Definition
First, I must define the
terms. Socialism and Communism are two ends of the same stick. They advocate
the consolidation of property and income to the State for equal distribution.
Karl Marx, in “The Communist Manifesto”, uses the words interchangeably.
Many people today
consider them different economies and ascribe Communism to a totalitarian
government and Socialism as a psdo-republic economy, but this is really not the
case. They are economic systems, not forms of government. Both promote the
abolition of private property, profit, or choice. These matters are to be left
up to the State, not the individual. How violent and totalitarian the
government becomes depends on the willingness of the population to conform to
the new doctrine.
Supporting quotes from
“The Communist Manifesto”, by Karl Marx are in italics.
In this sense, the
theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of
private property.
In one word, you reproach
us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so; that is just
what we intend.
It is a little hard to
protest against his own words. Some moderate Socialists may complain that I
went back to the origins, but the teachings today echo the original text.
Promotion of Class Warfare
Marx promoted the reality of class
warfare, defining the different participants as the:
1. The
aristocracy (monarchs and nobles,
2. The
bourgeoisie (the merchants and business owners), and
3. The
proletariat (the poor working class),
4. The
dangerous class or social scum.
Marx makes no other
mention of his 4th class other than to say with true inhuman
distain:
The “dangerous class”,
[lumpenproletariat] the social scum, that passively rotting mass thrown off by
the lowest layers of the old society, may, here and there, be swept into the
movement by a proletarian revolution; its conditions of life, however, prepare
it far more for the part of a bribed tool of reactionary intrigue.
He claimed that the
animosity between the first 3 different classes was intractable and could only
be removed by the annihilation of the two first classes. In his day, he felt
that the aristocracy had been defeated since so many of them had been
challenged and governments changed, leaving only the bourgeoisie to eliminate.
The bourgeoisie were the
enemy because they abused the poor working class by retaining most of their
earnings to keep them in poverty so they would have to continue to work for
less than a living wage to survive. There were and always will be abuses like
this of greedy, unscrupulous people, but most employers know that they must pay
a competitive wage to keep good workers. Marx tries to always pass on the
faults of a few onto the class as a whole to justify his rage.
It is also true that the
vices of human nature, such as; greed, anger, hatred, theft, and dishonesty,
are just as damaging to Socialism as they are to any economic system. They are
problems of mankind, not of a system.
Marx felt that if these first
two classes were eliminated, this would leave the proletariat who had no
intention or desire to usurp power over their own class members, as the ruling
class, so animosity would cease. He rightly recognized that the aristocracy and
the bourgeoisie would not willingly accept defeat and capitulate, so that left
violent revolution as the only answer to the problem.
We have seen above,
that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the
proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy.
The proletariat will
use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the
bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the
State, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class; and to increase
the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.
It is novel that they
propose the abolition of classes, but the very inception of socialism requires
classes; classes to destroy and classes to maintain. Then, once Socialism is established,
a political oligarchy is created, and the Party becomes like another class in
society to run the government. Every Socialistic society has a Party to run the
State. If you belong to the party, you are a good citizen, if you don’t, you
are likely an enemy of the State. Monarchs used the nobles, Socialists use the
Party.
But, in order for a
ruling party system or oligarchy to work, there cannot be more than 2% - 5% of
the population members of the Party. If everyone is a member, there would be no
one for the Party to control. If there are not enough members, they don’t have
the reach to control the population. Experience in many nations has proven that
this 2% - 5% ration is what is needed.
Abolishing Religion, Morality and Freedom of Thought
Another sticky point is
the open abolition of religion and morality without any replacement. While many
people abhor religions, claiming that they create more harm than good and tell
them what they can’t do, generally religions provide the moral values, or morés, that a society needs to
establish laws. Even if values are predicated upon scientifically based ideals
rather than religious, there is still a code needed to gauge the value and consistency
of laws.
This part of the movement
has been under increasing attack since science became the religion of the
Secularists in the latter half of the 19th century. They accept no
truth, except that which can be confirmed by empirical data or experiment. This
completely dissolves any credibility given to; relationships, morality,
emotion, intuition, inspiration, or compassion, or as Marx calls them, “eternal
truths”.
The Communist’s truth is
now to supersede even all past historical experience.
But Communism abolishes
eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of
constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all
past historical experience.
This also includes the
abolition of the family. This is because family ties are usually stronger than
ties to the State. As long as there are families, there is someone you will
support before the State. Until the family is removed, there is always a threat,
even though he admits this is over the top and will be difficult to find
support.
Abolition [Aufhebung] of the family! Even the
most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.
By abolishing religion
and morals, Socialist also eliminate personal thought or opinions. In order for
Socialism to work, there can be no dissent, no conflicting opinions, and no
deviance from the proscribed path.
This has also been the
popular mantra of many religions and cults to thwart opposition. It doesn’t
matter who espouses it, this philosophy is designed to maintain control, not
freedom, and is wrong.
10 Points of Implementation
Therefore, Marx laid out ten
steps to bring Socialism into an established country.
These measures will, of
course, be different in different countries. Nevertheless, in most advanced
countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.
