The Chinese Communist Party’s Support of Terrorism
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has long supported terrorist activities abroad, including those of Palestinian terrorist leader Yasser Arafat. Helping to pioneer the tactic of hijacking commercial airlines, Arafat targeted U.S. forces and became an inspiration for Osama bin Laden.
The CCP’s Support of Yasser Arafat’s Terrorist Activities
Arafat started the Palestinian National Liberation Movement (FATAH) in 1959 and established the state of Palestine in November 1988. Until his death in 2004, he was the leading figure of various Palestinian militant organizations. Arafat was likely the CCP’s favorite Middle Easterner. He visited China fourteen times and met nearly every Chinese communist leader, including Mao Zedong, Zhou Enlai, Deng Xiaoping, and Jiang Zemin.
In 1964, Arafat established al-‘Asifah (“The Storm”), FATAH’s military wing, after which he immediately went to Beijing to meet with Chinese premier Zhou Enlai. Zhou reminded him to pay attention to his strategy and not to use counterproductive slogans such as those calling for the complete destruction of Israel.
Besides providing weapons and financial support, Beijing often guided Palestine on how to wage conflict with the United States and Israel while expanding its influence on the international scene. The CCP also invited Palestinians to receive training in China. In January 1965, Arafat declared war on Israel in north Palestine using his guerrilla organizations. In May 1965, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) set up an office in Beijing. In an unprecedented move, China afforded the PLO office diplomatic treatment and openly supported the PLO in various international events.
In November 1988, the nineteenth session of the Palestinian National Council announced the independence of the Palestinian state. Beijing immediately acknowledged it and established diplomatic relations on Nov. 20.
Arafat and the then-CCP general secretary Jiang Zemin visited each other in 2000 and 2001, a time in which bloody conflicts broke out on a large scale between Palestine and Israel. Israel repeatedly condemned Arafat for his role in the violence. With the CCP’s support, Arafat was able to contend with the United States and Israel while further damaging the stability of the Middle East.
The PLO and FATAH were involved in various open and underground militant terrorist activities. They claimed that violent revolution was the only way to liberate the country, an ideology that follows the same doctrine of communist movements. Arafat was very close to other communist countries. He was a member of the Socialist International, and FATAH was an observer in the Party of European Socialists (PES).
The United States and Israel have marked Arafat as the man behind a number of terrorist attacks in the Middle East. The White House identified FATAH and the PLO as terrorist organizations and closed the Palestine Information Office in 1987.
In 1970, FATAH planned and carried out the unsuccessful assassination of Jordan’s King Hussein bin Talal. In September that year, FATAH hijacked three commercial planes from Britain, Germany, and Switzerland in front of the television cameras. The terrorists claimed that hijacking a plane had a greater effect than killing a hundred Israelis in battle.
In 1972, the terrorist group Black September, a militant faction of FATAH, carried out a terrorist massacre of Israeli athletes at the Olympic Games in Munich. The person who planned and carried out this massacre was Ali Hassan Salameh, Arafat’s head of security and director of FATAH intelligence. In addition to the eleven Israelis killed in the attack, a West German police officer also died. Arafat was one of the first militants to target innocent civilians in his operations.
Qutb’s writings influenced many young Arabs, including the Palestinian scholar and later one of the founders of Al-Qaeda, Abdullah Yusuf Azzam. The 9/11 Commission Report outlined Qutb’s influence on bin Laden’s worldview, and also referred to Azzam directly as “a disciple of Qutb.”
Muhammad Qutb, Sayyid Qutb’s younger brother, was also one of the primary transmitters of Qutb’s views. Muhammad Qutb later went to Saudi Arabia and became a professor who conducted research on Islam, and at the same time, was also responsible for editing, publishing, and promoting his late brother’s theories.
Bin Laden read Qutb’s books when he was a student, and he was familiar with Muhammad Qutb, regularly attending the latter’s weekly public lectures. The former CIA official who oversaw the group in charge of bin Laden, Michael Scheuer, also senior researcher at The Jamestown Foundation, described Muhammad Qutb as bin Laden’s mentor.
The aforementioned Al-Qaeda second-in-command, Ayman al-Zawahiri, is also a fanatical disciple of Sayyib Qutb. When he was a youth, Zawahiri repeatedly heard from his uncle about Qutb’s character and how great he was to suffer in prison. After Qutb’s death, Zawahiri wrote in his memoirs: “The Nasserite regime thought that the Islamic movement received a deadly blow with the execution of Sayyid Qutb and his comrades, but the apparent surface calm concealed an immediate interaction with Sayyid Qutb’s ideas and the formation of the nucleus of the modern Islamic jihad movement in Egypt.”
