Ever since “communism” was invented, it seduced the minds of many humans.

In the 20th century, it finally came to exist. Starting in Russia in 1917, it spread
like wildfire propped up by Soviet gunfire. Far from the utopia it promised,
communism has been responsible for more lives lost or squandered than any
other ideology concocted by man. Though its spectacular collapse in 1989-’91
left few communist states behind, the ideas behind it are currently experiencing
a revival. That’s flagrantly outrageous. The recent rise in communist sympathies
all over the Western World is an affront to those who suffered the horrors of
state socialism.

The rising popularity of left wing-extremist ideologies may partially be explained

through the disappointment many in the West feel at their economic condition.
Although in absolute terms nigh everybody seems to have become better off,
widening inequality and paltry increases for many have led to widespread
discontent. In the US, blue collar, rural, and millennial voters are especially
affected, although they manifest their discontent in radically different ways (the
former two by backing Donald Trump, a right-wing populist, the latter by
backing increasingly left-wing candidates). Despite being repeatedly accused of
fascism, Mr. Trump is rather opportunistic as far as political ideology is
concerned. He does not embody the rise of a coherently ultra-right wing or
fascist current (Eliah Bures ). It may be argued, then, that the major ideological
upheaval of our days is the rise of socialist sympathies in America, and to a
lesser degree, around the world.

This is particularly concerning as the core constituency of this socialist revival

are young people, millennials most of all. Though cliche, “young people are the
future” rings true. The ideological tendencies of younger generations often
change the political landscape as time progresses. It is for this reason that
understanding youth’s political beliefs is of paramount importance - and why
their disdain for liberal capitalism is ominous to say the least.

Be that as it may, it is a well known historical fact that young people tend to
prefer radical ideologies. If that be the consequence of idealism or lack of
experience which favours manicheistic thinking, the end result is still the same.
Which poses the question: Should we worry? A great man once said “If you’re
not communist when you’re young, you’re heartless. If you do not become
conservative when you get older, you’re stupid.”The answer is still yes, in my
opinion. Though perhaps some of today’s socialists might become less radical as
time progresses, the creed of new generations is the wind vane of politics. An
honest discussion of millennials’ radical sensibilities cannot omit the alt-righters
or nazi sympathisers. Every now and then, a video surfaces of high schoolers
executing nazi salutes or shouting Heil Hitler, etc. (a phenomenon not unique to
the US). Nevertheless, nazi and ultra-right wing sympathies are overwhelmingly
inferior in number both among millennials and among the general population
(ocregister.com). A Hitler t-shirt will invariably raise much more outrage than
Stalin or Mao one; almost all Americans still care deeply about the horrors of
nazism (CNN.com).

Conversely, socialism has become more popular among young people than
capitalism, at 51 to 45 percent, according to a Gallup poll published by CNBC.
The phenomenon is not unique to the USA. In the UK, millennials have been the
driving force behind the ascension of Jeremy Corbyn at the helm of the Labour
Party. The same Jeremy Corbyn whose close adviser argued that “the
fashionable attempts to equate communism and Nazism (sic!) is in reality a
moral and historical nonsense”, or that there were “no extermination camps built
to murder millions” in the USSR (Seumas Milne). Mr. Corbyn’s insensate veer to
the left led to increased popularity among millennials, but also to the worst
election result for Labour in almost a century. In France, a communist (Jean Luc-
Melenchon) captured nearly 20% of the vote in the 2017 Presidential elections.
His main constituency was the youth.

It is very probable that most millennials professing their preference for

socialism are unaware of the distinction between socialism and social
democracy. While the first is synonymous with communism, the latter advocates
for a capitalistic system with generous welfare and public services. Social-
democratic parties have been an entrenched part of Western European political
systems for decades. While one might disagree with their policies, they are
fundamentally different from the socialist parties that terrorized Russia, Poland,
Hungary, Romania, etc.

Nevertheless, when millennials say they love socialism, the image that comes to
mind is that of Norway and Sweden, not of the USSR (Ekins, Emily and Joy
Pullman). In fact, according to the Heritage 2019 Index of Economic Freedom,
Scadinavian countries narrowly beat the US on business freedom. However, in
making America a “Scandinavian paradise”, millennials often support veritably
socialist/communist ideologies. Contributing to this are the left-leaning
intellectual consensus - which has been a reality for nearly a century - and
communism’s unparalleled ability to deceive.

