Your puzzling editorial
The puzzling editorial of April 22 asks why rail against communism as there is no current threat. One reason suggested is that "communism" may not be evil, nor a failure. This is because the opposition to communism by the editor's usual bête-noirs - Mr. Harper, the Sun newspapers and American Know-Nothings - is because they want to keep from the public the positive features of communism. If you oppose communism it must be because you are a nutty right-winger. There is no suggestion that opposition to communism is based on communism's historical record in Russia, Eastern Europe, Cambodia, China and North Korea.
Those who feel positive about communism in whatever variant must answer questions about why its application in the future will not be a repetition of the past. The history is clear - mass murder in the tens if not hundreds of millions, gulags, economic and social failures, environmental degradation, a total disregard for human and civil rights. It is a record so comprehensively negative that the burden of disproving doubts about communism rests with its advocates.
The enduring fascination of intellectuals, like Diego Rivera, with communism in the face of its appalling historical record is worthy of study and serves as a warning to the public about the dangers inherent in imposing utopian solutions to society's enduring issues. It is foolish to conclude that because those with whom you disagree oppose something that alone is sufficient reason to conclude that communism has something going for it, “after all”.
Gerry Van Kessel
NOTE: Good grief, no one at the Bulletin is suggesting that communism is in our future. How silly to suggest this. “Communism” clearly failed – as did Ghengis Khan’s ambitions. My bête-noirs are not still attacking Ghengis Khan – so why are they still attacking this more recent failure? That was the question (not an assertion, a question); the second question was, is there something we common folks have missed? Turn that, somehow, into an advocacy for Stalinism, if you wish. But the questions do have answers. Mr Temchuk’s letter answers those questions in a very insightful way, although likely not interesting to those blinded by the past. We wouldn’t build a monument to the Khan’s victims. So why spend millions on a monument against this agreed failure? Why? (FR)