Marx or Lenin ought to have calculated how efficient private enterprise is compared with bureaucracy. But they didn't. So, when Lenin "abolished capitalism," the ensuing poverty was such that he "returned to capitalism"? Oh, no! Instead, he called his return to capitalism a "New Economic Policy." Everything Lenin did was new! Capitalism was also new-it was his new economic policy! The color red, which had symbolized a fiery and bloody uprising of employees of private enterprise against private entrepreneurs, remained under Lenin's "new economic policy" and thereafter.

Meanwhile, Germany, a geostrategic neighbor of Russia, could not cope with the consequences of WWI, including the reparations and disarmament of Germany by her victorious war enemies. Hitler came to power in 1933, proclaiming the Germans to be the superior race of mankind. They were "exploited by inferior races", and "national socialism" was to protect them.

In the 1930s, Stalin began his Industrialization, that is, his creation of the armament industry, which did not need Lenin's capitalism, since a survival minimum of food and of some consumer goods was being produced by Stalin's super-capitalist monopoly.

Since the mid-1930s, Marxism-Leninism in "Soviet" Russia was being replaced by Russian nationalism, and on the first day of Hitler's attack the war came to be called the War for Fatherland, and at the end of the war the Internationale was replaced by a hymn which said that the great Rus put the country together forever.

Hitler's defeat in his war with Stalin had nothing to do with capitalism, national socialism, communism, or any other such fantasies.

Hitler rejected espionage as unworthy of a noble warrior of the superior race. As a result, he did not know that Moscow was undefended late in 1941 and was waiting for the Far-Eastern and Siberian troops. So Hitler's army swarmed outside Moscow until those troops came and routed the German troops.

Some English-speaking biographers of Hitler represent his immediately following extermination of Jews as psychopathology and hence Hitler as a psychopath. Actually, after his defeat at Moscow, Hitler got scared that his subordinates would betray him to the "Anglo-Saxons," and he gave a secret order to his subordinates to begin the extermination of Jews without mentioning him. His name was so successfully concealed that recently a British biographer of Hitler announced that Hitler knew nothing about the extermination of Jews.

Those biographers of Hitler who continue to believe in Hitler's extermination of Jews as his psychopathology should answer why Hitler ordered extermination of Jews so late, and not earlier, and why the testimonies of Jews, such as Hitler's Jewish doctor and his family (who with Hitler's help emigrated to the United States), described in the American press how nice Hitler was to him, that is, to his Jewish doctor, and to the doctor's family.

To safeguard himself in case his subordinates decided to betray him to the "Anglo-Saxons" after his defeat at Moscow, Hitler put to death about 6 million people who were Jews. Having invaded Russia, he also ruthlessly doomed to death dozens of millions of Russians and Germans. The cause of the horrible slaughter of Jews was not Hitler's "psychopathology," but the total absence of legal protection of the individual, owing to which absence, an absolute upstart dictator like Hitler could commit any mass crimes of extermination of innocent people in peace or by global war.

In Stalin's time, Moscow was not just the capital, but it ruled the country as the human brain rules the body. Hitler's retreat from Moscow meant his defeat in the war and his suicide in 1945 by shooting himself in the mouth.

The advent of Mao to the slave-ownership of China was similar to that of Lenin in Russia. But it was the year 1949, not 1917. It was clear in 1949 that the advent of Mao to absolute power was not a world revolution, but a coup in a country in which "proletarians" vastly predominated. Besides, while for Lenin, Marx meant the depth of German "love of wisdom," the profoundest "love of wisdom" for China came from its own five thousand years of history, and Chi Haotian, who was the Minister of National Defense of China in 1995 to 2003, began to proclaim that the Chinese, not the Germans, are the superior race that would lead the world after China's annihilation of the United States by China's new weapons.

So, Marxism has been replaced by Nazism in "Communist" China.

Above, I concentrated on the fickle differences between the fickle "ideologies" of the three samples of return in the 20th century to slavery, in which slaves belonged not to "private" serf-owners, but to a single countrywide system of slave-ownership.

Nothing is simpler than the origin of such a system. Criminal and political gangs originate because a gang is stronger than a single independent person. A political gang thus becomes the most powerful force in the country as its "government" or "state," with its "police" (including "secret police"), protecting it.

The rest are temporary fantasies of the gang allegedly defending the poor against the rich, or the superior race (such as the Germans or the Chinese) against its inferior enemies.

However, the enslaved population threatens the political gang with uprisings, and hence the gang's supreme dream is to achieve world domination, which demands the maximum use of all resources for the utmost militarization. On the other hand, a gang may attack any country, as Hitler attacked Stalin's Russia, and "declared war" after the attack and in violation of the Hitler-Stalin peace treaty. A political gang may plunge mankind into a (world) gang war.

For a while, in the 20th century, it seemed that gangs and gangsters (in the criminal sense) were to vanish. Law and order seemed to be taking over the free world. But the political gangs, as "governments," in Russia, Germany, and China, showed that the political gangs are far worse than criminal gangs, since one political gang may hold in its absolute power an entire big country with its global military possibilities. So the future may be more fatal, or at least more dangerous today, given the post-nuclear weapons, than it was a century ago.

**Lev Navrozov emigrated from the Soviet Union in 1972. His columns are today read in both English and Russian. To learn more about Mr. Navrozov's work with theCenter for the Survival of Western Democracies.