In the immediate aftermath of the Soviet Revolution, many Western intellectuals

visited Russia, regarding it as a model for their own countries. The ardour of
their beliefs and the trickeries of the Soviets kept them oblivious to the grave
crimes that were happening; many returned delighted at what they had seen. A
spectacular example (this time from the political sphere) is French Prime
Minister’s Edouard Herriot visit to the USSR in 1933. The Holodomor, one of the
worst man-made famines in history - over 4 million dead - was in full swing in
Ukraine. The French PM returned to his country, claiming that he had seen the
Soviet Union and “it was in full bloom.” Mr. Thoreau has one of the more
interesting explanations for the intelligentsia’s love of communism:
 The seduction power communism holds over educated minds is generally
related to the intellectualization of politics that the scientific corpus of
marxism-leninism favours. Communism brands itself as the essence of
politics; by installing class struggle as the motor of history, it establishes a
categorical imperative, a predetermined way for all societies to follow.
Besides the satisfaction this utopia offers to the spirit on its own, the
intellectual begins to feel he can achieve his call by bringing this vision to
reality. All in all, the intellectual is for the secular religion of communism
what the priest is for regular religion: at the same time interpreter and
servant to a will greater than all. Through marxism-leninism, sacrality is
transferred from the clergy to the intellectuals.

Though this cannot fully explain the behaviour of so many in the Western
intelligentsia, their actions are nonetheless clear. A cycle began to form: the
horrors of communism were denied until the times forced the intelligentsia to
acknowledge them. They were then minimized, and the few ills that remained
were all because the respective regime had not been “real communism.” The
USSR, the PCR, North Korea, (to a lesser extent) Venezuela all “enjoyed” the
same treatment from Western intellectuals. Who can blame the youth when so
many of their intellectual models act in this manner?

This short expose of attitudes towards communism must logically be followed by

a description of communism itself. According to Merriam-Webster, communism is
“a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party
controls state-owned means of production,” or “a totalitarian system of
government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of
production.” Communism originates in Karl Marx’s writings. A German
philosopher, Karl Marx thought to have discovered an all-encompassing scientific
view on what we now call social sciences. In short, Marx believed that history
was defined by the class struggle between the oppressors and the oppressed.
This exclusionary dichotomy was applied to societies in all ages and all stages of
development. In Europe, Marx identified the aristocracy as the oppressor, and
the peasantry as the oppressed. The bourgeoisie plays a useful role at first, by
removing the aristocracy from the pinnacle of power, but it becomes itself an
oppressor by monopolizing wealth and the means of production. Communism
was seen as the resolution to this perpetual dissonance - a natural byproduct of
the inexorable march of history. So convinced was Marx of the “scientific” nature
of his theories, that he asked Darwin to pen an introduction to his “Das Kapital”;
he believed to have done for social sciences what Darwin had done for the
natural ones.

Communism’s appeal is obvious. Besides offering a unifying view of history,

economics, sociology, etc., it addresses problems we are still facing today
(inequality, unemployment, and the list could go on). At first sight, it is hard to
disagree with “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his
needs”(Karl Marx) It promises a bright future, where all members of society
work as one to achieve shared prosperity, where subjugation is no more, where
wasteful competition is eliminated. The focus on “togetherness” and lofty ideals
distracts from its gruesome reality. In order for its goals to (perhaps) be
achieved peacefully, every member of a communist society must enter it
willingly. If not, the bourgeoisie must be displaced forcefully: it becomes “the
enemy of the people.” From this quintessential perspective, nazism is identical to
communism: the designated enemy of the people may either evaporate, or be
eliminated by all means. As humans have a curious inclination towards material
remanence, nazi and communist regimes have put in place the most vile and
heinous systems of oppression the world has ever seen. All in the name of an
intangible quasi utopia.