In the year that Qutb was hanged, Zawahiri, then 15, helped form an underground militant cell determined to “put Qutb’s vision into action.” After that, Zawahiri joined the Egyptian Islamic Jihad and later became bin Laden’s mentor and an important member of Al-Qaeda. After bin Laden was killed, Zawahiri became the leader of Al-Qaeda.
Glenn E. Robinson, the Middle East expert quoted above, said that in the Sunni Muslim world, Qutb is the most important thinker who emphasized violent jihad. Virtually all the concepts and innovations of the Sunni jihad groups can be found in Qutb’s books. Although the various jihadi groups may differ in form, they all share one point in common, namely, the use of violence under the banner of Islam to realize their political aims.
The 1981 assassination of the Egyptian president Anwar Sadat by the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, and the Egyptian terrorist group al-Gamma al-Islamiyah’s attacks against government officials, secular intellectuals, Egyptian Christians, and tourists in the 1990s are all steps in the campaign to bring about Qutb’s vision.
The radical jihadi groups that pursue Qutb’s ideology are categorized as Salafi jihadi terrorists. Robert Manne, professor of politics at La Trobe University, in Melbourne, Australia, called Qutb the “father of Salafi jihadism” and the “forerunner of the Islamic State.” In his book The Mind of the Islamic State: ISIS and the Ideology of the Caliphate, he wrote: “Fifty years after Sayyid Qutb’s execution, this is what the tradition of Salafi jihadism, the mind of the Islamic State, has become. There are no more milestones to pass. We have finally reached the gates of hell.”
The report A Persistent Threat: The Evolution of al Qaeda and Other Salafi Jihadists by the Rand Corporation in America outlined Qutb’s influence on Salafi jihadis, and at the same time listed more than 40 Salafi jihadi groups. They are active across almost all continents.
Looking at the various extremist Islamic organizations in existence, although they lack a united vision and are given to ideological infighting, there is one trait common to the overwhelming majority of them: Qutb’s aggressive form of jihad. They have essentially inherited Qutb’s work, which is communist revolution in a different form.
Class struggle is another Marxist idea central to Islamic extremism. Karl Marx spent his whole life trying to incite conflicts between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie in order to amplify these conflicts to the point of no return and finally “solve” the conflict through revolution. The Islamic extremists operate in much the same way.
Did destroying the World Trade Center in Manhattan do anything to help realize the united Muslim world that Qutb wanted? Absolutely not. It was merely a means of exacerbating the conflict between the Western and Muslim worlds. In the West, the terrorist attacks incited hatred of Muslims, and vice versa in the Muslim countries. Their method is the same as the conflicts between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie promoted by Marx and Lenin in order to create the conditions needed for launching revolution.
It is no exaggeration to say that Qutb’s theories bear greater resemblance to communism than to traditional Islam. While the Islamic extremists profess a religious opposition to communism, in fact, they absorbed the pure essentials of communist revolutionary doctrine. As one scholar has noted, “The arguments made here are that the real enemy confronting the free world remains Communism and that radical Islam is nothing more than Communism cloaked in the traditional garments of Islam.”
It is not only in the Muslim world where violent extremism has been introduced. The Western counterculture movement spread leftist ideology around the world, and with it Lenin’s terrorist teachings. Finnish political historian Antero Leitzinger believes that modern terrorism was born between the years of 1966 and 1967, developing at the same time as the international communist movement. According to Leitzinger, this is no coincidence. In the 1960s, as radical student movements ran amok in the West, many foreign-exchange students from the Muslim world became connected to leftist thought and brought leftist concepts such as violent revolution back home with them.
In 1974, Abdallah Schleifer, professor in media research at the American University in Cairo, met Ayman al-Zawahiri, who later became second in command of Al-Qaeda. Al-Zawahiri, who was studying medicine at Cairo University at the time, boasted that Islamic extremist groups recruited the most members from elite institutions, such as medical and engineering schools. Schleifer replied that he was not surprised: During the 1960s, these schools had the highest concentrations of young Marxists. He noted that Islamism was simply a new trend that developed in the student revolts of the 1960s.
Schleifer recalled: “I said, ‘Listen, Ayman, I’m an ex-Marxist. When you talk, I feel like I’m back in the Party. I don’t feel as if I’m with a traditional Muslim.’”
It is curious that many associate Islamic extremism with fascism (Islamofascism), and for various reasons, fail to mention its communist origins. Fascism is a form of nationalism and has no particular religious background. When considering Islamic extremism in terms of its overall approach and doctrine, it becomes apparent that it shares more in common with communism.
Qutb’s writings are replete with vocabulary familiar to students of Marxism-Leninism, such as “vanguard,” “state,” “revolution,” and the like. The situation and challenges Lenin faced at the time of writing his pamphlet What Is to Be Done? mirrors the circumstances faced by Qutb as he formulated his own radical ideology. Lenin placed all hope for a successful revolution on a proletarian vanguard party. Qutb copied this theory and replaced the Leninist political party with Islamic extremist organizations.
