Socialism, USA parts--1+2

(Note: these articles were actually written by nightcrawler aka Michael Stone, not me. He has asked me to post them for him so I did.)

Socialism, USA -- Part I

I was digging around on the Communist Party website -- CPUSA, for those of you who want to check it out, and it reinforced my belief in capitalism. It made me more determined than ever to fight Communism, Socialism, and anyone seeking to advance the Marxist agenda with every last breath in my body. What could have bothered me so much? Take a peek at some of the stated goals of the CPUSA:

"It is true socialism will nationalize or socialize all large-scale production, property and real estate. But socialism does not abolish ALL privately-owned business. It does not require nationalization of those small businesses owned by people who work for themselves and do not hire others to make a profit."

In other words, the government is going to set a glass ceiling on what we, feeble-minded Americans can do with our efforts. So, you want to start a small business making quilts in your home? Fine. If your business does extremely well, and you need to start hiring people to meet the demands of your customers, your business becomes property of the State. So, where's the incentive for people to start up a business? Do you have any idea how hard it is to own and run your own business? Nobody is going to even attempt it if they can't enjoy the fruits of their labor.

"Socialism provides moral incentives because the fruits of labor benefit all. No person robs others of the profits from their labor; when social goals are adopted by the majority, people will want to work for these goals. Work will seem less a burden, more and more a creative activity, where everyone is his/her neighbor's helper instead of rival."

What a load of horsecrap this is. Translation: Your only reward for your work is the warm, squishy feeling you'll get from knowing that your work is benefiting everyone. Working in a Communist/Socialist environment is kinda like peeing yourself while wearing black pants. You get a warm feeling, but nobody else notices. Check out the line about "when social goals are adopted by the majority...". Exactly what is going to make the majority adopt these wonderful social goals? If it was going to happen naturally, don't you think it would have happened by now? Of course it would have! But, if the government FORCES people to adopt these goals by giving them no other alternative, why... everything would be absolutely perfect.

"There will be rapid abolition of racism and national oppression. Socialism will bring complete equality for all racially and nationally oppressed. There will be no compromise with racism, for there will no longer exist a capitalist class which profits from it. Racism, national oppression, anti-Semitism, sexism, anti-immigrant discrimination and all forms of prejudice and bigotry will be banned by law, with strict measures of enforcement. Affirmative action will be expanded immediately to undo and make up for hundreds of years of the ravages of racism. Full equality will be one of the main priorities of the new society."

This paragraph makes some absolutely absurd assumptions about the nature of racism, and human nature in general. For one, you have to accept the premise that racism, sexism, and the other evils mentioned are purely born of one group's desire to hold an economic advantage over another. In the opening of the paragraph, they state that these things will magically vanish because of the elimination of the capitalist society that causes them. Then, it states that they will be banned by law and strict measures of enforcement will exist. Why? If you've already eliminated the root cause of these things, why do we need laws banning them? Won't they be dealt with as a natural result of the destruction of capitalism? In the Soviet Union, there was racism, sexism, and anti-Semitism, and capitalism was nowhere to be found, except amongst the ruling class and their associates. Then, it goes on to state that full equality will be one of the main priorities of the new society. How many of you are buying this? I bet at least one of you.

"War propaganda will be outlawed."

Does anybody besides me remember the Cold War?

"The only privileged sectors will be the children and seniors, who have earned the right to a healthy, happy, secure retirement.The children will reap all the benefits of socialist child care, free nurseries and schools with the very best facilities and teachers. Children will have wonderful recreational and sports facilities. They will have the option to choose whatever career they wish, and the free education and training to achieve it.Socialism provides the economic foundation for effective democracy for the masses of people. To carry through the socialist economic and social transformation requires political rule by the working class - a government of, by and for the working people."

Hold on... I thought we were all going to be equal? Now we have established two classes of priveliged people. Then, it states that children will have the option to choose whatever career they wish, and the free education and training to achieve it. Why should they choose anything? What's the point? Heaven forbid they be successful at it. The government would seize their business or make them employees of the State. Besides, what if they go into their chosen field and they suck at it? Have these people seriously thought this through? I love this next part: "To carry through the socialist economic and social transformation requires political rule by the working class - a government of, by and for the working people." Umm... the last time I checked, anybody could run for office, and nobody got elected without winning the office in an election. (No comments about 2000 -- Bush won the electoral college, I'd really rather not fight that fight in this post. Maybe in a future post, if there is a demand for it.)

At this point, I'm going to post the rest of the page, then I'm going to leave it open for your comments. I want you to read all of these things, then think about them. What and who do they sound like? Who embodies virtually all of these beliefs in one form or another? Please, post your comments, let me know what's running through your mind as you read these things.