Contrary to Marx’s predictions, communism gained its first foothold in a

relatively backward and agrarian country: Russia. Vladimir Ilych Lenin, with
crucial support from the Germans, overthrew the Provisional Government and
established the “dictatorship of the proletariat.” A bloody civil war ravaged the
country. As soon as it reestablished control, the communist government sealed
off the borders, effectively transforming the whole country into a giant prison.
For a while, some semblance of a market economy was kept, due to the
influence of Nikolay Bukharin, who was nevertheless sacked by Stalin. From then
on, forced industrialization and collectivization inflicted massive harm to both the
national economy, and the population at large. Peasants fiercely opposed all
attempts to have their land taken, so when famine hit, Stalin made the most of
it. He refused foreign aid that might have saved hundreds of thousands, and
ordered party officials to confiscate all edible items from rural households,
especially those in SSR Ukraine. More than 5 million people died of famine in the
whole of Russia; many others were executed for reportedly expressing their
dissent. Approximately one million Russian citizens were killed in The Great
Purge: those who had supported Stalin’s political rivals, kulaks (peasants who
owned land), ethnic minorities (ironically, Stalin was Georgian). Communism
was inaugurated at gunpoint. Though Khruscev, Stalin’s successor, famously
denounced the “excesses” of Stalin, the USSR continued to brutally oppress its
population for as long as it existed.

Everywhere communism went, it brought human misery and gross injustice with
it. Cambodia is one of the more spectacular examples: the Khmer Rouge killed
almost a quarter (2 million) of the country’s population in an attempt to socially
engineer a communist agrarian paradise. In East Germany, communism made
numerous victims, but it was comparatively less harmful. It was established by
Soviet force of arms (who had refused democratic elections and a return to
unified Germany). Its vicinity to West Germany made for stark contrast. As East
Germans were not allowed to vote in real elections, they voted with their feet
and left the country in droves for its capitalist twin. That is, until the communist
regime enforced a brutal crackdown on emmigration, culminating in the Berlin
Wall of 1961. Interestingly, almost no one wished to immigrate the other way
around and enter East Germany - though few were the restrictions in their way.

North Korea is one of the few remaining communist countries. Though it

migrated away from pure Marxism to a Juche (Korean nationalistic) communist
dictatorship, the failure of its economy was caused by communism - and the
same ideology made the esablishment of the brutal dictatorship of the Kims
possible. Though each communist country had its dictators, the Kim dynasty
brought the cult of personality to a new level - many North Koreans actually
believe their rulers to be gods. The communist regime there has directly or
indirectly caused the death of millions, through famine, mass imprisonment and
executions.

In my native country of Romania, communism was forcefully and illegitimately imposed by

Soviet “liberating” armies, which occupied the nation in the aftermath of WW2. In an
atmosphere of mass intimidation and meddling by Soviet troops , elections were held - and
still, democratic, capitalist forces won a decisive plurality. The results were inverted by
Stalin’s people - who had famously declared “It’s not the people who vote that count - it’s
the people who count the vote.” The communists “won” a majority. Large scale student
demonstrations ensued. The Soviets demanded King Michael I’s abdication, or else they
would drown the demonstrations in blood. The King abdicated in 1947 and was forced to flee
in exile. As soon as they held all the power, communists began a heinous campaign of
persecution. The former elite was brutally persecuted. Clerics, statesmen, businessmen -
those who hadn’t managed or had refused to flee the country were sent to Gulags in Siberia
or other lagers - Pitesti, “The Canal”, where they were subjected to the cruelest and most
inhumane forms of torture. It is important to mention that these prisons were not meant to
simply contain their inmates - but to exterminate the bodies and souls of the humans they
held captive. The prisoners did not die of neglect, but of criminal intent. Few returned alive.
Oppression was felt by all strata of societies - some of the greatest victims were peasants
who resisted the confiscation of their land. After the initial period, when the USSR plundered
the national economy through the infamous SOV-roms, a new brand of communism took
over. The country’s new dictator, Nicolae Ceaușescu, brought nationalism back. After a
period of detente and relative economic prosperity (supported by credits from Western
countries), Romania entered “The Golden Era”- perhaps the most miserable time this
country has ever suffered. The constraints of those times are impossible to conceive for
someone who hasn’t felt them. A theoretical description can hardly suffice- so here are some
of the stories of those who lived in communism:
15 years old. Jeans had appeared for the first time. They were all I could wish for: an
impossible dream. I bought some blue textile, and asked a taylor to make me a pair of
pants à la…
The day they were ready, I immediately put them on, picked up a friend and went for
a stroll on the boulevard. About halfway through the street, we were stopped by a
chain of people, all facing us: 2 policemen* and some party members from the
factories** (...)
 ”You’re coming with us!” They surrounded me, and grabbed my shoulder. I didn’t
understand what was happening, what I had done, what they wanted from me.(...) We
arrived at the police headquarters. My friend asked for explanations. They sent him
off with a boot in the ass. They dragged me on the stairs. A room, a couple of chairs.
A policeman held me by the nape, put an electric clipper on my head and shaved all
my hair away. There were others on the chairs, subjected to the same treatment.
When I got up, one of the UTC guys was waiting for me, scissors in hand, to
complete the punishment and destroy the “imperialist jeans.” “Leave him,” said one
of the militiamen, and he shoved me outside(...). (Si eu am trait in comunism, 152)