Lenin puts heavy emphasis on the importance of organization and the vanguard. He identifies a clear distinction between spontaneity and consciousness, and coined the idea of party-building. According to Lenin, with only spontaneous action, workers can only make superficial demands, such as pay raises and eight-hour work days, but they lack the consciousness needed to liberate mankind.
Lenin believes that external vanguards (usually bourgeois intellectuals, who have the privilege of education) are required to incite and indoctrinate the workers, so that they realize that revolution is their only way out, and reach the understanding that only by liberating the entire mankind can themselves be liberated. In order to fully utilize the vanguard, a tightly knit political party is needed to totally arrange their activities and provide them with opportunities for underground work as professional revolutionaries. This political party, the proletarian political party, is the proletariat vanguard.
Glenn E. Robinson, associate professor at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California, and Research Fellow at the Center for Middle Eastern Studies, University of California–Berkeley, said of radical Islam: “Although for obvious reasons jihadi ideologues do not cite Lenin as an inspiration, their concepts and logic, especially Sayyid Qutb’s, betray this influence. Having been educated in Egypt in the 1940s, Qutb would certainly have been exposed to Lenin’s writings. Two key concepts from Qutb come straight from Lenin: jama’a (vanguard) and manhaj (program).”
Drawing from the essence of Leninism, Qutb advocated the organization of a Muslim version of the Leninist vanguard party.
“Qutb made precisely the same argument for the Muslim world,” Robinson wrote. “The vast majority of Muslims were too caught up in and corrupted by the system of unjust and anti-Islamic rule to know how and when to take up arms against the state. A dedicated vanguard of jihadi cadres was needed to organize direct action against the state.” Also, “Lenin’s insistence on the centrality of the vanguard’s having a detailed and coherent program for undertaking and then consolidating the revolution was likewise echoed, with an Islamic tone, in Qutb’s writings.”
To Qutb, this vanguard, which consists of what he calls “true Muslims” — or extremists — has the revolutionary mission of liberating all Muslims and the whole of human civilization. The vanguard must strike hard on false Muslims, follow Islamic ideology as determined by Qutb’s interpretation, establish a new nation based on Islamism, and use violence to impose Islam on the rest of the world.
In addition to the vanguard, Qutb’s theory also includes rhetoric advocating “social equality,” elimination of classes, anti-government activity, and the liberation of mankind. All these points echo the stated aims of communism.
After Qutb’s death, his brother Muhammad Qutb continued to publish his books. The book Ma’arakat ul-Islam war-Ra’samaaliyyah, published in 1993, again exposes Qutb’s communist inspiration. Qutb blatantly states that Islam is a “unique, constructive and positivist aqidah, which has been moulded and shaped from Christianity and Communism together, [with a] blending in the most perfect of ways and which comprises all of their (i.e. Christianity’s and Communism’s) objectives and adds in addition to them harmony, balance and justice.”
The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, heralded a major shift in world affairs. Osama bin Laden and his Al-Qaeda took front-page news as the threat of Islamic extremism gained prominence.
For the vast majority of people around the world, 9/11 came as a shock and a tragedy. But in China, under the CCP’s censorship, reactions were quite different. From internet forums and chat rooms to university cafeterias, large numbers of people rooted for the terrorists, with comments such as “good job!” and “We strongly support the acts of justice against the United States.” According to a survey of 91,701 people on NetEase, a major Chinese website, only 17.8 percent of respondents expressed strong opposition to the terrorist attacks, while a majority of people chose “opposition to the United States” or “the best is yet to come” in regard to the catastrophe.
The Chinese who cheered the terrorist attacks had never met bin Laden and his ilk, but the roots of their toxic thinking were the same. The Chinese have been poisoned by communist propaganda and Communist Party culture since childhood. Logically, however, one would wonder what connection this could possibly have with bin Laden, who had fought against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.
The ideological source of bin Laden’s Islamic extremism can be traced back to Sayyid Qutb, the Egyptian pioneer of Islamic terrorism, a man who could be described as the Marx of Islamic jihad and who is often referred to as the “godfather of modern jihad.”
a. Sayyid Qutb: The Marx of Islamic Extremism
William McCants, counter-terrorism expert and former researcher at the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point, has observed that Islamic extremists often refer to Qutb’s teachings when explaining their motivations, and that many of them regard themselves as his successors. Ayman al-Zawahiri, the leader of Al-Qaeda following the death of bin Laden, regarded Qutb’s thought as being the spark to ignite the fire of jihadi extremism.
