HOW COMMUNISM BEGAN
In order to understand Communism's birth, we must examine European culture
in the 18th and 19th centuries. Beginning in the second century
A.D. under the Emperor Constantine, Europe gradually accepted Christianity.
Christian culture held sway until the Enlightenment of the 18th
century, when a number of artists and thinkers began embracing the influence
of pagan Greek and Roman culture and consequently, rejecting the dictates
of religion. The Enlightenment's most important political result was the
French Revolution, which was not only an uprising against the ancient
regime, but at the same time, a revolt against religion.
The foundation of the French Revolution was established by the influence
of such anti-religious thinkers as Voltaire, Diderot and Montesquieu.
From 1789 on, the Enlightenment's pagan, anti-religious tendencies of
became obvious. After an intense propaganda campaign, the Jacobins came
to lead the revolution, established a movement against orthodox Catholicism,
and even managed to create a new religion. Revolutionary worship, seen
first during the national Feast of the Federation on July 14, 1790, spread
quickly. Robespierre, one of the leaders of the bloody revolution, explained
its rules and principles in a report, wherein he called it "The Worship
of Supreme Being."'Paris's famous Nôtre Dame cathedral was changed into
what he called the "Temple of Reason." Statues of Christian saints were
removed from the cathedral walls, replaced by the statue of an allegorical
woman called the "Goddess of Reason." In the course of the French Revolution,
many priests and nuns were killed; churches and monasteries were plundered
At the same time, the philosophy of materialism reawakened and began
to spread throughout Europe. Certain ancient Greek philosophers had first
proposed this philosophy, which believes that only matter exists, that
living things-indeed, human consciousness itself-are only "matter in motion."
In the 18th century, two important names in the French Revolution, Denis
Diderot and his close friend Baron d'Holbach, adopted this philosophy
and imposed it on the people. In his book called Système de la Nature
(The System of Nature) published in 1770, Baron d'Holbach used a few so-called
"scientific" suppositions to propose that only matter and energy existed.
A fanatical atheist, D'Holbach was opposed to the concept of morality
advocating that human beings should take all the pleasure they can and
do everything they can to get it.
Communism's roots stretch back to the French
Revolution, when hostility to religion was embodied by the "goddess
of reason." She later appeared on Communist posters, like the one
on the left.
In the 18th century, a few thinkers adopted materialism, but
it became much more widespread in the 19th, overflowing the
borders of France to take root in other European countries. At the beginning
of the 20th century, two important Materialist thinkers appeared in Germany:
Ludwig Büchner and Karl Vogt. Vogt tried to explain human rationality
in terms of a simile: "the brain secretes thought just as the liver secretes
bile." Not even the Materialists of his time accepted that nonsensical
Despite the proffering of such idiotic proposals, materialism was adopted
by anti-religious forces, who started to impose it on European societies.
Propaganda insisted that materialism was the foundation of reason and
science-a deception that quickly spread among the enlightened, moving
first from France to Germany and then, gradually, throughout the rest
of Europe. In this respect, Freemasonry was an important ally. Masons
adopted materialism as a religion and, in the 19th century, many enlightened
Europeans became its members.
As this ancient dogma spread, there were attempts to adapt materialism
to several branches of science:
1. To natural science, by the English naturalist Charles Darwin.
2. To social science, by the German philosophers Karl Marx and Friedrich
Darwin's adaptation is called the theory of evolution, while Marx and
Engel's is known as Communism.
Marx and Darwin
It's possible to say that Darwin's theory includes that of Marx and Engels,
because Communism is also a theory of "evolution" adapted to history and
sociology. Anton Pannekoek, a renowned Darwinist-Marxist thinker, sums
this up in his book Marxism and Darwinism published at the beginning of
the 20th century:
Engels (left) saw Darwin and Marx (right) as
equals, from the point of view of Communist theory. According to Engels,
Marx applied materialism to the social sciences, and Darwin applied
it to biology.