* (“militieni”- communist Romania’s police force)

**(UTC-isti - members of the Union of Communist Youth).
Not unlike in North Korea today, citizens were not allowed to dress however they
pleased in communist Romania. Jeans, long hair on men - these were all
considered symbols of imperialist countries, and properly persecuted. In fact,
militiamen could arrest citizens without a warrant, and take them into custody
indefinitely. Citizens had no real legal protections - they relied on the goodwill of
the authorities.

School and the Queue. As a father, the bleakest of all my daughter’s school days was
- unexpectedly - her very first. Tania had groomed Anna and adorned her with the
finest clothes we could afford: a blouse like whipped cream, a starched apron, huge
bows, everything stylish, only to see her running back after a few hours, panting and
faced flush with emotion. I expected her to tell me stories about her new classmates,
her teacher, her classroom, books - you know, the whole thing. But far from it: I was
met instead with an urgent request from money. “They brought cheese” at the shop
nearby, she had reserved a place in the queue, and they were only “giving out” 2 kilos
per person(...)
But we didn’t have a penny (a common occurrence a week before payday), which
made Anna cry spasmodically. (Si eu am trait in comunism, 143)
In communist Romania, especially in “The Golden Era” (the late 70s until the fall
of communism in 1989), food shortages were extremely common. All shops
were state-owned. Ceausescu incurred large debts to build an unsustainably
large heavy industry in the 70s. In order to pay all debts and make Romania “an
autarchy,” the communist party and its dictator imposed an extremely strict
cost-cutting program on the population. Though Romania has had a historical
agricultural surplus, all quality foodstuffs were reserved for export or the party
elites. Meat, eggs, cheese, milk were all extremely scarce - finding one of these
in stores was akin to finding a treasure. People queued up for hours just for the
chance to be able to buy food. Citizens queued up without knowing what exactly
they might be able to buy; everything was valuable. Chocolate, tomatoes,
bananas, oranges had also become a luxury commodity. Coffee was so rare it
became accepted as a bribe. Even toilet paper was scarce: whenever ordinary
citizens could find it in stores, they bought all they could and wore it on long
ropes around their necks - the necklaces of poverty. Sugar, flour, oil, bread were
all sold on the basis of cards - and everybody got a fixed amount (e.g. 1 liter of
oil and 1 kg. of sugar / month). If travelling to a different city, one was not
allowed to buy bread - the cards were only valid in one’s city of residence.
Private food provisions were considered speculative, and were punishable by
death. In practice, Romanians did the best they could - they bribed and
befriended their way into a meagre dinner plate.

