Communism is alive and well, says The End of Time author David Horowitz.
And he should know. The son of Communist parents and a former Communist himself, he has crusaded against the Marxist left on college campuses and written books exposing the influence of the left on America's political culture.
In an exclusive interview with NewsMax.com, Horowitz spoke about his new book and the Marxist domination of today's Democratic party.
In his book, Horowitz writes about his views on life and death, and explains his belief in the destructive nature of Utopia-driven ideologies, noting: "The desire for more than is possible is the cause of greater human misery than any other."
He places Communism in that category, and recalls how his father devoted his life in the pursuit of "more than is possible." Horowitz explains how since leaving the party he has devoted his life to fighting Marxism in all its forms, not as a conservative ideologue, but as a seeker after truth and the meaning of life.
"The End of Time is not a political book," Horowitz told NewsMax.com. "It's a philosophical book and while it talks about political themes, it does so from a very foundational point of view. It's not a book for people who want to know what I think about the judicial nominations."
In our interview, as he did in The End of Time, he stressed his belief that far from being a threat in the past, Communism is a real force in American politics today.
NM: In your book you write about Communism and its appeal. Is communism still alive today?
DH: Communism is alive and well.
NM: Is it alive and well in the Democratic Party?
DH: The Democratic party is very close to being the [Communist-controlled Progressive] party of Henry Wallace.
NM: In other words, a Marxist Party?
DH: In my book "Unholy Alliance" I laid out what I called the mind of the left and showed the absolute continuity of the critique of capitalism in America between 1940 and 2003. Today's left sees the world pretty much in the same terms as the Stalinists did.
What has happened is that it has lost its faith in the working class, so its agenda is entirely negative. They've dropped the dictatorship of the proletariat and they all say they're democrats, but so did Lenin.
The vast bulk of the American left is a Communist left and they've introduced some fascist ideas like "identity politics," which is straight out of Mussolini. They don't talk about the working class, they talk about women and race. There's not much that they've learned from the history of the 20th century.
NM: In Whittaker Chambers' book "Witness" he saw this struggle as being either the great social wars of the 20th century, or the wars of faith.
DH: Chambers was a believer and I'm an agnostic with a great respect for believers. But the Islamic radicals are believers and it's not a secular belief, it's a religious belief.
There are believers who come both in secular and religious forms and they think they can take the work of salvation in their own hands.
These are all liberation theologians whether they are on the left or the right, and they are extraordinarily dangerous people precisely because they think they are in some ways talking to God or doing his work, and if you are doing God's work, it would justify anything.
I think you have to do what's right but without proposing to yourself that you can save the world.
NM: But don't we have some responsibility for doing what we believe is right?
DH: Yes. There's a passage in the book where I deal with my wife April talking about my "mission." My mission is a personal mission – to undo what I did as a leftist, to witness to the truth that I learned and to try to save even if it's only one or two individuals. That's what I do.
There are things that are beyond me. You have to think of Mohammed Atta or Timothy McVeigh – I wouldn't go blowing up federal buildings even for an end that I thought was good. They thought that what they were doing was noble.
One has to fight the good fight but one shouldn't delude oneself into thinking of oneself as a redeemer. Leftists – they call themselves "progressives" - are the arch reactionaries. When they get into arguments they are rude, they step on you, they kick you in the groin and they would kill you if they had the opportunity - you can see it in their passions. That's the sign of people who are intoxicated with their own self-righteousness. You don't really see that with conservatives.
NM: Is that what we are seeing now in the battles on Capitol Hill? It seems to be sheer hatred on the part of the left.
DH: That's because they think they are saving the world from the devil, which is us.
NM: Are the young being indoctrinated into Marxism?
DH: There's an unbelievable number of people on the campuses indoctrinating kids in the worst prejudices of the left. There are a lot of people of faith on campuses, but they are blacklisted from being on the faculty.
NM: How deep has this indoctrination gone?
