Recruitment Letter
—To Those Who Fight for Freedom

前人骨，后人书，
自古英雄，埋名荒芜。
今朝飞雪掩旧墓，
他朝朝露湿新图。

荆棘路，铁血途，
万千志士，忍辱含诛。
谭嗣同笑赴菜市口，
王全璋誓不背信书。

浩气在，正义呼，
风起云涌，沧海扬舻。
甘地盐道行千里，
曼德拉铁窗写前驱。

星火燃，照江渚，
黑夜无声，信念如炬。
你我不负身上骨，
中华终见共和初。

作者：杨辰
编辑：罗志飞
责任编辑：鲁慧文
翻译：鲁慧文

Recruitment Letter
—To Those Who Fight for Freedom

Bones of the past, writings of the next,
Heroes through ages, buried and vexed.
Snow now veils the graves grown old,
While morning dew wets maps yet bold.

A thorny path, a trail of blood,
Thousands of patriots, silenced in mud.
Tan Sitong smiled to the execution yard,
Wang Quanzhang vowed, truth unmarred.

Righteousness lives, and justice calls,
Winds surge high, as the ocean sprawls.
Gandhi’s salt march walked afar,
Mandela’s cell lit like a star.

Sparks ignite, shining the shore,
Silent the night, yet faith burns more.
We shall not fail these bones we bear—
Till China breathes Republic air.

Written by: Yang Chen
Editor: Luo Zhifei
Chief Editor: Lu Huiwen
Translation: Lu Huiwen

Reflections on the Fifth Anniversary of Dr. Li Wenliang’s Passing

作者：黄明发 编辑：赵杰 责任编辑：罗志飞 翻译：鲁慧文关键词：李文亮，中国民主党全国委员会洛杉矶地委，茉莉花行动

昨天我们中国民主党全国委员会在洛杉矶蒙市，在俗称丁胖子广场的地方举行了第724次茉莉花行动。潘志刚、袁泽刚、我黄明发等参与了这次纪念李文亮医生五周年的活动,参加的很多兄弟姐妹们把李文亮医生说得特别高大上、英雄伟岸，如何的勇敢与共匪做斗争，有位同仁还把他喜欢吃樱桃的事，搬上了讲台。我看到有这么多新人上来发表个人的意见，我感到很高兴。想当年我们早先参加茉莉花行动的时候，人数没有这么多，敢于上台讲话人更是寥寥无几。

以前的民主党同仁参加茉莉花活动都不敢上台讲话，到现在的同仁勇于上台讲话，从这个变化中，我可以看到中国的大变革即将来临，中国的人权、自由，民主希望即将到来。

最后活动快结束的时候我也上台讲话了，但我讲的内容可能大家不是太喜欢听，我主要讲的是李文亮是一个平凡的人，在一个特定的历史危机中出了一个正常人应该说的真话，他并不勇敢也不伟大，他的勇气绝不敢跟那些异议人士相比，我甚至敢说，他根本就没有郭飞雄.秦永敏.唐荆陵等异议人士的十分之一的勇敢和正义感，他今天能名留青史主要是因为在共产党习近平的邪恶的独裁统治下说了一点真话，在一个被邪恶统治的国家说真话，说正常的话是要付出生命的代价了，在共产党邪恶的统治下只允许谎言、伪善、空洞的话，出现在人们的面前，共产党绝不允许让人民听到真话，实话。

最后我鼓励大家在这个千年未有的大变革时代即将来临的时候，大家踊跃说真话、说实话，做一个正常的人，做一个有正义感的人，一个有良心的人，就可以名留青史，因为在这个魔鬼统治的国度里，被谎言笼罩的国度里说真话或做有正义感的事，是有罪的，罪名（煽动颠覆政府罪）。中共就是不想名留青史但我们要做神喜悦的事，听神的话，因为神耶稣基督讨厌专制，所以我们要推翻这个独裁的专制。