Bogdan S. and the Stolen Blood. There are always blood shortages in the summer.
(...) And things were no different in the late 80s. One evening, I was on call with an
anaesthetist(..). Bogdan S. wore glasses, long hair (the hippy years hadn’t been gone
for long), and at his 30 something years old, he had reached a respectable degree of
professional maturity. Though usually optimistic, good-natured and energetic,
Bogdan was vexed tonight, and was I. We had a 10 year old in the intensive care unit,
with a grave haematological disease, anemic, and in urgent need of intervention. For
the surgery to have any chance of success, we needed blood. We had both been trying
all night to get a hold of any quantity of the boy’s rare blood group, however small.
We had rung up the whole of Bucharest, the Transfusions Centre, all the major
hospitals. We got nothing but some vague promises: “perhaps in a few days,” “let’s
see if we receive something from the country, etc.” Neither of us had managed to find
the blood the child needed. And the surgery had to be done that night.
I suddenly saw Bogdan whispering frantically with the sisters. He made a few calls,
turned towards me and said(..)" I'll be gone for half an hour. Gotta get some blood for
the little’un”
The anaesthetist never left the clinic. At first, I thought this was a joke. But it wasn’t.
In about 20 minutes he came back, holding a multitude of vials with the kid’s blood
group. Exactly what we needed, when we needed it - proving the point, the surgery
was executed immediately using the newfound cache, and the child woke up cured
from what had seemed like his last night ever.
Bogdan had found out in “non-standard ways” (he was unmarried, tall, a good-
looking man who enjoyed the sympathy of female medical staff)that in the hospital’s
transfusions unit there was a large quantity of the blood we needed. How come, you
might ask? Well, the next day the district party secretary was to undergo surgery. For
those who don’t know, I must mention that a district party secretary ws like a
 medium-range God, not unlike a feudal baron. For this individual, who was to
undergo a simple cholecystectomy (which did not necessitate blood reserves), a large
quantity of blood had been stored. For high-ranking party officials, no precaution
was to be spared! (...)
Bogdan had found out about this reserve , via unofficial, highly personal sources,
broke into the transfusions unit and stole the blood from the fridge. (...)
We were expecting a fearsome persecution. Nothing happened. The party official’s
surgeon, “a man of the party and state” just like us, postponed the surgery and all
went swimmingly (naturally, no blood was needed for a simple cholecystectomy.) We
all kept quiet.
Shortly after this episode, Bogdan acquired the full title of “doctor” and began work
as an anaesthetist in a Northern town. And as he liked the North, he moved to North
America as soon as communism fell. (Si eu am trait in comunism, 302)

Though healthcare was theoretically free and universally available, doctors often
lacked the most basic medical equipment. Sterile gloves, disinfectants, medical
tools were often in short supply. Painkillers and anaesthetics were sometimes
conditioned by official approval - which was obtained through a slow,
cumbersome project with no clear result, even as every second mattered.
Unscrupulous doctors required bribes in order to perform their duties (anyway,
those who actually demanded bribes were few - many doctors were real-life
heroes). Abortion was outlawed - the socialist paradise needed as many
members as possible. Women often used unhygienic, dangerous, illicit solutions
in order to get rid of unwanted pregnancy. In one very revealing story, woman
who had tried to rid herself of a pregnancy was lying on the hospital bed, heavily
bleeding. As abortion was a criminal offence, militamen and prosecutors
surrounded her hospital bed, one of them asking “You don’t like this, but you
liked fucking, eh?” Finally, doctors performed the life-saving abortion procedure
- in vivo. (Si eu am trait in comunism, 306)To add insult to injury, high-ranking
party officials enjoyed dramatically better conditions - far from the egalitarian
utopia the country was supposed to be.
To briefly enumerate the many other “features” of life under communism in
Romania: leaving the country was considered treason. All of Romania was
practically transformed into a giant prison; many lost their life swimming in the
Danube, trying to escape. In the 1980s, authorities reduced gas pressure so as
to economize. Romania has cold, harsh winters. Without central heating, hot
water or electricity, they often became unbearable. College graduates were
“repartitioned” wherever the party pleased to send them. In the late 80s, that
meant rural areas only - so as to make the country more equal. Working in a
village 50 km away from your hometown was considered a lucky occurrence -
even as only a select few owned cars, and public transport was deplorable.
There was no TV - only official propaganda. Interestingly, Romania paid all its
external debts in 1988 - but this insensate austerity only got worse.

All of these did not happen despite communism, but they were a direct
consequence of it. Admittedly, the Socialist Republic of Romania’s Ceausescu
was worse than many others. His regime was partially inspired by Kim Il Sung
and North Korean communism - it combined extreme left-wing policies with
nationalism and a desire for autarchy at all costs. Nevertheless, communism’s
inherently centralized power structure allowed all of these atrocities to happen.
Whenever private property is abolished and the economy becomes run by “the
people”, it is the state that takes control. All references to the people are merely
euphemisms. Once the state runs the national economy, it gains an enormous
amount of power over its people. Essentially, it can do whatever it pleases -
especially when it is supported by repressive institutions that instill fear in the
population. The crimes of communism are a direct consequence of this most
fundamental feature: for communism to exist, the state has to become
omnipotent and all-encompassing. Marx’s transition to a classless society is
impossible: far from eliminating class, communism creates a new hierarchy in
society. The new elite are the party and state officials, who mostly accede to
their station through servilism and conformism. They are not the “apostles” of a
new society, but its new masters. As no social class renounces its power
voluntarily, they cling on to their new position for as long as they can.