In 2016, Middle East expert Hassan Hassan published a report with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace called The Sectarianism of the Islamic State: Ideological Roots and Political Context. Toward the end of the report, Hassan quoted a popular summary of the Islamic State’s essential doctrine: “The Islamic State was drafted by Sayyid Qutb, taught by Abdullah Azzam, globalized by Osama bin Laden, transferred to reality by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, and implemented by al-Baghdadis: Abu Omar and Abu Bakr.”
Bin Laden and later the Islamic State (ISIS) adopted and expanded on the ideology of Qutb. In a nutshell, Qutbism is the pursuit of violence to destroy the rotten old society, or “jahiliya,” calling upon jihadis to lay down their lives for an ideology that will supposedly usher in human liberation.
This bombastic style calls to mind the writings of Marx and Lenin, and with good reason: Qutb was a member of the Communist Party in his youth, and his ideas were steeped in the rhetoric of Marxism-Leninism. Robert R. Reilly, a senior fellow at the U.S. Foreign Policy Committee, has said that Qutb was actually a Communist International liaison for the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood and the Communist Party of Egypt.
Born in 1906, Qutb studied socialism and literature in the 1920s and 1930s. By 1940, he had already studied abroad in the United States for two years, and joined the Muslim Brotherhood after his return to Egypt. Qutb had always had contact with army lieutenant Gamal Abdel Nasser, leader of the socialist-leaning Free Officer Movement.
In 1952, Nasser launched a military coup overthrowing the Muhammad Ali dynasty, a pro-Western monarchy. It is said that this socialist-revolution coup was planned by Qutb and the Brotherhood together with Nasser. However, while Qutb hoped Nasser would establish an Islamic regime, Nasser instead took the path of secularization, and in 1954 began suppressing the Muslim Brotherhood.
Qutb and the Brotherhood prepared to assassinate Nasser. The plot failed, and Qutb was accused of attempted murder and imprisoned. During his three years in prison, Qutb suffered severe torture. Later, conditions became more lax, and he was allowed to write. He wrote his two most important works while in prison — In the Shade of the Qur’an and Milestones. These two books, covering his views on the Qur’an, Islamic history, Egypt, and Western society, laid out in full his advocacy of anti-secular, anti-Western extremism.
Qutb was once briefly released from prison. He did not take the opportunity to leave Egypt and was jailed again. In 1966, Qutb was convicted of his involvement in the conspiracy to assassinate President Nasser and was executed by hanging.
Qutb’s subversive thinking bestowed the Islamic concept of jihad with a new interpretation. Upon mention of jihad, many immediately think of “holy war.” In Arabic, jihad simply means to struggle or to fight. To mainstream Muslims, it can be taken to mean internal conflict (self-perfection) or defensive jihad. Qutb extended this definition to include proactive and unbridled use of violence in the holy war of jihad and laid out its theoretical foundations. Qutb took pride in walking up to the gallows and becoming a religious martyr.
Qutb’s philosophy held that any social system that abided by secular laws or ethics was an anti-Islamic “old society” — jahiliya (ignorance of religious truth, originally referring to society before the spread of Islam). Even a society that claimed itself Muslim could still be jahiliya. Qutb considered the Egyptian social system in which he lived to be one in which jahiliya was dominant, and therefore it had to be overthrown.
According to Qutb, jahiliya was the greatest obstruction for both Muslims and non-Muslims, preventing them from fulfillment of Islamic values and law. He claimed that the old society had been forced on people and in the process, robbed them of their freedom. These enslaved people — analogous to the working class in Marxism — had the right to wage jihad to overthrow the oppression of jahiliya. Qutb advocated jihad as the means of liberation for all mankind, Muslim as well as non-Muslim. When Qutb’s books became public, many Islamic leaders thought Qutb had gone too far and regarded his ideas as heresy.
Qutb further borrowed the Marxist concept of “false consciousness,” which refers to the ordinary masses’ acceptance of the ruler’s ideals and culture. This consciousness thus prevents them from perceiving their own oppression or overthrowing capitalism in favor of socialism. For Qutb, those living under jahiliya don’t realize they are slaves, which is why they do not engage in jihad to emancipate themselves.
“What is to be done?” as Lenin put it in his pamphlet by that name. Qutb had the same question, so he looked to Lenin for a solution.
On the morning of September 11, 2001, terrorists hijacked passenger airliners and flew them into the World Trade Center twin towers in New York, as well as the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., killing nearly 3,000 people. It was the first time since the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor that the United States suffered a blow of this scale on its own soil. The 9/11 attacks had worldwide impact. The United States launched a global War on Terror, overthrowing the Islamic regime in Afghanistan and the Iraqi dictatorship of Saddam Hussein.
The public has since become familiar with the terrorist movement and its representatives, such as Al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. Few, however, are aware of the close relationship between terrorism and communism.