我还告诉同仁们，我们不要自卑，不要轻看自己。当年的武昌起义熊秉坤也不过是一个小士兵，最后在历史的长河中留有一定的席位，这就是因为他在关键的时候，在神与撒旦决斗的关键时刻，熊秉坤坤站在正义的一边站在神的一边。所以在这个关键的时刻，在现在神与撒旦决斗的关键时刻，我们也要选择站在正义的一边，即使是不为名留青史，也要为我们的后人着想，让我们的后代脱离共产党习近平邪恶的统治，摆脱农奴制。绝不再让这种农奴制统治我们的下一代，让这种邪恶无耻卑鄙的制度在我们这一代结束吧。

Reflections on the Fifth Anniversary of Dr. Li Wenliang’s Passing

By Huang Mingfa | Edited by Zhao Jie | Chief Editor: Luo Zhifei | Translated by: Lu Huiwen

Keywords: Li Wenliang, China Democracy Party Los Angeles Committee, Jasmine Action

Yesterday, the China Democracy Party National Committee held its 724th Jasmine Action at the so-called “Fat Ding Plaza” in Monterey Park, Los Angeles. Comrades like Pan Zhigang, Yuan Zegang, and I (Huang Mingfa) participated in this event commemorating the fifth anniversary of Dr. Li Wenliang’s passing. Many of our brothers and sisters described Dr. Li in lofty terms—heroic, courageous, and standing up bravely against the Communist regime. One speaker even mentioned that Dr. Li loved eating cherries.

Seeing so many new participants stand up and share their personal thoughts brought me genuine joy. I still remember in the early days of Jasmine Action, there were far fewer people, and even fewer dared to speak in public.

The fact that our comrades today have the courage to take the stage and speak reflects a profound change. From this shift, I believe that a great transformation in China is approaching, and that the hope for human rights, freedom, and democracy is drawing near.

As the event neared its end, I also went up to speak. What I said might not have been to everyone’s liking. I mainly emphasized that Li Wenliang was an ordinary man who, in a moment of historical crisis, did what any normal person should—he told the truth. He was not especially brave or great. His courage does not compare to that of dissidents like Guo Feixiong, Qin Yongmin, or Tang Jingling—not even a tenth of it, I would argue.

The reason he is remembered in history is because he told a simple truth under Xi Jinping’s wicked dictatorship—in a country ruled by evil, speaking the truth comes at the cost of one’s life. Under CCP rule, only lies, hypocrisy, and empty slogans are allowed in public discourse. The regime will never allow the people to hear the truth.

In conclusion, I encouraged everyone—in this era of once-in-a-millennium transformation—to speak the truth, to speak honestly, to be a normal person, a person of justice and conscience. In a land ruled by evil, shrouded in lies, telling the truth is considered a crime—“inciting subversion of state power.”

The Chinese Communist Party does not care about leaving a legacy in history—but we must do what is pleasing to God. We must follow God’s will. For the Lord Jesus Christ despises tyranny, and so we must overthrow this autocracy.

I also reminded my fellow comrades: do not look down on yourselves or feel inferior. Back in the Wuchang Uprising, Xiong Bingkun was just a low-ranking soldier, yet he secured a place in history because in the critical moment of spiritual warfare between God and Satan, he chose to stand on the side of justice and with God.

And so today, in this pivotal moment of battle between the divine and the demonic, we too must choose to stand on the side of righteousness. Even if we do not make a name for ourselves in history, we must think of future generations, to liberate them from the evil rule of the Chinese Communist Party and from the chains of serfdom.

Let this generation be the one to end this wicked, shameless, and despicable regime. Let this era of slave rule die with us.

Shi Yongxin and Shaolin Temple: A Prolonged Struggle Between Power and Faith

作者：陀先润

编辑：gloria Wang 责任编辑：罗志飞 翻译：鲁慧文

关键词：释永信，少林寺，中国佛教，信仰

在中国佛教界，少林寺是一个独特的存在。它既是佛教禅宗祖庭，又是商业与文化的输出地，同时又为体制服务。在过去二十多年里，少林寺的权力中心无疑是释永信。

从1980年代末起，释永信便试图进入少林寺核心领导层。在他尚未年满三十时，便多次争夺“住持”一职。当时虽未得逞，但他并未退缩。90年代初，他通过种种方式排挤原方丈速喜和尚，最终将其软禁，进而谋求上位。这一举动引发佛教界不满，佛教协会主席赵朴初生前始终拒绝批复他的住持资格，直到赵朴初去世多年，释永信才于1999年被顺利“扶正”。