The existence of an elite is not a problem per se; every society has one. As far
as communism is concerned, though, two major problems arise: firstly, an
established communist elite is an intrinsic contradiction. Secondly, and this
arises directly from the previous statements, the very reason why members of
the new elite have risen to their station is false. Their existence is based on a lie:
they will never bring about the socialist utopia. Besides all economic arguments
(private initiative works better than a planned economy, etc.), the fundamental
problem of communism is that it cannot be achieved. In practice, it serves
merely as a smokescreen for an illegitimate group to monopolize power and
wealth, exploiting all other members of society.
This is exactly why all communist societies have failed; why they were all as real
as communism could ever be, and why no communist state could ever succeed.
Communism’s issues are independent of external factors - they are part of its
very nature.

It is for all these reasons that I find modern society’s indifference, even candour
towards socialism outrageous. Understatements and misunderstandings still
govern Western society’s comprehension of communism. Significant educational
and moral reform should be undergone - people ought to understand the
mistakes of the past. Whereas public funding and interest for museums,
documentaries and research on nazism are perfectly adequate, the victims of
communism wither away in the shadow. We were able to put nazism in its
proper place among the greatest horrors in history - it is high time we did the
same for communism. Once the proponents of socialism understand what it
means, it is very probable they will renounce their adhesion to it.

One family tale often springs to my mind when tackling this subject: once
communism had fallen, the elders went to visit France. They met a baker who
was an avowed communist, and had a little chat with him. As the discussion
veered towards politics, this hilarious dialogue occured: “If France became
communist, your bakery would no longer be yours.” “Impossible! This bakery
shop belongs to me, and to my father and grandfather before me.” “Exactly.”

Works cited: Si eu am trait in comunism. Editor: Ioana Parvulescu. Bucharest:

Humanitas, 2015. (translation: “I lived under communism too”)

Wolton, Thierry. Une Histoire Mondiale du Communism. Paris: Grasset, 2015.

(transl. “A World History of Communism)

Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. The Communist Manifesto. London, 1848.

Boaz, David. “Young People like ‘Socialism,’ but Do They Know What It Is?”
cato.org. Cato Institute. 25 October 2018. Web. 4 January 2020.
https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/young-people-socialism-do-
they-know-what-it

Vigilante, David. “What makes a Nazi salute the deepest betrayal of America”.
cnn.com. Cable News Network. 23 August 2019. Web. 4 January 2020.
https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/young-people-socialism-do-
they-know-what-it

Elkins, Kathleen. “Most Young Americans prefer socialism to capitalism, new

report finds”. cnbc.com . NBC Universal. 14 August 2018. Web. 27 December
2019. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/14/fewer-than-half-of-young-americans-
are-positive-about-capitalism.html

“One-in-three young Americans embrace repressive ideologies”. ocregister.com .

Media News Group. 1 November 2019. Web. 28 December 2019.
https://www.ocregister.com/2019/11/01/one-in-three-young-americans-
embrace-repressive-ideologies/

Weedston, Lindsey. “Why More Young Americans Are Exploring Communism”.

theestablishment.com. The Establishment. 31 May 2018. Web. 29 December
2019 https://theestablishment.co/why-more-young-americans-are-exploring-
communism-f286c27da93b/index.html

Ekins, Emily and Joy Pullman. “Why So Many Millennials Are Socialists” .
cato.org . Cato Institute. 15 February 2016. Web. 26 December 2019.
https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/why-so-many-millennials-are-
socialists

Milnes, Seumas. “Communism may be dead, but clearly not dead enough” .
theguardian.com . Guardian News and Media Limited. 16 February 2006. Web.
27 December 2019.
https://www.theguardian.com/Columnists/Column/0,,1710891,00.html

Bures, Eliah. “Don’t call Donald Trump a Fascist”. foreignpolicy.com . The Slate
Group. 2 November 2019. Web. 6 January 2020.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/11/02/donald-trump-fascist-nazi-right-wing/