The scientific importance of Marxism
as well as of Darwinism consists in their following out the theory of
evolution, the one upon the domain of the organic world, of things
animate; the other, upon the domain of society… Thus, both teachings,
the teachings of Darwin and of Marx, the one in the domain of the organic
world and the other upon the field of human society, raised the theory
of evolution to a positive science. In doing this they made the theory
of evolution acceptable to the masses as the basic conception of social
and biological development.1
Darwinism and Marxism are fully compatible in two basic arguments:
1. Darwinism proposed that all existing
things consist of "matter in motion." This alleges that God neither created
nor ordered matter and that therefore, all life arose by chance. Human
beings are a species of animal, evolved from other, lesser animals. But
these claims rest on no scientific proof and have been proven false be
subsequent scientific discoveries. But Darwin's theory harmonizes with
the views of Marx and Engels, who believed that only matter existed, and
that the whole of human history can be explained in material terms. (For
more information, please refer to Darwinism Refuted:How the Theory of
Evolution Breaks Down in the Light of Modern Science by Harun Yahya, Goodword
Books, 2002 and The Evolution Deceit by Harun Yahya, Ta-Ha Publishers,
According to Plekhanov, a leader of Russian
Communism, Marxism is "Darwinism in its application to social sciences".
2. Darwinism proposed that "conflict"
is the motivating force that brought about development in living creatures.
His basic supposition was that the natural world's resources weren't sufficient
to support living things; that therefore, organisms had to fight a constant
struggle that drove evolution. The dialectical method adopted by Marx
and Engels is the same as Darwin's. According to dialectics, the single
motive force underlying development in the universe is the conflict between
opposites. Human history has progressed by means of this conflict. Humanity
itself has advanced in the same way.
When examined closely, the theories of Marx-Engels and Darwin appear
to be in total harmony, as if they have arisen from a single source. Darwin
applied materialist philosophy to nature, while Marx-Engels applied it
In fact, Karl Marx was the first to
realize Darwin's important contribution to materialism. Reading Darwin's
The Origin of Species after its publication in 1859, Marx found in it
great support for his own theory. A letter he wrote to Engels on December
19, 1860, says that Darwin's book "contains the basis in natural history
for our view."2 In a letter to Lassalle in January 16,
1861, he says, "Darwin's book is very important and serves me as a basis
in natural science for the class struggle in history."3
Marx's dedication to Darwin of his greatest work, Das Kapital, shows
the common mind that they shared. In the German edition of his book that
he sent Darwin, Marx wrote with his own hand, "To Charles Darwin from
a true admirer, from Karl Marx."
Engels also admired Darwin: "Nature
is the test of dialectics, and it must be said . . . that in the last
resort, nature works dialectically and not metaphysically . . . In this
connection, Darwin must be named before all others."4
Elsewhere, he said that, "Just as Darwin discovered the law of evolution
in organic nature, so Marx discovered the law of evolution in human history."5
Georgy Valentinovich Plekhanov, one of the leaders of
Russian Communism whom Lenin praised for his command of all international
Marxist literature, summed it up succinctly when he said that Marxism
is "Darwinism in its application to social sciences."6
Professor Malachi Martin, of the Vatican's Pontifical Bible Institute
explains the relation between Marx and Darwin in these words:
In denying creation, Darwin gave Communism a
supposedly scientific foundation. Therefore Trotsky, one of the bloody
leaders of the Bolshevik Revolution regarded Darwin as the proponent
of dialectic materialism in the field of the natural sciences.
. . . when Charles Darwin published his theory of evolution,
Marx regarded it as far more than theory. He seized upon it as his "scientific"
proof that there was no kingdom of Heaven, only the kingdom of Matter.
Darwin had vindicated Marx in his rejection of Hegel's [idealism]. Ignoring
the fact that Darwin's theory of evolution was just that a theory. . .