他的上位，并非善行结果，而是玩弄权术与人脉的业力所致。然而，释永信上位后，争议与质疑并未停歇。

2008年与2015年，曾先后爆发两次针对他的实名举报，内容涉及财务不清、违背戒律、涉及女性关系等严重问题。举报者大多来自寺内、知情深入，细节清晰，但调查皆无果。公众一再质疑，释永信却步步高升，不仅担任全国政协常委、佛教协会副会长，还享有准副国级的生活与医疗待遇。

这一切无疑反映出一个问题：释永信不仅是一位宗教人物，更是体制中被制度性保护的“特殊身份者”。尤其在对外活动方面，释永信常年持公务护照出国访问，行程及比利时、阿布扎比、梵蒂冈等地，频频出席多边宗教会议。部分活动由名为“欧洲亚洲中心”的组织协调，该组织虽名为NGO，实则为中国对外形象工程的一环。这类“宗教外交”，往往游走于信仰与国家任务之间，其实质是政治角色的延伸。

甚至在一些敏感场合，如访问梵蒂冈的过程中，也有网络言论质疑他是否越权接触海外宗教人士。然而这正是中共的安排，中梵没有正式外交关系，中国政府不便公开派员，释永信的角色正好承担了那种“亦官亦僧”的模糊职能。

他代表的是体制中一种非常典型的“融合型人物”：宗教领袖、文化符号、政府代言人，三者集于一身。而其背后的少林寺，也早已不只是“禅宗祖庭”，更是一个跨界运作的经济体、舆论话题场与政商利益圈。

然而在这种“庙堂—庙门—庙市”三位一体化的发展下，那些曾坚守修行传统、试图揭露真相的大和尚们逐渐被边缘。他们或隐退山林，或被驱出寺门，或沉默不语。整个佛教体系在权力结构的裹挟下，越来越像是一套精密的“庙产管理系统”，而非一方净土。

结语

释永信并非孤例。他只是当代中国宗教—权力交界地带中，一个恰好被看见的人。他身上的争议，照出的是整个体制对信仰的工具化、对监督的空转、对僧人身份的政治塑形。

当一个方丈不再被问“是否持戒”，而被评价“是否得体、能出镜、擅公关”，我们是否该追问：如果信仰都可以被操控，那身在这片土地，还有何物不能被当局控制？

Shi Yongxin and Shaolin Temple: A Prolonged Struggle Between Power and Faith

By Tuo Xianrun | Edited by Gloria Wang | Chief Editor: Luo Zhifei | Translated by: Lu Huiwen

Keywords: Shi Yongxin, Shaolin Temple, Chinese Buddhism, Faith

In the landscape of Chinese Buddhism, the Shaolin Temple holds a unique position. It is not only the ancestral seat of Chan (Zen) Buddhism, but also a commercial and cultural brand—and at the same time, an institution that serves the political system. Over the past two decades, the power center of Shaolin has indisputably been Shi Yongxin.

Since the late 1980s, Shi Yongxin had been striving to enter the temple’s leadership circle. Before even turning thirty, he repeatedly competed for the position of abbot. Though unsuccessful at the time, he did not back down. In the early 1990s, through various means, he sidelined the then-abbot Master Suxi, eventually placing him under soft house arrest, paving his own path to the top. This move stirred discontent within the Buddhist community. The then-President of the Buddhist Association of China, Zhao Puchu, persistently refused to approve Shi’s abbotship during his lifetime. It was only years after Zhao’s passing that Shi Yongxin was officially “promoted” in 1999.

His rise to power was not the result of virtue but a consequence of wielding political tactics and personal connections. However, Shi Yongxin’s ascent did not put an end to controversy and public skepticism.

