lamarck.  That is, the mechanism of natural selection"
proposed by Darwin seemed to be a blind struggle, whereby all life could be
seen as merely an "accident", as opposed to divinely directly.

   Orthodox Christians objected to Darwin's theory of evolution because
they perceived it as an indirect, WASTEFUL method-- as compared to the
direct and purposeful creation story as told in GENESIS. Other groups 
(including some agnostics and atheist groups) ALSO objected to Darwin's 
theories because they felt it left no room for human progress. Lamarck's 
views, on the other hand,  allowed for an IDEALISM--a hope that mankind's 
attempts to improve himself would be passed onto future generations.   
Paul Kammerer, a Viennese biologist and socialist demonstrated the emotional 
appeal of this outlook in his book, THE INHERITANCE OF ACQURED 
CHARACTERISTICS:

  "If acquired characteristics cannot be passed on, as most of our
  contemporaneous naturalist contend, then no true organic progress
  is possible. Man lives and suffers in vain.  Whatever he might have 
  acquired in the course of a lifetime dies with him.  His children
  and his children's children must ever and again start from the bottom...
  If acquired characteristics are occasionally inherited, then it becomes
  evident that we are not exclusively slaves of the past--slaves helplessly
  endeavoring to free ourselves of our shackles--but also captains of our
  future, who in the course of time will be able to rid ourselves, to
  a certain extent, of our heavy burdens and to ascend into higher and
  ever higher strata of development."

  Kammerer published a series of laboratory experiments, which seemed to
prove the Lamarckian view of evolution.  On the merits of his findings,
he was appointed a chair at the University of Moscow in 1925. Shortly
afterwards, it was discovered that a number of his experiments had been
faked.  Kammerer denied he was responsible, blaming instead one of his
assistants. He later committed suicide.

  Although the Lamarckian view became more and more discredited in most of
the world, the Russian communists decided his views were very much in
line with their ideology.  A Russian film glorifying Kammerere was produced
which blamed "reactionary capitalists" for the faking of his experiments.
As time went on, party communist officials determined that Darwinian's
implications on evolution were dangerous theories to the State's vision
of man's progress under communism.

  Many world-renowned Russian geneticists in the meantime were conducting
experiments along Darwinian lines. A communist purge took place.  In
1936, the famous Medico-genetic Institute was closed down. Its founder
Solomon Levit was forced to "confess" of his "errors" and later disappeared.
Likewise, the Academy of Sciences discharged many of its leading scientists
in disgrace over the issue.  The most famous human geneticists were sent to
Siberian Gulag labor camps (where not one of them was found alive when
Khrushchev dismantled the camp-prison system in 1965)(Zhores A. Medvedev
SOVIET SCIENCE, Oxford University Press, 1979, p 221)

Lysenko

  In place of geneticists, the communists appointed Trofim Lysenko, a former
peasant and plant breeder, to run their agriculture program. Lysenko was a
powerful speaker, and savagely attacked genetics as decadent capitalistic
science.  According to Lysenko, genes simply do not exist! Instead, it is
the environmental conditions which "shatters" one's heredity.  That is,
if a plant is transplanted into a new environment that produces desirable
changes, then this characteristic is passed onto later generations. (This 
view was obviously in line with communist ideology that held that the 
communist revolution would create a new environment for workers that
would, over the generations, evolve into a workman's paradise.)

   One of the most important methods of genetics is the use of statistics
to evaluate the outcome of plant breeding experiments to develop improved
strains of wheat, etc. However Lysenko refused to utilize this most basic
scientific tool, because he did not believe that "chance" played any role
in developing new strains.

  The scientific community in the West almost unanimously condemned what
was going on in Russia.  According to H. J. Muller (a Nobel Prize winner
who worked at the Institute of Genetics in Moscow from 1933-37 and personally
knew Lysenko and the discredited Russian scientists), "Lysenko's writings
along theoretical lines are the merest drivel.  He obviously fails to
comprehend either what a controlled experiment is or the established
principles of genetics taught in any elementary course in the subject."
(Martin Gardner, FADS AND FALLACIES IN THE NAME OF SCIENCE , P 146)

  Lysenko's dominance in Soviet genetics and biology lasted over twenty
five years. By 1965 it was again acceptable for universities to conduct
research on genetics, and write textbooks on the subject.  However, even
after Lysenko's genetics were thoroughly discredited their appeal to Soviet
communist ideology was still strong.  For example, Professor Lobashov (1967)
wrote how the capitalists bourgeoisie attempted to use genetics to justify
the exploitation of one class by another, antagonism between different
nations, and creation of the racialist theories."

  One of the internationally renown scientists whose stature helped
halt Lysenkoism in the Soviet Union was Andrei Sakharov, the "Father of
the Soviet Bomb".  A brilliant physicist, Sakharov later became a
humans rights dissident in the Soviet Union. Sakharov argued that the
Soviet system had sapped both the energy and the creativity of thinking
within the Soviet Union, forcing its intellectuals to retreat into a
"narrow professionalism". Although he worked at first at liberalizing
the Soviet Communist system from within, he came to realize that its
premise of a tightly controlled state economy was not compatible with
individual freedom and social diversity. Andrei Sakharov died in exile
in 1990, just before the collapse of the communist system in the Soviet Union.

The Legacy of Russian Communism on Environmentalism

  According to American researchers Murray Feshbach and Alfred Friend, Jr
in 1992, "When historians finally conduct an autopsy on the Soviet Union and
Soviet communism, they may reach the verdict of death by ecocide".

  Russian communists virtually ignored the ecology. One popular
communist saying during Josef Stalin's reign was:

 "We cannot expect charity from nature.  We must tear it from her."

  The ruling philosophy of the Soviet Union in business and industry was
"growth at any cost". Consequently, manufacturing plants and equipment
focused on short term gains only--completely ignoring the impact on the
environment.  State bureaucrats and officials were not motivated to
improve technology, unlike in the West. As the economy declined, investment
faltered, and antiquated plant and equipment were repaired instead of
replaced.  Water and air was routinely polluted to such an extent, that
today Russia suffers one of the highest pollution indices in the world.

  In 1957, in the midst of a Soviet nuclear-weapons testing program, a major
nuclear explosion occurred, which destroyed the city of Chelyabinsk and
contaminated an area in the Soviet Union roughly the size of Massachusetts.
With their tight control over the news media, the magnitude of the disaster
was successfully covered up by Soviet officials, and indeed held only the
status of a rumor in the West.  It was not until after Soviet immigrants
arrived in the West during the 1970 and 1980's, that Western suspicions
were officially confirmed.

  Perhaps it was the Chernoble nuclear reactor disaster that most discredited
Russian communism before the entire world.  Soviet officials not only FAILED
to alert its own people, so that the area could be evacuated in a timely
matter--but also stuck to their ideological slogans that the dangers
broadcasted by Western stations, were a "capitalist" ploy to scare the
people.  Only later, after thousands died or came down ill with radiation 
sickness, did the Soviet people see first hand the lies and incompetence of
their leaders.

    As of this writing, although Russian communism has collapsed, many of
the old problems are still with them.  With the serious economic depression
that has hit the Soviet people, there is little concern on humanitarian
or environmental issues According to Russian Ecology Minister Viktor Danilov-
Danilyan (Winter 1992), workers still waste resources and misuse equipment, as 
the mentality is currently to "survive at any cost"! The next decade has seen a 
failure of capitalism to significantly improve Russia's economy. This is because 
bureaucratic governmental controls and corruption have led to Russian 
corporations operating not too differently from when they were under communist 
control.