The terms “terrorism” and “terrorist” first appeared in 1795 as a reference to the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution, which laid the foundations for the communist movement (see Chapter Two of this book).
In the modern world, terrorism comes primarily in three forms: state terrorism under communist regimes, terrorist activity carried out abroad by the agents of communist regimes with the aim of spreading violent revolution, and Islamic extremism, which owes much of its ideology and methods to communism.
State Terrorism Under Communist Regimes
The communist century is a century of lies, violence, and killing. Terrorism is an important tool for communists to spread their ideology around the world. The rise of a communist regime, in turn, results without exception in the mobilization of the state machine to impose terrifying brutality. This government-sponsored repression is state terrorism.
Vladimir Lenin relied on terrorism to take power in Russia. In 1918, Felix Dzerzhinsky, whom Lenin regarded as a revolutionary hero for his role as director of the All-Russian Extraordinary Commission (Cheka), said plainly, “We stand for organized terror — this should be frankly admitted.”
The Marxist Karl Kautsky, who in 1919 published Terrorism and Communism, gave a comprehensive overview of what would come to pass under the proletarian dictatorship that Lenin sought to establish. Examining the violence of the French Revolution, Kautsky concluded that Lenin’s Bolsheviks had inherited the terrorist character of the Jacobins and would repeat it.
Yuri N. Afanasyev, a Russian historian, blamed Lenin for founding a policy of state terror, violence, and lawlessness: ”Violence is actually our entire history,” Afanasyev said.
Following the creation of the Soviet Union, the communist regimes of Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, Fidel Castro, Erich Honecker, Nicolae Ceaușescu, Kim Il Sung, and other despots all depended on killing to maintain their power. The violence and barbarism of their state terror has been addressed in previous chapters.
Violence and murder comprise but one component of communism’s terrorist agenda. Even more destructive is how communism uses the combined powers of political and religious fervor to indoctrinate people with communist party culture, planting the seeds of deceit, hatred, and violence to be passed from generation to generation.
Prosperity and Peace Can Be Obtained Only Through Morality
Striving for happiness is human nature. A prosperous economy can bring happiness, yet the economy does not exist in a vacuum. When the path of economic development deviates from ethics and morality, an economic crisis may follow. A society that is merely wealthy is not only incapable of bringing joy and happiness, but its prosperity will be short-lived. As the foundation of ethics and morality crumbles, a disastrous outcome may await.
In 2010, People’s Daily reported that despite the economic development, the Gross National Happiness Index has been on annual decline in China. The world’s second-largest economy is plagued with corruption, environmental pollution, and food-safety incidents, making the Chinese people extremely insecure about their lives. In this case, wealth has increased as morality and happiness have declined.
This reflects the fatal flaw in communism: Human beings are not composed only of flesh, but far more of the mind and the spirit. Before man came to the world, God laid down the path that his life would take. The Chinese say “every bite and every sip is preordained,” analogous to how faithful Westerners say grace before dinner to thank God for his providence. People who believe in God understand that wealth is a grace bestowed upon them by God. They have a humble and thankful heart, and hence they are content and happy.
Among those on the Titanic as the ship sank was millionaire John Jacob Astor IV, whose fortune could have built thirty Titanics. Yet when facing death, he chose what he thought was morally correct and protected women and children—he gave his spot to two terrified children.  Similarly, Isidor Straus, co-owner of Macy’s department store said, “I will not go before the other men.” His wife also refused to get on a lifeboat, giving her place to Ms. Ellen Bird, their new housemaid. She chose to spend her final moments with her husband. 
These people of great wealth chose to put traditional values and faith before the opportunity to save their assets and lives. Their choice of morality and justice manifests the radiance of human civilization and human nature: A noble character is more valuable than life, which is yet more valuable than wealth.
Mr. Li Hongzhi, the founder of Falun Dafa, wrote in “Wealth and Virtue”:
It is the duty of the ruler and officials to bring wealth to the populace, yet promotion of money-worship is the worst policy one could adopt. Wealth without virtue (de) will harm all sentient beings, while wealth with virtue is what all people hope for. Therefore, one cannot be affluent without advocating virtue.
Virtue is accumulated in past lives. Becoming a king, an official, wealthy, or nobility all come from virtue. No virtue, no gain; the loss of virtue means the loss of everything. Thus, those who seek power and wealth must first accumulate virtue. By suffering hardships and doing good deeds one can accumulate virtue among the masses. To achieve this, one must understand the principle of cause and effect. Knowing this can enable officials and the populace to exercise self-restraint, and prosperity and peace will thereby prevail under heaven. 