In both 2008 and 2015, whistleblowers filed real-name complaints against him, involving financial opacity, violations of monastic discipline, and alleged improper relations with women. These accusations mostly came from insiders, with detailed and credible information. Yet no investigations yielded results. Despite the persistent questions from the public, Shi Yongxin continued to climb the political ladder, serving as a member of the National Committee of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC) and as Vice President of the Buddhist Association of China. He also enjoys vice-ministerial-level perks in lifestyle and medical care.

All of this points to one conclusion: Shi Yongxin is not merely a religious figure, but a “special-status individual” institutionally protected within the system. Especially in the international arena, Shi Yongxin has long held a diplomatic passport and frequently travels abroad to attend multilateral religious forums in places like Belgium, Abu Dhabi, and the Vatican. Many of these trips are coordinated by the so-called “Europe-Asia Center,” an organization that claims NGO status but in reality functions as part of China’s global image-building initiatives. These instances of “religious diplomacy” often blur the line between faith and national duty, essentially extending the political apparatus.

In sensitive contexts—such as his visits to the Vatican—netizens have questioned whether Shi Yongxin overstepped in engaging with foreign religious figures. Yet this, too, is part of the CCP’s plan. Since China and the Vatican have no formal diplomatic ties, the government cannot dispatch official envoys openly. Shi’s role fills that vacuum—he is a monk, yes, but also a quasi-official emissary.

He embodies a very typical “hybrid identity” within the Chinese system: religious leader, cultural icon, and government spokesperson rolled into one. And behind him, the Shaolin Temple has long ceased to be a pure religious sanctuary; it is now a multi-industry enterprise, a media spectacle, and a hub for political and business interests.

However, under this “temple-court-market” trinity model, the elder monks who once upheld traditional spiritual discipline—and who dared to speak the truth—have been gradually sidelined. Some have retreated into seclusion, others have been expelled from the temple, and many have been silenced. The entire Buddhist structure, wrapped in layers of power dynamics, now resembles an elaborate “temple property management system” rather than a spiritual sanctuary.

Conclusion

Shi Yongxin is not an isolated case. He is simply one figure caught in the spotlight at the intersection of religion and power in today’s China. The controversies surrounding him reflect the broader reality: the instrumentalization of faith, the hollowing out of accountability, and the political redefinition of monastic roles under the current regime.

When an abbot is no longer asked, “Do you observe the precepts?” but instead judged by whether he “looks appropriate on camera, can handle public relations, and fits the Party’s image,” we must ask: If even faith can be manipulated, what in this land is beyond the reach of state control?

Why Marxism Fails, Part I: A Flawed Guiding Theory

作者：华言

编辑：周志刚 责任编辑：罗志飞 鲁慧文 翻译：鲁慧文

关键词：马克思主义，马克思哲学，马克思政治经济学，科学社会主义，唯物主义

马克思主义由三部分组成：马克思哲学、马克思政治经济学和科学社会主义。马克思哲学和马克思政治经济学是工具，科学社会主义才是目的，这是我们所要论证的。

一、唯物主义是丑陋的哲学

唯物主义，在哲学基本问题上坚持物质第一性，精神第二性；世界的统一性在于物质性；意识是物质世界发展到一定阶段的产物；人的认识是对客观存在的反映。

唯物主义强调“物质第一性，意识第二性”，极力否定意识的价值，特别否定精神的意义。唯物主义的历史观，即所谓“历史唯物主义”，运用“生产力决定生产关系，经济基础觉定上层建筑”的“公式”，而否定个人的道德因素和精神意志作用。唯物主义的辩证法，“与万物普遍联系”和“按自身规律永恒发展”，唯物辩证法变成了诡辩论，消弭了对与错、是与非、善与恶的界限，变成了一种聪明但有欺骗性的、似是而非的推理和论证。唯物辩证法有时承认事物的永久运动，而否定事物的相对静止，否定概念的确定性，有时又以事物的相对静止否定事物的永久变动，把灵活性视作原则性。在解释命题时，崇尚玩弄概念、故弄玄虚，用华而不实的辞藻美化相对主义的说教。