Marx adapted Darwin's ideas to the social classes of his day. . . Darwin's
theory of evolution being what it was, Marx reasoned that the social classes,
like all matter, must always be in struggle with each other for survival
also note the strong bond between Darwinism and Marxism. One of today's
most famous proponents of the theory of evolution is the biologist Douglas
Futuyma. In the preface to his Evolutionary Biology, he says, "Together
with Marx's materialist theory of history and society… Darwin hewed the
final planks of the platform of mechanism and materialism."8
Another famous evolutionary paleontologist Stephen J. Gould, said that
"Darwin applied a consistent philosophy of materialism to his interpretation
of nature."9 Leon Trotsky who, together with Lenin, was
one of the architects of the Russian Revolution, described the discovery
of Darwin as "the highest triumph of the dialectic in the whole field
of organic matter ."10
All this shows the great affinity between Darwinism and Marxism, that
without Darwin's influence, there would have been no Marxist theory. And
if Darwinism is invalid, we will understand that Marxism is invalid too.
But the converse is true as well: In any society where Darwinism is widely
accepted, the growth of Marxism is inevitable.
For this reason, it is very important to understand why Darwinism has
no validity in the fields of either science or sociology. This understanding
will prevent the revitalization of Marxism which stems from it, and which
is lying in wait today-as well as forestalling any return to the agonies
that humanity has suffered over the previous century. History shows that
without Darwinism, there can be no Marxism.
Darwinism's Spread and The Relationship Between
Communism and Capitalism
When we investigate Darwinism's political influence, keep in mind that
this theory is related not to one single ideology, but to many seemingly
different ones. Apart from Communism, the wide spectrum of ideologies
relying on Darwinism includes racism, imperialism, capitalism, and fascism.
The common point that all these apparently independent, even contrary,
ideologies share is their opposition to monotheistic religions and whatever
moral values that these religions inculcate.
These ideologies' leaders see religious beliefs and values as impediments,
and use Darwinism as a weapon to destroy them. Ironically, by opening
a "breathing room" for their own ideologies in this way, they only strengthen
competing ideologies. For example, capitalists claim that a Darwinist
outlook is needed to legitimate the ruthless "struggle to survive" evident
in the free market. In this way, they support the very Communism that
Anton Pannekoek's book Marxism and Darwinism refers to this
interesting paradox. He describes the support given to Darwinism by the
bourgeoisie (Europe's wealthy capitalist class) in these words:
That Marxism owes its importance and position only to the role it takes
in the proletarian class struggle, is known to all…Yet it is not hard
to see that in reality Darwinism had to undergo the same experiences as
Marxism. Darwinism is not a mere abstract theory which was adopted by
the scientific world after discussing and testing it in a mere objective
manner. No, immediately after Darwinism made its appearance, it had its
enthusiastic advocates and passionate opponents… Darwinism, too, played
a role in the class-struggle, and it is owing to this role that it spread
so rapidly and had enthusiastic advocates and venomous opponents.
Darwinism served as a tool to the bourgeoisie in
their struggle against the feudal class, against the nobility, clergy-rights
and feudal lords. …What the bourgeoisie wanted was to get rid of
the old ruling powers standing in their way… With the aid of religion
the priests held the great mass in subjection and ready to oppose the
demands of the bourgeoisie…Natural science became a weapon in the opposition
to belief and tradition; science and the newly discovered natural laws
were put forward; it was with these weapons that the bourgeoisie fought…
Darwinism came at the desired time; Darwin's theory
that man is the descendant of a lower animal destroyed the entire foundation
of Christian dogma. It is for this reason that as
soon as Darwinism made its appearance, the bourgeoisie grasped it with
great zeal…Under these circumstances, even the scientific discussions
were carried on with the zeal and passion of a class struggle. The writings
that appeared pro and con on Darwin have therefore the character of social
polemics, despite the fact that they bear the names of scientific authors.11
Lenin wrote that Communists and the bourgeoisie
are the same, as regards their hostility towards religion. According
to Lenin's interpretation, the conflict between Communism and capitalism
is really just an "internal quarrel," and these two materialist ideologies'
common enemy is religion.
