By ALEXANDER DOLITSKY
Sept. 11, 2026 – When I arrived in the United States in February 1978 as a political refugee from the Soviet Union, I never thought America would attempt to destroy itself from within through radical neo-Marxist ideology and progressive slogans. I was born and raised in Kiev, Ukraine, in the mid-1950s, during the post-World War II era. Echoes of the devastating war and the brutality of Stalinism still filled the air.
Due to decades of Soviet repression, people feared speaking or acting openly. Fear of persecution for free thinkers permeated all spheres of public life, and citizens rarely questioned blind pseudo-patriotism or commitment to the Communist Party. Complete compliance with Marxist-Leninist ideology was mandatory for all public institutions—including schools, research centers, the military, government, and the arts. There were absolutely no exceptions.
Historically, unlike democratic socialism in the former Soviet Union and my own experiences, leftism has radicalized among American youth because the post-Vietnam War generation has never experienced true economic hardship or totalitarian oppression. Instead of a meaningful hand-up, they have been subjected to political correctness, entitlement, and wasteful handouts.
Far-left progressives are rarely as liberal or open-minded as they claim. Their ideology is often illiberal, intolerant, and isolationist. Metaphorically, their mindset amounts to:
“I will serve you a bowl of soup once a month at your place, as long as you don’t show up at my oceanfront home asking for more.”
This is false compassion. Even when genuine, their approach frequently produces negative outcomes and hypocritical behavior.
This hypocrisy is especially evident within elite academic and institutional leadership. Progressive faculty and administrators often champion rigorous anti-racist, pro-labor, and equity-focused curricula while simultaneously hiring corporate, union-busting law firms to suppress and exploit their own campus and service workers.
For example, in 2021, when Bates College’s adjunct faculty, staff, and campus workers attempted to organize the Bates Educators Union, the administration took a starkly different approach. Instead of remaining neutral or welcoming the collective bargaining efforts, college leadership hired Lev Labor LLC, a corporate labor-relations firm.
Columbia University, an elite Ivy League institution renowned for its progressive faculty, routinely champions anti-racist, pro-labor, and marginalized-history curricula. Its administration also frequently publishes statements dedicated to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI).
However, between 2014 and 2022, despite this progressive branding, the administration actively fought the unionization of its own teaching assistants and researchers. To suppress the movement, Columbia hired Proskauer Rose, a high-priced corporate law firm known for its “union avoidance” strategies.
Throughout several years of strikes, the administration deployed heavy-handed tactics. They threatened to withhold pay, adjust stipends, alter international student visa statuses, and even replace striking teaching assistants with nonunion labor. Observers and faculty pointed out that internal administrative memos advising professors on how to manage the strike closely mirrored the anti-union playbooks used by mega-corporations like Walmart.
Key Contradictions in Institutional Progressivism
Rhetoric vs. Labor Practices: Universities frequently host expansive “decolonization and liberation” events honoring historic civil rights leaders while simultaneously paying corporate consultants massive sums to break union drives among vulnerable campus staff.
Selective Anti-Colonialism: Academic and activist circles often display selective outrage regarding imperialism by loudly condemning Western foreign policy while rationalizing or ignoring authoritarian crackdowns and colonial-paternalist governance elsewhere.
Inclusion Standards: Spaces organized around social justice and intersectionality frequently face criticism for ideological gatekeeping. In these environments, minority participants—such as dissenting or Zionist Jewish academics—are excluded from progressive coalitions if they fail rigid purity tests.
Far-left progressivism has become a religion to certain groups. Their zeal and emotional attachment to dogmas—specifically democratic socialism and neo-Marxism—prevent them from maintaining an open mind.
Neo-Marxism updates 20th-century classical Marxist theory by expanding beyond economics into culture, psychology, and social power. It illustrates how ruling classes maintain control through cultural hegemony—using norms, media, education, and institutions rather than just force. In international relations, it views capitalism as a global system where wealthy nations maintain wealth by exploiting developing nations.
A corrupt bureaucracy spanning all levels of government—often called the “swamp”—fuels modern American totalitarianism. Unelected officials and career politicians weaponize institutional power to impose extreme left-wing policies and authoritarian control over citizens. From this viewpoint, the shift toward radicalism is driven by entrenched insiders rather than democratic consensus.
An example illustrating this perspective is the “Deep State” narrative surrounding federal agencies, specifically regarding the 2020 censorship of the Hunter Biden laptop story and the enforcement of federal mandates.
Proponents of this argument frequently point to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) as prime examples. They argue that unelected, career bureaucrats within these agencies weaponized institutional power to shield preferred political figures while aggressively targeting political opponents, parents protesting at school board meetings, and traditional religious groups.
In this narrative, these actions represent an unaccountable administrative state imposing control and suppressing dissent, entirely outside of the democratic process or the will of American voters.