唯物主义对意识的极度贬抑，乃至根本否定，使社会的精神支柱轰然倒塌，加速了社会道德沦丧。一是金钱崇拜。对物质的绝对肯定，自然导致对物质财富的推崇，也就是金钱崇拜，形成了“金钱万能”的畸形社会观念。二是精神空虚。物质财富不必然带来精神的充实，对物质财富的狂热贪求，所追求的是只有物质，导致精神世界空虚。

生命的意义在精神的意境中实现，精神之花一旦凋落,生命中将只剩下物欲本能,而没有精神的本能是丑陋的。哲学的价值在于,并且只在于摘取生命意义王冠上的明珠。精神之火熄灭了,生命就物化了,丑化了——唯物主义是丑陋的哲学。

二、剩余价值理论没有任何理论价值

马克思的剩余价值学说是马克思主义政治经济学的基石，是使社会主义从空想变为“科学”的奠基石。马克思的剩余价值理论是非常荒谬的，把马克思的荒谬学说作为指导世界无产阶级革命运动的理论基础，更是荒谬绝伦的。

马克思的剩余价值理论体系中有一个结论，创造价值的唯一要素是劳动，其他任何生产要素都不是价值的源泉，进而进一步提示资本“剥削”的本质。一颗钻石两千年前毫无价值，因为人们都不认识。今天价值连城，这中间没有任何“劳动”，产生价值的原因是人们都“想要”钻石。没有劳动而产生巨大的价值，如何解释？所以，创造价值的唯一要素是劳动根本上是错误的。

商品的价值只有在交换时才得到体现。没有交换，就没有商品的价值。因此，市场才是商品价值赖以存在的基础，没有市场也就没有商品的价值。什么是商品的价值？它是在充分而广泛的竞价基础上产生的，由供求关系决定的。生产了没有人要的东西，花费再多的时间也不产生价值；灵光一现的创意，花费少量时间，也可以产生巨大的价值。所以，价值与劳动无必然的关系，与社会必要劳动时间无必然联系，劳动价值论从根本上是错误的。奥地利学派认为，在生产过程中，资本家在提供其它生产要素的时候需要承担风险，而工人不需要承担这种风险。所以资本家获取利润是对于他们承担风险的一种补偿。制度经济学反驳马克思的剩余价值理论：如果其他生产要素毫无价值，那为什么工人要甘心接受资本家的剥削呢？他们完全可以单凭自己那唯一有价值的“劳动”去完成生产过程，去占据所有的“剩余价值”，不让资本家占便宜。

现代分配理论认为：按生产要素分配是按照生产要素的数量和质量以及生产要素贡献的大小。生产要素主要包括：劳动、技术、资本、管理等。各生产要素在国民收入中所占的份额大小，取决于它们各自的均衡价格。因此，工资、利息、地租和利润就是各生产要素的需求价格和供给价格相均衡的价格。工资是劳动的需求和供给均衡时的价格。利息是资本的需求和供给均衡时的价格。地租是由土地的需求状况和供给决定的。利润是资本家组织和管理企业以及冒风险的报酬。

因此，按照马克思定义,剩余价值=劳动价值-工资，劳动价值论是错误的，故而剩余价值论必定错误。

三、科学社会主义的不科学

社会主义就是通过不断革命，实行无产阶级的阶级专政，通过专政达到消灭一切阶级差别和由这些阶级差别产生的一切生产关系，从而进入共产主义。这一论述明确指出了社会主义本身是“过渡阶段”，是由资本主义社会向共产主义社会过渡的历史时期，直至最终实现共产主义。实现共产主义由三个阶段来完成：一是无产阶级暴力革命；二是无产阶级专政和社会主义社会；三是共产主义。

科学社会主义的基本原理和原则：政治上实行无产阶级政党的领导，无产阶级在共产党领导下进行革命和建设；经济上社会化大生产，公有制是社会化大生产的基础，推动社会化大生产的实现和发展的条件；文化上保持文化领导权，坚持文艺为社会主义主义服务，为政治服务，为共产党服务。