The spread of Darwinism actually happened this way. The forces that held
sway in Europe saw Darwinism as a rare opportunity to legitimate the capitalist
order they had established in their own countries, and their imperialist
colonial systems throughout the world. (For details, refer to Disasters
Darwinism Brought to Humanity, Harun Yahya, Attique Publishers, 2000.)
Darwinism's scientific inconsistency, its imaginary suppositions and nonsensical
claims have totally been ignored. Those who regard it as a weapon against
religion and morality have disseminated it for ideological purposes.
But the bourgeoisie-that is, the capitalist class responsible for Darwinism's
dissemination-have supported both this theory and its rival. Why? Because
Darwinism's spread and the concomitant destruction of religious belief
have benefited Marxism as much they have capitalism. Religion teaches
such values as moderation, modesty, brotherhood, self-sacrifice and compassion.
With these removed, society becomes a savage arena in which the "struggle
for survival" among capitalists goes on, much as does the class struggle
between capitalists and Communists.
In the fall of 1871, European naturalists gathered
at an international congress. One of the speakers, the German statesman
and naturalist Rudolf Virchow, said, "Be careful of this theory, for this
theory is very nearly related to the theory that caused so much dread
in our neighboring country."12 The country he meant
was France, and the theory was French Communism, which created the bloody
Paris Commune of that year. (The Commune
was a citywide revolt led by the Communists, at a time when France was
weakened after losing the Franco-Prussian War. For months, directors of
the Commune administered the city. Widespread assaults were organized
against religious centers and the clergy.)
Finally, despite their differences, both capitalists and Communists found
common ground in their opposition to religion, and for that opposition,
they found great support in Darwinism. For this reason, Communists believe
that before the revolution can occur, a society must first become capitalist..
According to this idea, along with the general adoption of capitalist
morality (where Darwinist propaganda plays a vital role), a society must
first discard religion before Communism can grow. In Vladimir Lenin's
1909 article titled "The Attitude of the Workers' Party to Religion,"
the Communist leader describes the role played by the capitalist bourgeoisie
in opposing religion:
Clergy are lined up for execution in front of
a firing squad of Paris Communards.
. . . the task of combating religion
is historically the task of the revolutionary bourgeoisie. In the
West, this task was to a large extent performed by bourgeois democracy,
in the epoch of its revolutions against feudalism and medievalism… Both
France and Germany have a tradition of bourgeois war on religion, which
began long before socialism (the Encyclopaedists and Feuerbach). In Russia,
because of the conditions of our bourgeois-democratic revolution, this
task too falls almost entirely on the shoulders of the working class.13
Lenin is saying that capitalists have the obligation to wage war against
religion, as they have in Europe; that because the capitalist class does
not exist in Russia, he and his party will undertake this war against
religion. His words show that in essence, the opposition between capitalism
and Communism is an "inner conflict" only. Actually, these two forces'
common enemy is religion.
Communists are clearly attempting to erode societies, alienate people
from the truth, and weaken their moral values and humanity, so as to make
them accept their own irreligious system. But none of their attacks against
religion can succeed at all. Don't forget, many have tried to destroy
true religion in the past, disobeying God's apostles and turning away
from His holy Books. But their fate is the same: God afflicts some of
those who fight against His religion with troubles in this world, while
others must wait for the Last Day to receive their painful torment. As
the Qur'an (40:4-6) announces,
No one disputes God's Signs except those who disbelieve.
Do not let their free movement about the earth deceive you. The people
of Noah denied the truth before them, and the Confederates after them.
Every nation planned to seize its Messenger and used false arguments to
rebut the truth. So I seized them, and how [awful] was My punishment!