Socialism USA

Socialism USA will benefit from the experiences, the mistakes and succesess of the countries who built and are building socialism. But mainly it will reflect the distinctive features of U.S. development and environment.

Unique historical advantages, like the unequalled natural resources, fertile soil and perfect weather, coupled with the contributions of generations of working people, enabled U.S. capitalism to achieve higher productive levels and living standards than capitalism in other countries. So, too, the development of socialism here will have some distinct advantages.

1.) We have a highly developed industrial society with a highly trained and educated work force.

2.) Free from foreign intervention, socialism will not have to divert human and economic resources to defend itself.

3.) Socialism USA will avoid the terrible problems of extreme poverty, illiteracy, civil wars, wars of intervention and world wars.

4.) Socialism USA will extend democracy to its fullest, taking as its starting point the democratic traditions and institutions of the American people.


Path to Socialism


We say that it may be possible in the U.S. to bring socialism through peaceful means. Perhaps through the ballot box. One thing is clear, there won't be socialism in the U.S. until the majority of the American people want it.

I like to say that when workers enter the corporate board rooms to take over and the ruling class says: O.K. you're right, we made a mess of things and now you should run it all. Well then there won't be any trouble. But if the ruling class says: Forget it! And call out the army and the police and the national guard, then that is how revolutions become violent. It starts with the ruling class. Workers and their allies have to defend themselves and to fight for what is rightfully theirs.

We believe and advocate that a socialist society in our country will guarantee all the liberties defined in the Bill of Rights but never fully realized. These include the right of people to express themselves fully and freely through organizations of their choice and competing candidates who respect and are guided by the concept of building socialism.

Indeed, the freedoms in the Bill of Rights will take on far greater meaning for the great majority, who will now own the meeting halls, press, radio and TV, and will be able to exercise that freedom effectively.

That's why we call ours Bill of Rights Socialism, USA.

Socialism is our vision for America's future. It is a vision we are winning more and more people to because it is logical - really a great - replacement for capitalism. And because it is the next inevitable step up the ladder of human civilization.


Socialism, USA -- Part II

Okay, here it is. The conclusion to my most read, most successful post so far. I hope you enjoy it.

First, a recap of the end of Socialism, USA from Part I.

Notice how they hint, in the first paragraph, that they are willing to bring about their goals through violence. The implied threat comes under the line about "it may be possible to bring about Socialism in the U.S. through peaceful means". Commies are big on militant uprisings.

In the next paragraph, note how the author refers to the "workers" as defending themselves when and if the "ruling class" resists their takeover. Is it possible to play offense and defense at the same time? This is yet more rhetoric that hints at an armed takeover of America.

In the third paragraph, note the choices given to people under the "democracy" envisioned by the CPUSA. You can choose between Socialist candidates and Socialist candidates. How generous of them.
Note in the 4th paragraph how it talks about the majority owning the press, the TV, the radio, and the meeting houses. By the majority, they are of course, referring to the government. So much for the 1st Amendment, so much for a free and independent press.

The last paragraph is absolutely absurd. I don't even know what to say to that except something rhyming with Bolshevik. Well, okay, it's not a good rhyme, but close enough. You get the point.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------

Now, as for the 10 Points of the Communist Manifesto:

1. Abolition of private property in land an application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with the common plan.

8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries, gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by more equitable distribution of the population over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------

Now, let's look at the mechanisms by which Communists/Socialists start revolutions and come to power. An understanding of these mechanisms should give us a good grasp as to how these people are shaping things in our society today.

1. Class warfare: Long a staple of the Communists, they love to play the working class (the poor) against the upper class (the rich). In America, their efforts have been thus far unsuccessful, mostly due to the strong presence of a middle class, and the fact that few people in our country ever stay in one income bracket too long. Historically, Communists have sought two different paths around this obstacle.
a.) Re-defining "lower class": This involves setting a cutoff between the haves and the have nots, usually around an income of $100,000.00 per year. By setting this cutoff, they separated our society into two separate groups in hopes of playing one against the other. Unfortunately for them, a middle class family can now make $100,000.00 per year if both spouses have decent jobs, such as a police officer and a nurse. I have seen moves towards raising the cutoff to $500,000 per year in speeches in the recent past.

b.) The elimination of the middle class: This involves culling the herd a bit, risking the isolation of large groups of people. The Communists set a figure, usually a household income of around $40,000.00 per year, then create policies aimed at both sides in an attempt to widen the gap between the two sides and prevent any of the lower class people from moving into the upper income brackets. The progressive income tax is very proficient at this. By installing a dramatic increase in the percentage of income taxed above this cutoff, it is possible for a person to get a raise, but bring home quite a bit less money. It is my opinion that this strategy may be backfiring somewhat, as now we are hearing quite a bit of noise about revamping the tax code to eliminate such increases.