DH: The Democratic party has never been such a left wing party and I think that comes directly out of the campuses. The whole Howard Dean campaign is what shifted the Democratic party to the far left. You had three Democratic front-runners - Kerry, Edwards and Gephardt - who were all supporters of the war until the Deaniacs came along. And who were the Deaniacs? They were the campus Communists.
The reason you have a blacklist and the reason you have indoctrination, which you've never had before on such a scale, is that you have the generation of the 1960s radicals who to avoid the draft and keep organizing against the war stayed in school and got student deferments and went on to became professors.
They are not academics, they're political activists. Do you think the woman who invited Susan Rosenberg, a convicted bomber, to be a visiting professor at Hamilton and followed that by inviting Ward Churchill – the closest thing to a campus terrorist guerilla – is an academic? Do you think she's a scholar? She's actually the daughter of a Communist lawyer, Victor Rabinowitz, whose closest friend is Leonard Boudin, another Communist whose daughter Cathy was a Weather Underground terrorist.
These people have infiltrated the academic world and converted it and largely captured the Democratic party in the process.
NM: The Democrats' objections to certain judges nominated to the federal bench are the result of their being pushed very hard by their prime supporters, which is the abortion industry and the gay lobby, and in many ways don't they seem to have been captive to that as much as they are captive to a leftist agenda?
DH: I don't see the abortion or gay lobbies as special interest groups. I see them as just part of the left. The gay lobby is not interested in gay people – they care about their radical agenda. The same thing with the abortionists.
Take another group, the feminist lobby. When Bill Clinton started abusing women you didn't hear a peep out of them because their agenda isn't women – their agenda is getting their people into power. Because what they are about is changing the world.
In SDS (Students for a Democratic Society) they used to say "The issue is never the issue, the revolution is the issue." That's the way I look at this. This is a power struggle. It's not about judges, it's not about abortion - it's to stop the Bush agenda.
Here's Janice Rogers Brown, a black female, daughter of a sharecropper. Everything in their overt agenda should lead them to say, "This is great! We care about the equality of women. Half the country is Republican. We have a Republican black woman. Now those racist Republicans will have to respect a black woman."
But that's not what their agenda is. The way they see it is, ‘My God, if the party of Satan gets a black woman in there, they will fool people into thinking they are not the party of Satan.' So the cause is what it's about. The issue is never the issue, the issue is always the revolution.
M: How would you define the Bush agenda?
DH: From the standpoint of the left? They are psychotic these days. They are living in an alternate reality. They make no sense whatever when they are talking about Bush.
As a conservative, I think the man has risen to the hour in terms of the war on terror. He's very Churchillian in that. This is what he'll be remembered for. He saved us an enormous amount of grief and he's done it against unbelievable odds and in the face of the most horrific attacks on a sitting president in history.
If we hadn't gone to war when we did, Saddam's weapons laboratories would be booming; he would be funding terrorists and arming them all over the world; Gadhafi would still have his chemical weapons lab, the largest in the third world, and he'd have his nuclear weapons lab; there wouldn't be a democracy movement in the Middle East; it's very possible that Pakistan would now be an Islamic nuclear state; and the United States would have been so weakened it would have incited much challenge to its power. It's hard to imagine what would have happened.
The reality is that we haven't been attacked since 2001. There's not a living human being who would have bet on September 12, 2001 that we would not be attacked again on our own soil in four years. All of that is due to George Bush and his aggressive war on terror. He's one of the great figures of recent times.
NM: Your wife April is apparently a believer. She made the statement that when she gets to the afterlife she wants you to be there, and she's afraid that if you don't believe you won't be there. Has she had any impact on you in that respect?
DH: You can't make somebody a believer. She wanted me to open my heart, so yes, she has had an impact – I will keep my heart open.
NM: Is "The End of Time" your last will and testament?
DH: "Hopefully that's premature. When you reach your 60s as I did when I began this, you can see the horizon coming. I have a passage in the book where I talk about how 20 years is like a lifetime. Well, 80 is pretty old even these days. It's time to think about those things. It's a book for people who have reached a certain age."
To order a copy of David Horowitz's new book, The End of Time, click here.