Karl Marx’s Philosophy to Action: How Radical Theory Grips the Masses
As Karl Marx (1844) stated in A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right: “The weapon of criticism cannot, of course, replace criticism by weapons, material force must be overthrown by material force; but theory also becomes a material force as soon as it has gripped the masses. Theory can grip the masses as soon as it demonstrates ad hominem [i.e., appealing to the individual’s nature instead of abstract logic], and it demonstrates ad hominem as soon as it becomes radical.”
In short, Marx argued that abstract ideas cannot change the world alone. Real change requires material action, but ideas spark that action when they connect with ordinary people by targeting the root causes of suffering.
He outlined three core principles:
(1) Ideas need people. Philosophy is useless if trapped in academic debates;
(2) Action needs a goal. Revolutions need clear theory to guide working-class energy;
(3) Root causes matter. To move people, an idea must speak to their daily reality and expose the root of their pain.
The Fight for American Freedom
Today, many Americans are shaped by a democratic socialist education system designed by far-left activists—a framework that actively undermines the free market. Consequently, many young people are left disoriented by the false “truths” pushed within hermetically sealed, ideological echo chambers.
Indeed, radical leftists cannot be reasoned with; they can only be voted out. Patriotic Americans must remain organized and disciplined to save our country from this nonsense and stand up for liberty.
Freedom is not free. It has a distinct value; it is not an instinct. Rational Americans must fight for freedom—otherwise, there will be no place left to go.
The author was born and raised in the former Soviet Union before settling in the U.S. in 1978. He moved to Juneau in 1986 where he taught Russian studies and Archaeology at the University of Alaska Southeast, and Social Studies Teacher at the Alyeska Central School of the Alaska Department of Education. From 1990 to 2022, he served as a director and president of the Alaska-Siberia Research Center, publishing in the fields of anthropology, history, archaeology and ethnography. Find him on Amazon.com.
Home » Alexander Dolitsky: Echoes of Soviet conformity and modern American leftism
Alexander Dolitsky: Echoes of Soviet conformity and modern American leftism
By ALEXANDER DOLITSKY
Sept. 11, 2026 – When I arrived in the United States in February 1978 as a political refugee from the Soviet Union, I never thought America would attempt to destroy itself from within through radical neo-Marxist ideology and progressive slogans. I was born and raised in Kiev, Ukraine, in the mid-1950s, during the post-World War II era. Echoes of the devastating war and the brutality of Stalinism still filled the air.
Due to decades of Soviet repression, people feared speaking or acting openly. Fear of persecution for free thinkers permeated all spheres of public life, and citizens rarely questioned blind pseudo-patriotism or commitment to the Communist Party. Complete compliance with Marxist-Leninist ideology was mandatory for all public institutions—including schools, research centers, the military, government, and the arts. There were absolutely no exceptions.
Historically, unlike democratic socialism in the former Soviet Union and my own experiences, leftism has radicalized among American youth because the post-Vietnam War generation has never experienced true economic hardship or totalitarian oppression. Instead of a meaningful hand-up, they have been subjected to political correctness, entitlement, and wasteful handouts.
Far-left progressives are rarely as liberal or open-minded as they claim. Their ideology is often illiberal, intolerant, and isolationist. Metaphorically, their mindset amounts to:
“I will serve you a bowl of soup once a month at your place, as long as you don’t show up at my oceanfront home asking for more.”
This is false compassion. Even when genuine, their approach frequently produces negative outcomes and hypocritical behavior.
This hypocrisy is especially evident within elite academic and institutional leadership. Progressive faculty and administrators often champion rigorous anti-racist, pro-labor, and equity-focused curricula while simultaneously hiring corporate, union-busting law firms to suppress and exploit their own campus and service workers.
For example, in 2021, when Bates College’s adjunct faculty, staff, and campus workers attempted to organize the Bates Educators Union, the administration took a starkly different approach. Instead of remaining neutral or welcoming the collective bargaining efforts, college leadership hired Lev Labor LLC, a corporate labor-relations firm.
Columbia University, an elite Ivy League institution renowned for its progressive faculty, routinely champions anti-racist, pro-labor, and marginalized-history curricula. Its administration also frequently publishes statements dedicated to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI).
However, between 2014 and 2022, despite this progressive branding, the administration actively fought the unionization of its own teaching assistants and researchers. To suppress the movement, Columbia hired Proskauer Rose, a high-priced corporate law firm known for its “union avoidance” strategies.
Throughout several years of strikes, the administration deployed heavy-handed tactics. They threatened to withhold pay, adjust stipends, alter international student visa statuses, and even replace striking teaching assistants with nonunion labor. Observers and faculty pointed out that internal administrative memos advising professors on how to manage the strike closely mirrored the anti-union playbooks used by mega-corporations like Walmart.
Key Contradictions in Institutional Progressivism
Rhetoric vs. Labor Practices: Universities frequently host expansive “decolonization and liberation” events honoring historic civil rights leaders while simultaneously paying corporate consultants massive sums to break union drives among vulnerable campus staff.
