Utopia’s Butchers

American Thinker ^ | 29 Aug, 2026 | Lars Møller

[MtnClimber]

Socialism’s sectarian logic, pseudoscientific hubris, and the inescapable path from guillotine to Gulag C.

The sectarian, antidemocratic, and antirational character of egalitarianism has been exposed with grim consistency across two centuries of revolutionary experiment. From the Jacobin committees of public safety to the Politburos of Moscow, Beijing, and their satellite regimes in Africa and Asia, the pattern recurs: utopian doctrine, once armed with state power, converts political disagreement into existential crime and answers it with systematic slaughter.

A political monster from birth, socialism—along with its Siamese twin, communism, the progeny of egalitarianism and collectivism—does not merely fail to deliver abundance; it systematically produces oppression, terror, and bloodshed because its core premises—absolute knowledge of history’s direction, the moral necessity of liquidating class enemies, and the engineering of a purified human type—cannot tolerate the messy pluralism of ordinary social life.

The French Revolution supplied the template. Between 1793 and 1794, the Committee of Public Safety under Robespierre and his associates institutionalized the guillotine as an instrument of political hygiene. The revolutionary calendar, the cult of the Supreme Being, and the Law of Suspects were not accidental excesses; they expressed the conviction that a regenerated republic required the excision of every residual loyalty to throne, altar, or local custom. Enemies were no longer rival politicians but “enemies of the human race.” The same logic later animated Lenin’s Red Terror, the Cheka’s summary executions, Mao’s land-reform killings and Cultural Revolution struggle sessions, and the purges that accompanied socialist seizures of power from Ethiopia to Cambodia.

In each case, the revolutionaries confronted external military pressure and internal resistance; yet the decisive factor was ideological. They believed themselves architects of a flawless social order whose realization justified any immediate cost. Dissent therefore registered not as legitimate opposition but as sabotage of progress itself. Absolute transformation

---

TOPICS: Society
KEYWORDS: leftism

[MtnClimber]

And here we are again. I hope we have learned that there is no way we can comply our way out of tyranny.

[Kudsman]

Coexist. Kill. Rinse. Repeat.

[sauropod]

Bkmk

[ClearCase_guy]

Marx imagined that the great mass of industrial workers (the Proletariat) would suddenly unite and rise up all over the world in a glorious revolution. But it soon became clear that the world’s workers were not going to all do anything at once.

Lenin had the idea of the Vanguard of the Proletariat — meaning a small, educated political class who could make the first move, get the revolution started, and eventually bring the great mass of the people along on the journey.

And in Russia, the big revolutionary political party was the Mensheviks, but the smaller revolutionary party was the Bolsheviks — and the Bolsheviks were small, but ruthless. They were driven to action and were not shy about shooting people in the street. The Bolsheviks won because numbers mattered less than ideological commitment.

In fact, the American Revolution (not at all a socialist revolution) was shepherded by a small percentage of the American public. Most Americans wanted to keep their heads down, but a small minority pushed for Liberty.

I don’t think America is close to revolution or civil war, but the problem I see is that people like DSA are ideologically committed. They would be willing to shoot people in the streets. They are the sorts who win political struggles (because numbers don’t matter all that much). On our side, we have the numbers, and we have the guns — but would that matter? We are gentlemen. We are (often) Christians. We play by the rules, we compromise, negotiate, and try to reason with our opponents. We are not likely to shoot people in the streets. And in the end, that may be why we would lose. The butchers have a big advantage.

[redfreedom]

It’s easy to see why some people go for socialism/communism.

I know of one family living in Kalifornia that I am thinking of. They lack motivation and are heavy weed smokers. The weed makes them single issue voters, so anything Kalifornia does really does not matter as long as they get their Mary Jane.

The lady’s parents are rich. The dopers were $100,000 in debt, so mommy and daddy help them out. When raising pot as a farming business became legal in Kalifornia, they bought their kids 100 pot plants at $125 a piece. Growing pot on a farming basis could have been very lucrative. But no, they dried and smoked the plants. Why should they work when they can get free stuff?

So as long as someone takes care of them and they get their weed to smoke, who cares if Kalifornia has high crime, high taxes and mass illegal immigration? Who cares is Kalifornia goes full commie?

[Track9]

Mr. Moller writes well. The history of Utopianism should be required study in every school house. Kids should be able to identify and sight the mental traps it lays for human nature.

[KrisKrinkle]

“The opposing group is rendered alien, inherently defective, and cosmically dangerous. “

Now, who would that be?

[Track9]

Charlie Kirk’s murder certainly proves your point.

[marktwain]

The money quote:

“Rational politics accepts the limits of knowledge, the permanence of conflicting interests, and the necessity of institutional restraints on power. Socialist doctrine denies those limits.”

[chajin]

Let’s put it another way. Communism is the Christian societal organization without God, sin, or salvation. Marx thought we could create heaven on earth where everyone took care of everyone else. The problem is that most people don’t want to take care of everyone else, so if everyone is going to participate most people must be forced—and for those who refuse to accept the role of a slave, they must be removed, either by exile (camps) or death.

In Christianity, those who accept Christ become part of the Christian “collective,” meaning the body of Christ, and those who refuse receive their choice of an eternity without Christ, which is hell. Since Marxism is trying to be heaven on earth, its hell must also be on earth, and the refuseniks must be separated from the collective.

The problem in Marxism is that the bulk of the collective is not there because they believe in the cause, but because they are willing to fake belief for the sake of avoiding the camps or death. So you don’t have a society of happy workers, but rather a society of passive aggressive people who work as little as possible and take as much as possible (which usually isn’t much)—you have the Soviet Union, or North Korea, or Turkmenistan, or, today, Manhattan.

[chajin]

And one more thing. The American Revolution was successful in the long run because it wasn’t a revolution; it was a reformation, an attempt to form a society on the basis of the doctrines of British political science, which itself emanated from a combination of Aristotle and Christ. The French, the Russians, the Chinese, they had revolutions, and the end is always worse than the precursor. America formed a society based on British reforms that the British would not allow us to establish, so we had to separate—just as Martin Luther attempted to reform the church to bring it back to its original principles, and ended up being forced to separate.

[iontheball]

Wow! Cudos to Lars on producing what should be a mandatory read for all those now flirting with the foolishness of attaining utopia by following Communist dreamers. It’s a scary story for sure but one that lives on only because of man’s ignorance and forgetfulness of his past.

[Albion Wilde]

[DownInFlames]

Our government across all the states is just as corrupt and culpable as was with the Republic of South Vietnam. How long until we start having coup after coup without the aid and support of a country like America back then.