各国实施科学社会主义的共同结果是：如前苏共政治局委员、苏联解体后任俄共主席的久加诺夫所反思的那样，形成了苏共在苏联的“三个垄断”：政治垄断、经济垄断、思想垄断。无产阶级政党的领导成为了政治垄断，权力即资源和地位，当党天下成为了现实，党为了一直“为人民（币）服务”，就再也不愿意让他人染指权力，对一切意图获取权力者进行打压，乃至肉体消灭。经济上社会化大生产成为了经济垄断，将一切资源国有化，实质是官僚化，进而领导个人化，通过“二步走”，先是化私为共、再化公为私，让领导率先实现共产主义，让工人、农民成为领导进军共产主义车轮下的尘土，在公有制下，共产党政府对资源的垄断是全面彻底集中的，通过严格的生活资料票证供应制度，排除了任何个人对任何生活资源占有的可能性，人们的衣、食、住、行，每一项物质需求无不仰求于那个垄断者–共产党和无产阶级专政国家。在这种条件下，人们除了对垄断者–共产党彻底的人身依附外，已经没有任何存活的可能性。托洛茨基说：在一个政府是唯一的雇主的国家里，反抗就等于慢慢地饿死。‘不劳动者不得食’这个旧的原则，已由‘不服从者不得食’这个新的原则所代替。保持文化领导权成为了思想垄断，为了保持意识形态的统一性，必须从儿童抓起，不断塑造共产主义的新人，消灭一切异见，从而舆论一律、文艺一律。这“三个垄断”是反人道主义，是对人民的生存状态，对每一个人的社会、经济、政治、文化的价值观的根本控制与操纵，对人性尊严的侮辱和伤害。最后，人民丧失了民主自由，丧失了思想自由，造成新的奴隶制度，工厂成了集中营，农民成了农奴。

马克思高估了无产阶级领导的人性和人品，忘记了他们也是人，有人的一切缺点和不足。马克思高估了无产阶级制度的科学性，为了未来天堂的美好，在人间建设了一个惨无人道、最野蛮、最暴虐的恐怖的人间地狱，美其名曰：科学社会主义社会。

Why Marxism Fails, Part I: A Flawed Guiding Theory

By Hua Yan | Edited by Zhou Zhigang | Chief Editors: Luo Zhifei, Lu Huiwen | Translated by: Lu Huiwen

Keywords: Marxism, Marxist Philosophy, Marxist Political Economy, Scientific Socialism, Materialism

Marxism is composed of three parts: Marxist philosophy, Marxist political economy, and scientific socialism. The first two serve as tools, while scientific socialism is the intended goal. This article aims to demonstrate precisely that.

I. Materialism — An Ugly Philosophy

Materialism holds that matter is primary and consciousness is secondary; that the unity of the world lies in its materiality; that consciousness is a product of matter developed to a certain stage; and that human understanding is merely a reflection of objective existence.

Materialism emphasizes “matter over mind,” aggressively denying the value of consciousness and especially the importance of the spirit. Its historical view—historical materialism—uses a rigid formula of “productive forces determine relations of production; economic base determines the superstructure” to deny the role of individual morality and spiritual will.

Marx’s dialectical materialism, which claims “universal interconnectedness” and “eternal development according to internal laws,” degenerates into sophistry. It blurs the line between right and wrong, good and evil, becoming a deceptive form of pseudo-reasoning. Sometimes it affirms perpetual motion while denying relative stability and the definability of concepts; other times it uses stability to deny change—treating flexibility as a principle.

In interpreting propositions, it delights in conceptual tricks and empty jargon, beautifying relativist doctrines with flowery but hollow language.

This extreme devaluation—and even outright denial—of consciousness by materialism causes the spiritual pillars of society to collapse, accelerating the decay of social morality.

1. Worship of Money: Absolute affirmation of the material inevitably leads to the worship of material wealth, breeding a distorted worldview of “money is everything.”

2. Spiritual Emptiness: Material wealth does not necessarily lead to spiritual fulfillment. The blind pursuit of material gain leads to spiritual hollowness.

The meaning of life is found in spiritual realms. When the flower of the spirit withers, life becomes reduced to material instinct alone—and instinct without spirit is grotesque. The value of philosophy lies in uncovering the pearl that crowns life’s meaning. When the flame of the spirit is extinguished, life becomes commodified and debased—materialism is, therefore, an ugly philosophy.