If humankind maintains the aforementioned values for wealth and life, the economic challenges rooted in human beings’ greed, sloth, and jealousy will be reduced considerably. Once mankind suppresses its selfish desires, the ideology of communism will no longer be able to lure the human heart. Then God will bless mankind with high standards of morality. Consequently, we will have the ideal economy for mankind: wealth for the world, calmness in our hearts, and peace in society.
The communist specter has made intricate arrangements to destroy mankind. Its economic arrangements are only one part of the story. To free ourselves from the control of communist “ideals,” we need to unpack the conspiracy, identify the fraudulent messages, and stop putting our hope in this bankrupt ideology. We also need to restore traditional values and recover morality and virtue. Thus, humanity will be able to embrace everlasting prosperity and happiness and have true peace. Human civilization will then radiate with new vitality.
The loss of jobs in the manufacturing sector in the United States is a well-known phenomenon. But many people don’t realize that unions are one of the main culprits. Unions claim to help obtain benefits for the working class, but they do the opposite. How? This is clear by tracking the history of unions and the transformation of their mission.
Trade unions were initially founded by members of the working class with few or no skills, for the purpose of negotiating with management. To a certain extent, a trade union is able to broker and resolve conflicts between workers and capitalists. But communist elements took the union and turned it into a tool to promote communist movements and policies.
Friedrich Engels wrote on the topic: “The time also is rapidly approaching when the working class will have understood that the struggle for high wages and short hours, and the whole action of Trades Unions as now carried on, is not an end in itself, but a means, a very necessary and effective means, but only one of several means towards a higher end: the abolition of the wages system altogether.” 
Lenin believed that the formation and legalization of trade unions is an important means for the working class to seize the leadership of the democratic revolution from the capitalist class. At the same time, he believed that the trade union would become the pillar of the communist party and a key force in class struggle. In his speech, Lenin proposed that trade unions become “a school of communism” and a link between the communist party and the masses. The daily work of the trade union was to convince the masses and bring them to the transition from capitalism to communism. “The trade unions are a ‘reservoir’ of the state power.” 
In the mid to late 19th century, communist and left-wing forces used trade unions to incite workers to go on large-scale strikes, make harsh demands on capital, and even take violent measures to destroy machinery and factories. The trade unions became a powerful weapon for communism to combat capitalism and carry on political struggle—creating chaos for the world so that it could further its goals.
In October 1905, more than 1.7 million workers in Russia participated in a nationwide political strike and paralyzed the country’s economy. During this time, the Petrograd Soviet, an even more aggressive union organization, was formed. Lenin called it the sprouting of a revolutionary government and believed that it would become the political center of Russia. In other words, the Soviet regime built during the 1917 October Revolution originated from the trade union. 
Trade unions in Western and developed countries are also widely infiltrated and used by communist elements. Workers and capitalists are supposed to be symbiotic, yet communists try to provoke, expand, and intensify conflict between them. One of its most important tools is the trade union. Trade unions are used to escalate the bargaining process between management and workers to the level of a struggle between classes. They rationalize and intensify the confrontational side of the relationship and use it to legitimize their own existence. From then on, unions inflame the workers’ dissatisfaction, blame the capitalists for any problems, and provoke conflict between the two. This has been one of the unions’ keys for survival.
Trade unions may be able to bring workers profit in small ways for a short period of time, but from a long-term economic point of view, the biggest victim under the union movements led by communists is the working class. This is because when capitalist enterprises crumble, the biggest losers are the workers, who lose their jobs and livelihoods. On the surface, trade unions are fighting for the interests of workers, but in fact they are undermining industrial competitiveness. There are two reasons for this.
First, under the pretext of protecting workers’ rights and interests, unions make it difficult for enterprises to lay off employees who don’t perform and who achieve little. This gives rise to a culture of laziness. Not only is this unfair to employees who work diligently, but it also makes them less proactive. The most important factor in the growth of a company is its workers, but with the union’s umbrella of protection over employees who fail to perform, enterprises lose their competitiveness.
Second, under the pretext of protecting employees’ welfare (including pensions, health insurance, and the like), unions constantly elevate enterprise costs. In the end, it forces companies to reduce their investment in research and development, also reducing their competitiveness. It also results in companies’ having to increase product prices, which also harms consumer interests. Studies show that this is why companies without unions, such as Toyota and Honda, were able to produce high-quality cars at lower costs, and why American automobile factories with labor unions in Detroit became less competitive. 
As Edwin Feulner, founder of the American Heritage Foundation, said of unions: “They function like an albatross around a company’s neck—making it less flexible, less able to react wisely to the demands of a changing marketplace.” 
All this is aggravated with union monopolies in the labor market. This then exerts deleterious influence over business decisions and results in numerous unreasonable demands, some of them harsh. Enterprises who fail to meet these union demands are then the targets of struggle, including strikes and protests, which further disable business.