So your Lord's Words about those who disbelieve proved true, that they
are indeed the Companions of the Fire.
DELIRIUM OF FASCISM AND COMMUNISM:
Marx, the founder of Communism,
stated that the only way to achieve historical development is through
conflict. He thought that society and ideas could advance only by
means of war and revolution; and maintained that everything would
stay as it was, if not for struggle and opposition. By saying "Force
is the midwife of every old society pregnant with a new one," Karl
Marx a summoned millions to war, bloodshed, and
These ideas of Marx won many supporters
over the years. The Communist leader Lenin who presided over the
cruelest slaughters, believed that "development is the 'struggle'
of opposites."b He thought that this struggle must
be formed through bloodshed.
Like the Communist
leaders, Fascist leaders too believe that violence, revolution and
war are the only means to advancement.'Heinrich von Treitschke,
the racist historian who was the most important influence in forming
Hitler's ideas, said, "nations could not prosper without intense
competition, like the struggle for survival of Darwin…"c
Mussolini was another Fascist leader who believed that violence
was the motive force in history and that struggle would bring revolution.
For him, "the reluctance of England to engage in war only proved
the evolutionary decadence of the British Empire."d
Each of these ideologies' basic support is the struggle
for life that, Darwin claimed, exists in nature. The conflict that
forms the basis of Marx's dialectical materialism, and fascism's
claim that conflict is a motive force, are nothing more that Darwin's
theory of evolution applied to the social sciences.
These ideologies gave birth to two results: claims
that continuous conflict is necessary, and steps to eradicate humanity
completely, leading to endless bloodshed. Anyone adopting these
ideologies can't avoid being in constant conflict with others, subjecting
them to cruelty and bloodshed in the name of progress. They destroy
peace and well being, as well as the love, respect, self-sacrifice
and sharing that God has commanded among people. Because of these
ideologies, the last century was an era of pain and misery.
On the contrary, violence and slaughter are not necessary.
Polarities are everywhere: night and day, light and darkness, negative
and positive, hot and cold, good and bad. But these oppositions
have been created to emphasize beauty and to bring into being moral
values like tolerance, forgiveness, and peace.
The same situation applies to the realm of ideas. The
fact that people think differently is no reason for them to kill
and massacre one another. God commands people to behave well towards
their enemies and speak good words to people:
A good action and a bad action are not the same.
Repel the bad with something better and, if there is enmity between
you and someone else, he will be like a bosom friend. (Qur'an, 41:34)
As the Qur'an says, people of conscience and intelligence
solve every contention in an atmosphere of peace, trust and tolerance.
Those who cannot understand this and believe in the deceit of dialectical
materialism have fought with one another for years, grappled with
one another like wild animals and finally have lost their power
as a nation. God reveals the truth in the following verse from the
Obey God and His Messenger and do not quarrel among
yourselves, lest you lose heart and your momentum disappear. And
be steadfast. God is with the steadfast.
As this verse says, people have departed from the way
of God that His prophets revealed. Instead of establishing peace,
they have turned the Earth into a breeding ground for cruelty. For
this reason, they have lost all their power and have led themselves
to destruction. It must not be forgotten that the moral virtues
commanded in the Qur'an-compassion, mercy, self-sacrifice, tolerance,
justice-are the only sources of strength for people and nations
alike. Nonsense like dialectical materialism, the product of irreligious
foolishness, brings only pain and disaster. The only way for people
to find salvation, well-being, and security in this world is to
live according to the moral teaching that God has commanded in the
a- Das Capital,
Vol. I, 1955, p. 603
b- V. I. Lenin, "On the Question
of Dialectics," Collected Works, Volume 38, p. 359
c- L. Poliakov, Le Mythe Aryen,
Editions Complexe, Calmann-Lévy, Bruxelles, 1987, p. 343
d- Robert E. D. Clark, Darwin:Before
and After, London, Paternoster Press, 1948, p. 115
Darwinism's Bloody Dialectic
So far, we have sketched the spread of Communism throughout the world.
