Why do we study topics as distasteful as the Holocaust? It is so similar atrocities will never occur again. Yet when it comes to fascism and communism, the twin murderous ideologies of the 20th century, the latter receives inadequate scrutiny within the academy for the evils it perpetuated.
Why is it significant that students do not learn about the crimes against humanity perpetuated by various communist leaders? It's all in the past, so why should we dwell on events that occurred sometimes over a half-century ago? What's the use in crying over spilled blood?
The use in studying any murderous ideology is so that we can better combat it if it ever emerges from the dustbin of history to challenge the world again. With respect to fascism, there no longer exists much of a challenge. Perhaps there is some group of fascists holed up in a cabin in the Alps, plotting to take over the world. If so, they are the last people on earth who believe it to be a viable ideology. Which is not to say that their ideology is any less evil, just that at the present time their numbers are not great enough as to present a credible challenge to any nation. Nonetheless, it is still worthy of academic study, for if tomorrow's leaders are unable to elucidate what precisely makes fascism so wrong, they will be unable to combat it effectively should it ever emerge.
I wish to review how communism is studied in America. Fascism tends to receive broad coverage in many history courses, especially in those that cover World War II. Those texts to which I have been exposed treat it in a nearly uniform negative manner. Yet when it comes to coverage of communism, the texts become far more equivocal. I think this relativism is troubling, for it affects how well we can combat those communist regimes that still exist.
If you attended high school in America there is a good chance that you read Anne Frank's diaries. Rightfully so, for her work is illustrative of the difficulties of Jews in Europe during her time. But how many of you have read the works of the Russian dissident and Nobel Laureate Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn? His works are equally compelling and chronicle evils no less serious. Perhaps you had not even heard his name prior to now. That disparity, between the near-universal inclusion of Anne Frank's work in American schools and the near universal omission of Solzhenitsyn, is indicative of our greater problem of only selectively recognizing murderous governments.
Perhaps people disagree with my assertion that communism receives inadequate attention in American schooling. If you disagree with my claim, consider this thought experiment: How many Jews died at the hands of the Germans in World War II? Ask a few people near you. I imagine that at least four out of five know that the answer lies somewhere near six million persons murdered. Now ask those same people how many people Stalin killed in his effort to eliminate the Kulaks and other groups he deemed undesirable. Ask them if it was a greater or lesser number than those killed in the Holocaust. I would venture that fewer than one in 10 would know the true number (no fewer than seven million people killed) and that the majority would incorrectly identify Stalin's atrocities as the lesser loss of life. I do not intend to denigrate the seriousness of the Holocaust, but merely to illustrate that we do not cover all murderous ideologies equally in American education.
Some may say that I'm picking upon inconsequential details of history that are not particularly relevant to Americans. But these details do matter. It is important that we recognize, study and confront murderous ideologies wherever they exist. This is even more relevant because communist regimes still exist. Whereas the need for study of fascism is mitigated somewhat by the widespread world consensus against it, no such consensus exists with regards to communism, so study of it is that much more necessary.
Few communist nations remain. Eastern European nations that formerly comprised a large fraction of the Warsaw Pact now enjoy NATO membership, or are working on democratic reforms with membership in NATO and the European Union as their final goal. There are four remaining communist states: China, Cuba, North Korea and Vietnam. Of these, Vietnam has moved the furthest from the teachings of Marx; not surprisingly, it is the least troublesome. North Korea, on the other hand, has utilized the famine-as-political-weapon tactics of Stalin. North Korean peasants have even attempted to escape to Siberia! My point is that any nation that oppresses people to the extent that they choose to risk their lives by fleeing illegally to Siberia is an evil place. That is not, or at least it should not be, a particularly controversial statement. But do we, as products of the American educational system, have the courage to call the evil regimes what they are?
I fear that we do not. The only way to rectify this situation is shine light on murderous and oppressive regimes, past and present, in the academy, until every student can explain what is wrong with those regimes. We need to devote as much time to studying communism as we currently devote to studying fascism. To the extent that this clarity will give us the courage to fight all extremist murderous ideologies, our time will have been wisely invested.