The United Auto Workers (UAW) is the union representing the autoworkers in Detroit. The UAW routinely went on strike. Prior to the financial crisis in 2008, the union demanded $70 an hour in wages and benefits. Consequently, the U.S. automobile manufacturing industry was almost on the brink of bankruptcy. 
The loss of job opportunities in the U.S. manufacturing industry is now known to all, but many people don’t know that unions are a key driver of the job losses. Unionized manufacturing jobs fell by 75 percent between 1977 and 2008, while non-union manufacturing employment increased by 6 percent over that time, according to the Heritage Foundation. The situation outside the manufacturing sector is also similar. Take the construction industry for instance. “Unlike the manufacturing sector, the construction industry has grown considerably since the late 1970s. However, in the aggregate, that growth has occurred exclusively in non-union jobs, expanding 159 percent since 1977.” 
In addition, labor unions are the tools employed by communist elements to promote egalitarianism in enterprises. The Heritage Foundation notes that unions demand that companies pay wages according to the length of service of the employee (equivalent to years of service in socialist countries), without regard to the employee’s contribution to the company or performance. This has the predictable effect of suppressing the wages of more productive workers and raising the wages of the less competent.” 
The idea at work here is the same as absolute egalitarianism under communism, which is effectively the redistribution of wealth among employees within the enterprise. The interference with internal decision-making of enterprises and the monopoly of the labor market is an erosion of the free market.
Unions’ aggressive advocacy for what they describe as workers’ welfare ends up favoring some workers over others and puts a drag on individual companies and the economy as a whole. A survey conducted in 2005 showed that “most union households disapprove of American unions,” and that “the main reason for their disapproval is never openly discussed in union media or addressed at union conventions.” 
In all respects, those workers who are truly diligent have become victims, and communism has become the biggest winner. Fundamentally, communists use labor unions to destroy the capitalist free economy, subvert the capitalist system, and undermine the normal life of man in a gradual and step-by-step manner.
Labor unions infiltrated by communism and under the guidance of the progressive movement have evolved into a special interest group, similar to a large-scale for-profit corporation. The leadership has huge personal interests in the enterprise, and corruption is common. 
In democratic countries, labor unions have largely become a tool for leftists to fight against capitalism. They single-mindedly demand “social justice” and “fairness,” creating a huge welfare burden on society and industry, and becoming an obstacle for reform and attempts to improve efficiency in the manufacturing, service, and education industries, as well as in government administration. When the time is not ripe, they hide, but when conditions are favorable, they come out and mobilize a social movement to promote their ends. Labor unions have thus become a wedge communism uses to divide free societies.
The Promotion of Economic Egalitarianism: A Stepping Stone to Communism
Under the influence of absolute egalitarianism, there are vigorous calls in the West for “social justice,” as well as minimum-wage laws, affirmative action, equal pay for equal work, and other demands. What lies behind these demands is a desire for an equality of outcome; behind them are elements of communism. If careless about these matters, man can easily find himself falling into a trap.
From the communist perspective, it doesn’t matter whether these vulnerable groups obtain equality or if their social status improves. They are merely pawns for inciting resentment. If communists get what they demand, then they will simply make new demands for equality, and there will be no end to it. If they don’t achieve their demands, they will wage a war of public opinion, incite resentment, strengthen people’s notions about the justice of equality, and turn these notions into a major platform on which to influence public opinion.
Because communism incites resentment in multiple fields and via so many different means, once all the resentment explodes at the same time, social turmoil and perhaps even revolution will be the result. Communists will always be able to find vulnerable groups and then demand financial equality for them, repeating the process until absolute equality is achieved. These demands for so-called social justice become a stepping stone for the path toward communism. Free countries in the West have been eroded by communist ideology — this is simply the reality.
In reality, the implementation of these policies often results in the opposite of what is intended. Those who are supposed to be protected by these policies are instead discriminated against and attacked. Take the minimum-wage law, for example. On the surface, its goal is to protect the rights of workers, but the effect is that many factories simply stop hiring because it is uneconomical for them to do so. As a result, even more workers lose their jobs.
Skills are not gained all at once. There’s a continuous process of progress and elevation of skill, capability, and work ethic. The result of enforcing a minimum wage is that people don’t get trained and socialized in lower-wage jobs and then work their way toward higher-paying jobs. The one-size-fits-all approach also violates economic theory and results in excessive government intervention in the economy.
People also use the excuse of “equal pay for equal work” to demand social revolution. They cite statistics and claim that the average wage of black males is less than the average wage of white males, that the average female wage is less than the average male wage, and that these discrepancies are the result of racism and sexism. In reality, such comparisons are not appropriate.