2. Secular Humanism: Communists know that if the people believe in a supreme being, with ultimate power and authority, then the state cannot possibly be all powerful. This is why our founding fathers wrote such a belief into the Declaration of Independence, they understood this fact. If our rights come from God, government may not take them away. This means that religion is in direct competition and opposition to Communism and therefore cannot be tolerated. In the Soviet Union, they wrote a separation of church and state into their constitution in order to draw a line, in the minds of the people and before the law, that separated God's authority from that of the state. Of course, they set the state above God. Stalin had as many priests as he could find rounded up and either executed, exiled, or imprisoned. Churches were burned, bibles were banned, and anyone caught discussing religion could be arrested and executed as an enemy of the state.

To further this, they advance Secular Humanism, the belief that Man is God, and that there is no higher authority than Man. Since the Communist government holds the power of life and death over its subjects, the government is now God. They are the providers for the people, they are the protectors of the people, and they determine the fate of the people. Schoolchildren in Russia were encouraged to place their heads on their desks and pray to God for a candy bar. Surely if he were all-powerful, he could provide them with something as simple as candy, right? The children would pray, and nothing would happen. Then, they were told to put their heads down, and this time, pray to Stalin. When they looked up, guess what was on their desks... a candy bar. The Soviets understood that Communism and Religion, particularly Christianity, were incompatible.

3. Dependence on Government: Since everything was owned by the people, and the people were owned by the government, the people were at the mercy of the government for everything from their housing, their income, their food, clothing, and even family planning. People were in no position to provide for themselves unless they participated in the Black Market, and for that they and their families could be executed, their property seized, and their assets redistributed amongst the people. Of course, the government participated in capitalism and enjoyed the benefits that the sale of their products and services brought, but this wealth was largely kept from the people. Most Soviets lived in squalid conditions with substandard housing, medical care, and they suffered under a near constant food shortage.

4. Public Education: The Soviets were believers in public education as a means of indoctrinating their youth in Communism. They studied all of the Communist literature and were not exposed to anything contrary to the agenda of "the people". Their schools were nothing more than re-education centers or Secular Humanist theological seminaries. In this way, the people knew nothing except what the Party deemed that they should know.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------

Now, I want to take a moment to say that I do not believe that ALL liberals are Communists or Socialists. I know quite a few liberals who are absolutely against Communism, and who realize that it won't ever work, no matter who is in charge of the government. Nonetheless, many liberals, even those who disagree with Communism, have adopted many of the beliefs of Communism or share a great deal of sympathy with the stated goals of Socialism. The problem is that since the 1920's, we have had a strong Communist presence in this country that has never been dealt with. These are not people who live on the fringe, as many would like to believe. Many of these people have reached high positions within our government, to the point that the State Department was thoroughly saturated with Communists and Communist sympathizers.

Academia is also thoroughly saturated with Communists, Marxists, Socialists, etc. Many professors are virulently anti-capitalist, even to the point of comparing victims of 9/11 to "little Eichmann's". Not all of the anti-Americans are Communists, but as Sun-Tzu said, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". To this end, we've seen some alliances form, and some cross-threading and interweaving of ideas. The anti-Semites joined forces with the anti-Americans due to America's support of Israel. These groups were then joined by environmentalists who were angered over America's rampant consumption of resources and, in their eyes, contributions to the destruction of the environment. Women's rights advocates joined minority rights advocates, then became united over the issue of abortion to a great degree. This put them at odds with Christianity, causing them to join the ranks of the Secular Humanists. Environmentalists, anti-Semites, and anti-Americans all became united through this Secular Humanism to one another. In every case, what began as an honest movement for reform soon became part of a counter-culture movement aimed at destroying the status quo and at the center of it all, in my opinion, lie the Marxists.

It is little wonder that the East and West coasts are the modern Meccas for liberalism. San Francisco was a major breeding ground for Communism, largely through the Beatnick movement, then later through the "Hippy" movement. Communist pamphlets and books were in large supply at underground bookstores and were distributed widely among college campuses. Some of the most popular and influential poets and writers throughout the 50's and into the 70's were Communists. As generations wore on, and more children were born during this time, the counter-cultural movement in San Francisco soon became the norm.

In New York lies the UN, the symbol of a potential counter-balance to the power and supremacy of the United States. To those, like Madaline Albright, who wish to see some other country or alliance rise in power to equal or even surpass the United States, the UN contains a great deal of potential. Unfortunately for them, the UN is incapable of enforcing its own mandates. Of course, the UN isn't the sole source of liberalism in New York. Not far away are Harvard College, Princeton, Yale, and other major universities. Due to the large Communist presence in these institutions, it is only reasonable that the products of an education under these instructors are quite liberal. When Alger Hiss was outed by Joe McCarthy as being a Communist spy, many alumni of these universities, along with the faculties, issued their support for a man that should have been executed as a traitor. Harvard (I believe) has an Alger Hiss chair, named in honor of a man that sought to end democracy in the United States forever.