Selective Anti-Colonialism: Academic and activist circles often display selective outrage regarding imperialism by loudly condemning Western foreign policy while rationalizing or ignoring authoritarian crackdowns and colonial-paternalist governance elsewhere.
Inclusion Standards: Spaces organized around social justice and intersectionality frequently face criticism for ideological gatekeeping. In these environments, minority participants—such as dissenting or Zionist Jewish academics—are excluded from progressive coalitions if they fail rigid purity tests.
Far-left progressivism has become a religion to certain groups. Their zeal and emotional attachment to dogmas—specifically democratic socialism and neo-Marxism—prevent them from maintaining an open mind.
Neo-Marxism updates 20th-century classical Marxist theory by expanding beyond economics into culture, psychology, and social power. It illustrates how ruling classes maintain control through cultural hegemony—using norms, media, education, and institutions rather than just force. In international relations, it views capitalism as a global system where wealthy nations maintain wealth by exploiting developing nations.
A corrupt bureaucracy spanning all levels of government—often called the “swamp”—fuels modern American totalitarianism. Unelected officials and career politicians weaponize institutional power to impose extreme left-wing policies and authoritarian control over citizens. From this viewpoint, the shift toward radicalism is driven by entrenched insiders rather than democratic consensus.
An example illustrating this perspective is the “Deep State” narrative surrounding federal agencies, specifically regarding the 2020 censorship of the Hunter Biden laptop story and the enforcement of federal mandates.
Proponents of this argument frequently point to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) as prime examples. They argue that unelected, career bureaucrats within these agencies weaponized institutional power to shield preferred political figures while aggressively targeting political opponents, parents protesting at school board meetings, and traditional religious groups.
In this narrative, these actions represent an unaccountable administrative state imposing control and suppressing dissent, entirely outside of the democratic process or the will of American voters.
Karl Marx’s Philosophy to Action: How Radical Theory Grips the Masses
As Karl Marx (1844) stated in A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right: “The weapon of criticism cannot, of course, replace criticism by weapons, material force must be overthrown by material force; but theory also becomes a material force as soon as it has gripped the masses. Theory can grip the masses as soon as it demonstrates ad hominem [i.e., appealing to the individual’s nature instead of abstract logic], and it demonstrates ad hominem as soon as it becomes radical.”
In short, Marx argued that abstract ideas cannot change the world alone. Real change requires material action, but ideas spark that action when they connect with ordinary people by targeting the root causes of suffering.
He outlined three core principles:
(1) Ideas need people. Philosophy is useless if trapped in academic debates;
(2) Action needs a goal. Revolutions need clear theory to guide working-class energy;
(3) Root causes matter. To move people, an idea must speak to their daily reality and expose the root of their pain.
The Fight for American Freedom
Today, many Americans are shaped by a democratic socialist education system designed by far-left activists—a framework that actively undermines the free market. Consequently, many young people are left disoriented by the false “truths” pushed within hermetically sealed, ideological echo chambers.
Indeed, radical leftists cannot be reasoned with; they can only be voted out. Patriotic Americans must remain organized and disciplined to save our country from this nonsense and stand up for liberty.
Freedom is not free. It has a distinct value; it is not an instinct. Rational Americans must fight for freedom—otherwise, there will be no place left to go.
The author was born and raised in the former Soviet Union before settling in the U.S. in 1978. He moved to Juneau in 1986 where he taught Russian studies and Archaeology at the University of Alaska Southeast, and Social Studies Teacher at the Alyeska Central School of the Alaska Department of Education. From 1990 to 2022, he served as a director and president of the Alaska-Siberia Research Center, publishing in the fields of anthropology, history, archaeology and ethnography. Find him on Amazon.com.
Alexander Dolitsky: Toxic generosity, and the high price of free lunches
Alexander Dolitsky: Blind sympathy, brutal reality, when empathy becomes a weakness
Alexander Dolitsky: Distinguishing holy war from secular conflict
Alexander Dolitsky: What the ant mill phenomenon reveals about far-left dogmas
Alexander Dolitsky: History through the lens of the black swan, shadows of the unexpected
Alexander Dolitsky: Echoes across the decades
Alexander Dolitsky: Ukraine is used to goad and weaken Russia in a proxy trap
Alexander Dolitsky: Neo-Marxism and far-left Democratic Socialism are a death spiral for America
Alexander Dolitsky: What the ant mill phenomenon reveals about far-left dogmas
Latest Post
Anthropic says Iran used Claude to target US warships as company’s money network shapes Alaska governor’s race
By SUZANNE DOWNING Sept. 11, 2026 — The artificial intelligence company whose employees have poured
Let’s roll: Remembering Todd Beamer, the father and husband who helped lead the revolt aboard Flight 93
By SUZANNE DOWNING Sept. 11, 2026 – Todd Beamer boarded United Airlines Flight 93 on
Letter to the editor: Look at the record, not the rhetoric of Mary Peltola
Editor and fellow readers: Mary Peltola has described herself as a Democrat who supports Alaska
Comments