II. The Surplus Value Theory Has No Theoretical Value

Marx’s surplus value theory is the cornerstone of Marxist political economy—the foundation upon which socialism claims to transform from “utopia” into “science.” But this theory is riddled with absurdities.

According to Marx, labor is the only source of value, and all other production factors contribute nothing to value creation. This underpins the idea of capital’s “exploitation.”

But consider: a diamond 2,000 years ago had no value because people didn’t recognize it. Today, it’s worth a fortune—without any additional labor. Its value arises because people want it. How does one explain the immense value generated without corresponding labor? Clearly, labor as the sole source of value is fundamentally wrong.

The value of a commodity is only realized in exchange. Without exchange, there is no value. Value arises from broad market-based pricing, dictated by supply and demand. A product no one wants has no value regardless of the labor poured into it; a flash of creative inspiration, produced with little labor, may carry immense value.

Thus, value is not inherently tied to labor, nor to so-called “socially necessary labor time.” The labor theory of value is inherently flawed.

Austrian economists argue that in production, capitalists contribute capital and assume risk—something workers do not. Profit, therefore, is compensation for risk. Institutional economists refute Marx’s surplus value theory: If other production factors are truly worthless, why would workers tolerate capitalist “exploitation”? They could use their valuable labor alone to control production and reap all the surplus value themselves.

Modern distribution theory holds that income is allocated according to the quantity, quality, and contribution of production factors—labor, capital, technology, and management. Their share of national income is determined by their equilibrium prices:

• Wages = equilibrium price of labor

• Interest = equilibrium price of capital

• Rent = price based on land supply and demand

• Profit = compensation for organizing, managing, and risking capital

Therefore, by Marx’s logic, surplus value = labor value − wages. But if the labor theory of value is false, then surplus value theory is necessarily false too.

III. The Pseudoscience of Scientific Socialism

Marxist socialism is defined by perpetual revolution, implementing the dictatorship of the proletariat to eliminate all class distinctions and their associated production relations—ultimately reaching communism.

This vision involves three stages:

1. Violent revolution led by the proletariat

2. Proletarian dictatorship and socialist society

3. Realization of communism

The fundamental principles of scientific socialism are:

• Political: Leadership by the proletarian party (i.e., the Communist Party)

• Economic: Public ownership and large-scale socialized production

• Cultural: Cultural control, with art and literature serving socialism, politics, and the Communist Party

But wherever scientific socialism was implemented, the result has been the same. As former Politburo member and post-Soviet Communist Party leader Gennady Zyuganov admitted, it resulted in three monopolies in the Soviet Union:

1. Political monopoly: One-party rule meant power became resource and status. Once the Party held all power “for the people,” it refused to let go, crushing all challengers—even physically eliminating them.

2. Economic monopoly: State ownership evolved into bureaucratic control, then into personal control by leaders. This “two-step” privatization turned “shared property” into tools of personal privilege. While leaders got rich first, workers and peasants were ground into dust under the wheels of this fake communism. All resources were monopolized by the Party through strict rationing systems—leaving individuals no access to basic needs without submission to the Party.

3. Ideological monopoly: Cultural control meant total domination of thought. From childhood, citizens were molded into “new communist men,” while all dissenting thought was erased. Media and art served only one voice—the Party.

These “three monopolies” were anti-humanitarian. They enslaved people spiritually, economically, politically, and culturally—stripping them of dignity and turning society into a new form of slavery. Factories became concentration camps, peasants became serfs.

As Leon Trotsky once said:

“In a country where the government is the sole employer, resistance means starvation. The old slogan ‘He who does not work shall not eat’ has been replaced by a new one: ‘He who does not obey shall not eat.’”

Conclusion

Marx overestimated the moral integrity and character of proletarian leaders—forgetting they are still human, with human flaws. He also overestimated the scientific nature of the proletarian system. In pursuit of a utopian paradise, scientific socialism created a horrifying earthly hell—brutal, inhumane, and tyrannical. And it had the audacity to call itself “scientific.”