The Old Gray Lady herself, The New York Times, has had a long history of supporting known Communists. Again, when Alger Hiss was outed, the Times issued editorial after editorial praising him. The Times published an editorial in strong support of Fidel Castro when he first came into power, praising him for his idealism and revolutionary thinking. Time and again, the Times refused to publish news that would have been detrimental to the image of Communism, preferring to instead publish one tirade after another, declaring the recklessness and foolishness of any politician who dared to oppose the Soviet Union.
New York is the financial heart of the United States. When our college grads went out into the workforce, especially those from the Ivy League, New York was the obvious choice of locations for them. Where better to make a name for themselves, and make a boatload of cash in the process? This led to a concentration of highly educated and indoctrinated liberals who were supported in their ideals by the editorials of the Times. Nigela wanted to know why there were so many Kerry voters in New York, even after 9/11... that's a huge part of the reason right there. Even so, the number of Bush voters was higher than expected, and he came dangerously close to carrying New Jersey (relatively speaking).

Because Democrats have historically been the party of the working class, the oppressed and downtrodden, they have embraced many populist movements. Although they were a bit slow in jumping on the Civil Rights bandwagon (Republicans beat them to it by about 100 years), eventually, thanks to JFK, they picked up the banner and carried it forth. By this time, much had been accomplished and the rights of blacks and other minorities were well on their way to being recognized and protected. Democrats were also a bit slow picking up on the Women's Rights movement, but once the debate became about abortion, it gained real momentum. Of course, this was thanks to the counter-culture movements that came out of San Francisco, and the effort was helped along by sympathetic liberals on the Atlantic coast. Roe vs. Wade was the culmination of their efforts, and set a precedent that they were quick to employ.

Why was abortion so important, so central to the Communists? Two reasons. First, it proved an issue that they could use to divide the electorate. You had the Christians, who were largely scattered and poorly organized at the time, and you had the Secularists. The Secularists were better organized, better funded, and quite frankly, better educated. They knew the ins and outs of the law, and how to play the legal semantics game better than anyone else. Add a little creativity from the Supreme Court, and voila! Legal abortions. Second, to Socialists, each new life is another mouth to feed, another body to clothe, and each new life means that there are fewer resources to be distributed amongst the population. A birth is not something to be celebrated, it is an additional drain on the resources of the state.

Why was the Civil Rights so important to the Communists? Why is it still essential to them? Because through race, they found another method of dividing the people. By dangling the carrot of "equality" in front of them, by promising more and more government money through welfare and social programs, they bought the minority vote. By aggitating, and sometimes manufacturing strife, they continued to find new reasons to use the power of the government to divide the people and keep the wounds from healing. The whole idea of reparations to blacks stems from this need, as does affirmative action. No blacks living today were ever slaves, nor were their parents. No whites living today were ever slave masters, nor were their parents. It's all about the redistribution of wealth and using the power of the government to promote "equality" by tearing down the existing wealth. Affirmative Action is in itself racist, since it establishes a racial point system and quotas, forcing businesses and universities to accept minorities not on the basis of their merit, but on the color of their skin.

Environmentalism is also necessary to the Communists. Again, it is about counter-culture movements and attacking capitalism. The Kyoto Accords were a stunning example of this. They would have place draconian restrictions and penalties on the U.S., while offering economic advantages to some of the worst polluters and most populous countries in the world. It was not about cleaner air, it was about placing a drag on the U.S. economy to allow other nations to compete. Besides, we now know that cleaner air is accelerating global warming, so the Kyoto Accords would have been detrimental to the environment, if they had fulfilled their stated purpose.

As far as Welfare goes, this is an easy one. By placing as many people on welfare as possible, you create hordes of people who are dependent on the government for their needs. Again, the sector of the population hardest hit by this was minorities, but thanks to the loosening of requirements, we are seeing more and more people joining the ranks of the "disabled". Some of these people are receiving government money simply because they cannot read or write, some because they wear glasses, and some because they just don't get along well with other people. I know, because I speak to these people daily.

Anyhow, these are the links between today's Democrats and the Socialists. Perhaps I can come up with better examples, but it is getting late and my brain is turning to mush. It is important to note that not all Democrats are Socialists, but they are serving a useful purpose to the Communists in America. By advancing one plank of the Socialist agenda at a time, they are laying the groundwork for a Socialist state.

I realize that I haven't addressed taxes or Socialized medicine... I will do this in my next post. Probably tomorrow night. Until then, tell me what you think.

Thank you for reading, and good night.