In nearly every country, it developed as an alternative to capitalism
or Fascism. Communism may seem to be the direct opposite of capitalism
and Fascism, but Darwinism is their common inspiration. Capitalism and
Fascism are Darwinism's right wing and Communism, its left wing. In every
country, the spread of Darwinism gives rise to the sudden growth of both
wings. Therefore, those who use Darwinism to support Fascism and capitalism
will inevitably have supported Communism too!
According to Darwinism's atheist worldview, right and left give birth
to, and even nourish each other. Each side engages with the other in continuous
conflict. Darwinism regards this clashing as appropriate, even necessary
for human societies.
Viewing this general outline, we can say that Darwinism has established
a dialectic on the political level. Dialectic, a theory proposed by the
German philosopher Hegel and adopted later by Marx and Engels, supposes
that every development in the universe occurs as the result of conflict.
Every state, condition, or idea is a "thesis," followed by an "antithesis."
Thesis and antithesis engage in a conflict that's eventually resolved
in a "synthesis." After a while, this synthesis itself becomes another
thesis; and another antithesis comes into conflict with it. According
to dialetic theory, conflict must continue in this way indefinitely.
Darwinism has made the world a battleground for dialectic by rejecting
the fact that God created humanity and promoting the idea that human beings
are another species of animal. In many countries, especially in Europe,
right-wing Darwinists once held sway. Having destroyed religious belief
or destroying moral values, they introduced heartless capitalism that
led to Fascism. Against this group, the left-wing Darwinists-Communists-organized
themselves; both sides entered into a continual state of conflict with
each other. The synthesis of this Darwinist dialectics is always the same:
torture, pain, blood, war, tears…
Our other books have examined the terror and savagery perpetrated by
Fascists, the representatives of right-wing Darwinist dialectics. In this
book, we'll examine Communist terror and savagery.
THOSE WHO WISH TO SILENCE OPPOSING
IDEAS WITH A
"CONFLICT OF DIALECTIC" ARE DEFEATED IN EVERY AGE
Dialectical materialism took its inspiration from Darwinism,
regarding history as a merciless struggle between opposing ideas.
In the 20th century, Communists have clashed with Fascists and set
citizens of one country against one another, turning the world into
a lake of blood. Each has believed that its own ideology would emerge
the victor. But Communism did not come out of this struggle victorious,
and dialectical materialism's idea of historical dialectics has
Above is a relief depicting the Egyptian Pharaoh breaking the
skulls of his opponents. Pharaoh was proud of his cruel, oppressive
methods. But he had a sad end.
Throughout history, there has always been an opposition
between good and evil, even in the realm of ideas. Good has always
won out, because the methods of struggle that God has revealed to
people in the Qur'an are designed to bring peace, trust and friendship,
destroying contention and enmity.
For example, God commanded Moses to call Pharaoh into
the right way. Moses and Pharaoh had completely different aims,
but when God brought these two opposing sides together, He said
to Moses and his brother Aaron, "Go to Pharaoh;
he has overstepped the bounds. But speak to him with gentle words
so that hopefully he will pay heed or show some fear." (Qur'an,
As God had commanded, Moses and Aaron went to Pharaoh,
patiently using various methods to show him, the good and righteous
path of God's commands. At the end of this intellectual argument,
Pharaoh wasn't able to see the truth and kept on with his oppression.
But he was drowned in the sea, and Moses and his people were saved.
This example is a synopsis of human history: No one wins by fighting
and bloodshed. Even those who rose to power by means of conflict
could not lead their lives in peace and comfort. On the contrary,
they live every moment under material and spiritual stress. Those
who prevail are believers who always invite people to discuss their
ideas in an atmosphere of peace and trust, and who incite them to