When comparing apples and apples, the results are different. Some scholars’ research found that for black families where both husband and wife graduated from college or higher, their income is in fact higher than similarly situated white families.  Simply because black families of this type are relatively fewer, there are discrepancies between the races overall in income. Making meaningful and accurate comparisons would appear to be common sense, but when communist elements are inciting discord and struggle, people seem to suffer a selective loss of vision.
Communism does not care about the well-being of vulnerable groups. It is simply interested in slogans that drag people down the road to communism and thus destruction.
Hatred and Jealousy: The Origin of Absolute Egalitarianism
Communism advocates absolute egalitarianism. Superficially this may sound like a high-sounding term, leading many to blindly believe in its rectitude. However, it also evokes hatred and jealousy. One consequence of egalitarianism is that people can’t tolerate the success of others, with others being wealthier, having better lives, easier work, and more luxurious living conditions. Everyone must be equal, in this reading: I should have what you have, and I can get what you get. In such a universe, everyone is equal and the world is alike.
Absolute egalitarianism is reflected in at least two ways. First, when people are not yet equal, they become dissatisfied with their economic status, which is a fast route for evildoers to incite envy and hatred. People come to covet what others have and even seek it through improper or violent means. In extreme cases, they destroy others’ property and even kill to get rich. The worst manifestation of these tendencies is violent revolution.
In order to provoke dissatisfaction, Marx divides society into two opposite classes: those who own the means of production, and those who don’t. In the countryside, this becomes the landlord and the peasant; in the city it’s the capitalist and the worker. The result is to incite class hatred and use the supposedly disenfranchised to carry out violent revolution. The landlords are rich and the peasants are poor — seize their wealth! Why are the landlords rich? Everyone should be rich. Thus, the Chinese Communist Party called on peasants to engage in “land reform”—that is, attacking landlords and dividing up the land. If the landlords refuse to go along with it, they’re to be killed. The Communist Party first incited hooligans to make trouble, then encouraged the peasantry to rise up and attack the landlord class. The heads of millions of landowners fell.
Second, absolute egalitarianism also manifests within groups that have basically achieved a state of “equality”: If there are benefits, everyone gets an equal share. Anyone who stands out is censured. Everyone is treated the same whether one works more, works less, or even doesn’t work at all.
People appear the same on the surface, but each individual’s personality, intellect, physical strength, morality, occupation, role, education, living conditions, extent to which they can endure hardship and persevere, spirit to innovate, and so on are all different, and what one contributes to society is also different. Thus, why should the same outcome be sought for all? In this sense, inequality is actually true equality, while the equality pursued by communism is true inequality and true injustice. The ancients in China say that the way of Heaven is to reward those who work hard, and that Heaven will reward one according to the effort one puts in. Absolute egalitarianism is impossible in the real world.
Under absolute egalitarianism, you get the same outcome whether you do things well or do poorly, whether you are hardworking or lazy. Under the cover of egalitarianism, the lazy benefit, while those who work hard and are capable are penalized and even resented and viewed with hatred. Everyone slows down their pace to match the speed of the slowest. In actuality, this causes everyone to become lazy, to wait for someone else to contribute so that one can take advantage of it and jump on for the ride, gaining something for nothing, or grabbing from someone something that one does not have, resulting in widespread moral decline.
The hatred and jealousy that motivate absolute egalitarianism are the poisonous roots of communism’s economic perspective. Human nature has both good and evil inherent in it. Western faiths refer to the seven cardinal sins, while Eastern culture teaches that man has both Buddha nature and demon nature. Buddha nature manifests itself as kindness, the ability to endure hardship, and consideration of others. Demon nature manifests as selfishness, laziness, jealousy, malice, plunder, hatred, rage, lust, tyranny, disregard for life, inciting discord and creating trouble, creating and spreading rumors, getting something for nothing, and so on. The economic perspective adopted by communism deliberately stimulates demon nature, amplifying people’s jealousy, greed, laziness, and other evil factors, causing people to lose their humanity and forsake the traditional values held for thousands of years. It amplifies the worst in human nature and turns people into communist revolutionaries.
In The Theory of Moral Sentiments, Adam Smith said that morality is the foundation of mankind’s prosperity. Observing these general rules of morality “is required for the very existence of human society, which would crumble into nothing if mankind were not generally impressed with a reverence for those important rules of conduct.” 
Lawrence Kudlow, director of the U.S. National Economic Council, believes that economic prosperity must exist alongside morality. He wrote that if the United States can abide by the “foremost principle”—to adhere to the moral values that America was founded on—the development of the United States will be limitless. 
The negative consequences caused by absolute egalitarianism in countries around the world are not surprising. Communist egalitarianism uses the authority of the state to plunder private property and wealth belonging to others. On the one hand, this strengthens the authority and power of communist ideology, and on the other, it convinces people that it’s their right to get something for nothing. This is precisely how communism deceives people.