With the dissolution of the USSR in 1991, the Cold War virtually disappeared. In the 1990s, the People's Republic of China (PRC) was admitted to the World Trade Organization (WTO). Under Deng Xiaoping (premier of China, 1978–1992), the PRC had begun to set up empowerment zones and allowed capitalist multinational corporations to operate within their borders. McDonald's has some nice fast food outlets in China, and many of our medicines as well as our Barbie dolls are manufactured there. Chinese restrictions on child-bearing won the hearts of Western liberals, who are convinced that over-population combined with climate change (formerly "global warming") is the cause of poverty on our planet. "Sustainable" use of resources became a new mantra. For many, sustainability means capitalism and communism working together side by side. How else can we arrive at the fulfillment of the Marxian principle "from each according to his ability to each according to his need"?
The highly educated of the West neatly combined all these avenues of discourse — climate change, population control, compatibility of communism and capitalism — with the widely accepted utilitarian doctrine of the greatest good for the greatest number (believed by most if not all of Western Civilization). Our own left-wing/liberal elite easily accepted Mill's belief that the "greatest good" could best be discerned by the more educated, informed classes of people. What a neat package!
The only snag is that it leaves out of the equation two important dimensions of the problem. Dimension One: What happens to the individual in this process, and in particular, what happens to the liberty of the individual? Dimension Two: What is the role of God and of individual morality in this collective vision? Does subjecting oneself to the decisions of the new experts of the greatest good (sic) become a "new morality"? There is one paradigm of morality presented to Western civilization for 3,400 years. It's called Judeo-Christian values. At many points, it conflicts directly with the new Sino-Technocratic-Marxist/Utilitarian morality. There is one paradigm of capitalist economics where private ownership and management of one's assets is justified, and another opposing paradigm where ownership, product design, prices, wages, and uses of goods and services are governmental. There is one paradigm where God, Creator of Heaven and Earth, is mainstream, and there is the more recent paradigm, where the human caretaker model — taking care of society and nature — is the end-all and be-all.
Those, like this writer, who grew up before 1991 were brought up in a world that was anti-communist. The majority view, held by both our major parties, emphasized private ownership of property and individual liberty restrained by Judeo-Christian morality. Despite the banning of prayer in our schools in 1962, faith in God was perceived as legitimate (varying on an individual-by-individual basis), and not as a somewhat out-of-date interest merely to be tolerated. We had "rights," and those in the USSR didn't. We had prosperity, and the commies did not. We were good guys, and they were bad guys. People wanted to become citizens and emigrate to the USA, and nobody wanted to go to commie countries. We were in a fight against those who sought to disrupt all the positives of the USA and looked to the Soviets for leadership in doing so. Eugene Debs was their candidate in 1912. Henry Wallace was their candidate in 1948. Then there was George McGovern in 1972.
However, once the USSR collapsed, it seemed that the idea of two sides in the world also evaporated from American consciousness. A paradigm shift began to take place. Now we are struggling through a great identity crisis between leftist programs and policies and programs and policies based on private property and liberty. The crisis has intensified with this virus pestilence. The left, following the example of Mao's Long March, has kept pushing forward, pushing forward, and now has taken over one of our two major parties.
The under-30 crowd does not know — yes, know — about communism, about Castro, about Mao, about Lenin, about Stalin, about murder of the kulaks in Ukraine, about the Cultural Revolution, about the boat people risking all on the high seas to get to Florida from Cuba. These people do not know about the murders, torture, or imprisonments in communist countries. They do not know about the rampant bribery in communist countries or the long hours in line to buy chicken, meat, eggs, and produce. They do not know that the government told people when and where they could move to another apartment and what occupation to study for in school. They never met my former colleague, who had a Ph.D. in mathematics in the USSR, but was told that because he was Jewish, he could teach only in a remote city, not in Moscow. They do not know about a society where the government produces all clothing, and there was no variety of colors or styles to choose from. Another friend, now retired from a career as a leading architect, returning from a trip to the USSR in 1990, noticed how all clothes were brown, dark blue, or charcoal grey.
Sadly, we are at a point where learning about these things is in books or articles, and books and articles are being read less than ever because of the declining literacy and attention span of the population. We are all becoming increasingly addicted to sound bites; texts; and Facebook, Instagram, or Twitter posts as legitimate sources of ideas and information. These modes are becoming central media for communication rather than marginal pastimes for less significant communications. Previously, in our new computer age, these communications were for fun, but not to be taken as seriously as other more substantial, lengthier forms of communication. Therefore, the possibility of challenging the left through books and articles becomes less and less viable with each passing year.
The communist threat in an earlier era also was not only to be considered in books and articles, but was more part of everyday consciousness. When I was growing up in the fifties and sixties, you might well understand that communism was wrong or, at the very least, suspect that it was wrong without reading articles and books on the subject. Today, that pervasive, in-the-air understanding that communism is unacceptable is not there. The leftocratic position described above is the norm for many, including our college-educated under-30 generation. The left has made tremendous progress, especially since 1991. Thus, in the face of the fact that the path of private property, natural rights and liberty, Judeo-Christian morality, belief in the primacy of the individual rather than the collective, and America as a republic and not a socialist global village has been dominant for a few hundred years, we must fight for these ideas as never before. Because of the invasion of leftism from Europe in the late 19th century, we have been fighting those Marxist views for over 100 years and have, in the past thirty years, lost ground. By prayer and resolve, we must fight even harder against the scourge of the enemy both within and without. Our heritage cannot be taken for granted. Resistance is needed.