Communism and fascism are one and the same thing. Today more than ever, this truth is being made manifest in the despotic manner Hugo Chávez governs Venezuela. Recently, Chávez has unleashed his most furious attack against democracy and free speech in that country, emasculating the national parliament by assuming absolute power to rule by decree for 18 months while having previously pressured said legislative body into passing ironclad gag laws to control, censor, and manipulate not only TV, radio, and newspapers but also Internet (including Facebook, Twitter, and other social networks). Twenty-first-century socialist Chávez’s political tactics and strategies clearly bolster the idea that communism and fascism are veritable Siamese twins.
This concept is exposed in Pandemic of Lies: the Exile through a dialogue between Dr. Eduardo Borja, a former finance minister in the Alejandro Salvador government, and Manuel Cruz:
“Well, what I mean by this is that Marxism and Fascism cojean dela misma pata. In other words, they hobble on the same bad leg.”
“What? How is that?” I said, shaking my head skeptically. “Aren’t they on diametrically opposite ends on the political spectrum?”
Dr. Eduardo Borja smiled condescendingly at me with the kind of sympathetic smile reserved for a confused student. “It depends on how you draw the political spectrum.”
“Explain,” I demanded.
“We normally see the political spectrum in rectilinear form, Fascism at the extreme end to the right and Communism or Socialism at the extreme end to the left. But what if the political spectrum is perceived in a different way, for example, in curvilinear fashion?”
He paused, took a pen out of his shirt’s pocket, and drew first a line on a paper napkin and then a circle.
“With the rectilinear format,” he said, pointing at the drawn line, “Marxism and Fascism are indeed at opposite ends, but if you curve the line and finish turning it into a circle, the extreme ends join each other, melt, and become one.” To make his case even more graphic, he now rolled the napkin into the form of a cigar and then bent it until the tips touched each other. “There!” he cried victoriously. “Marxism and Fascism are really one and the same political phenomenon. The same dog, different collar. Same shit, different smell.”
“Birds of the same feather,” I contributed.
He laughed appreciatively.
“But have you got enough supporting evidence to prove this theory?”
“It’s not a theory. It’s a fact,” he corrected contentiously. “In truth, it’s not an original idea of mine. I will be the first Latin American political economist, though, to expose it in this century, and I think it’s about time somebody did.”
“But the evidence, the proof?” I insisted.
“Hold your horses. I’m coming to that. Who do you think was the first fascist leader in the twentieth century?”
“I don’t know,” I said impatiently, feeling he was subjecting me to a question-and-answer classroom situation. “Benito Mussolini, I guess.”
The learned doctor pursed his lips. “Wrong,” he growled, as if he were about to condemn me to after-school detention for having given the wrong answer.
“Who then?” I demanded.
“Lenin. Or Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, to be more precise. He changed his name to Lenin in 1901. You see, even back then he was already preparing himself for the initiation of a cult of personality around himself. With a name like Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov he would have never gotten anywhere, don’t you think? But a charismatic leader could proudly bear a name like Lenin. Such a name sticks favorably to the memory cells. It’s short and sonorous.”
Dr. Borja paused to recharge himself with another deep sip from his drink.
“Now, what are some of the characteristics linked to Fascism? For one, the emergence of a charismatic leader, right? And later the creation of a whole aura of invincibility, courage, patriotism, and even godliness around the leader—what’s called a cult of personality, correct? Communist or socialist principles are supposed to be based on the dictatorship of the proletariat, and yet throughout history, we see that what prevailed in communist countries time and time again was, not the dictatorship of the proletariat, but the absolute rule of one man, the charismatic leader—a Fascist trait. Examples of Hitler and Mussolini types in this sense abound in socialist or communist settings: Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Kim Il-sung and later his son Kim Jongil, Fidel Castro and then his brother Raúl Castro—scratch Raúl out; he’s about as charismatic as pubic lice—and now, heading down the dictatorship lane by leaps and bounds, Hugo Chávez. Then there are the pups Hugo is grooming in his Fascist Dictatorship University: Daniel Ortega, Evo Morales, Rafael Correa, and, oh, oh, surprise, surprise, Alejandro Salvador. Lacaya registered at Hugo’s school but recently flunked out, thanks to Hillary.”
“Alright, alright, I catch your drift,” I chuckled. “But there must be more similarities between the two political tendencies,” I said, getting enthused with the direction the exposition was taking.
“Fervent nationalism is another element that typifies Fascism. Communism and socialism supposedly have an internationalist focus, and yet already in 1924 Stalin was promoting the concept of Socialism in One Country, which later became the basis for the Soviet Union’s imperialist doctrine. Take something very close to home as far as you’re concerned: Cuba. The main slogan there is: Patria o muerte, venceremos. Fatherland or death, we shall triumph. Hugo Chávez has adopted this jingoist war cry with a slight variation: Patria, socialismo o muerte. Fatherland, socialism or death. And Evo Morales promises that he will soon make the Cuban slogan Patria o muerte, venceremos the rallying cry of the Bolivian Armed Forces. Can you get more chauvinistic than that?”
I grinned and nodded my head. His comments, it seemed to me, were all bull’s-eyes.
“Another practice that distinguishes Fascism is its racism. Mussolini promoted the Italic race, Hitler the Aryan race, above all other races. Hitler, in particular, hated Jews. Recently, historians have started discovering Stalin’s pathological anti-Semitism. And now the Latin American would-be dictators are showing their anti-Semitic colors as well. Look at Hugo Chávez. He’s become real chummy with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who denies the Holocaust by calling it a ‘myth’. And at the same time Hugo is forcing his political toadies like Evo Morales, Rafael Correa, Daniel Ortega, and Alejandro Salvador to get their respective countries politically and economically aligned with Iran, the world’s epicenter of anti-Semitism. And as the saying goes: Dime con quién andas y te diré quién eres. Your pals reflect who you are; it’s as simple as that.”