1. Abolition of
property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive
or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all
rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the
property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of
credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State
capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation 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 a common plan.
8. Equal liability of
all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of
agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the
distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the
populace over the country.
10. Free education for
all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its
present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c,
&c.
It is interesting how
much the present-day Socialist mantra follows these edicts word for word and
what their implementation would mean..
1. Abolition of property in land and application
of all rents of land to public purposes.
This provision would
nationalize all businesses and property to the control of the State. Any income
derived from rents or production would also become the property of the State.
Retaining any profits, savings, or earnings would be a crime against the State.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
Few people today realize
that Karl Marx proposed this 100 years before it was instituted in the United
States during the 1950’s. It is not a capitalistic proposal but a socialistic ideal
designed to cripple capitalism by taking any profits earned and giving them to
the State.
3. Abolition of all
rights of inheritance.
Another novel concept
that was over 100 years ahead of its time. No one can have more than another,
whether they earn it themselves or it is given to you by your father. Today we
are trying to tax inheritance out of existence.
4. Confiscation of the
property of all emigrants and rebels.
This is simply the best
way to control dissidents and opposition, remove any assets or money so they
are powerless to protest.
5. Centralization of
credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State
capital and an exclusive monopoly.
The irony here is that
when the State controls all credit and money, you must abide by the wishes and
dogma of the State to obtain any credit. With this, they hold rebellion hostage.
6. Centralization of
the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
The old adage is that the
history goes to the victor. It is much easier to shape history, as well as
daily life, if you control the means of disseminating information. And this was
taught 50 years before radio and 100 years before television.
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 a common plan.
There is a continued
emphasis on increasing production to support the State. As we see in #8, Marx
even proposes “industrial armies” to ensure production does not stagnate or
decline.
The second portion has
some merit, that of using wasted lands and improving soil quality generally.
The problem is that we have already addressed this with free-enterprise.
Increased profits have motivated the use of previously waste lands as well as
improved methods of fertilization and crop rotation that has made production
blossom and erased many of the blights and famines of the past.
The other issue is that
much of the waste land is that for a purpose, it can’t sustain farming. It is
hard to grow potatoes on a lava field or tomatoes on the Matterhorn.
8. Equal liability of
all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
Notice he said “equal
liability” not “equal opportunity” to work. This mandates that everyone must
work, regardless of condition, desire, or ability. Working is a liability, not
an opportunity. He proposes actually conscripting an army to do farming because
they were afraid that enough people would not voluntarily step up to the task.
Marx also believes that farming is the only method to create wealth. Today,
most of the wealthiest people on the planet have become that way by selling
ideas and services rather than hard commodities, as was believed 150 years ago.
In his book, “Outliers”,
Malcom Gladwell tells the story of when the Communist Chinese began to invade
and control Southeast Asia, they tried to confiscate all production of rice.
Because rice is so labor intensive to grow, when the farmers had to give
everything to the State, they simply stopped growing rice. China finally had to
agree to let them keep their profits and charge no more than 25% in taxes on
the rice before they would work.
9. Combination of
agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the
distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the
populace over the country.
If you like your house,
you can keep it. NOT! This required the mandatory redistribution of the
population and the elimination of urban areas, as well as the redistribution of
wealth. This was tried in Cambodia during the bloody reign of Pol Pot and the
Kamer Rouge in the 1970’s. It was a total chaotic disaster. It destroyed the
economy, not to mention the 2.5 Million people who were butchered in the
rebellion and the ensuing redistribution.
10. Free education for
all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its
present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c,
&c.
Nothing comes for free.
The purpose here is to control the education of the children so as to
indoctrinate them in the principles of socialism without competition. Notice
that it also abolished “children’s factory labour in its present form”, not the
“abolition of child labour”. This still leaves the window open to use child
labor when it is combined with education. Therefore every child can be taught
correct principles and still spend a portion of each day in school work houses for
the benefit of the State.
Ironic Conclusion
Then I find the most
ironic declaration of the entire manuscript. After claiming that the only way
to change society is through violent revolution, Marx makes the following
contradictory statement.
When, in the course of
development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been
concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public
power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called,
is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. If the
proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force
of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution,
it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old
conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept
away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes
generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.
In place of the old
bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an
association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the
free development of all.
The undeveloped state
of the class struggle, as well as their own surroundings, causes Socialists of
this kind to consider themselves far superior to all class antagonisms. They
want to improve the condition of every member of society, even that of the most
favoured. Hence, they habitually appeal to society at large, without the
distinction of class; nay, by preference, to the ruling class. For how can people, when once they
understand their system, fail to see in it the best possible plan of the best
possible state of society?
Hence, they (Socialists) reject all political, and
especially all revolutionary action; they wish to attain their ends by peaceful
means, necessarily doomed to failure, and by the force of example, to pave the
way for the new social Gospel.
Marx claims they want
this to be a peaceful transition, but they know it is doomed to failure.
Therefore, all the previous violent programs are still in force.
It is much the same
mantra of radical Islam. They claim to be the Gospel of Peace but there will
only be peace when all those who refuse to be subjugated to the will of Allah
are annihilated, then there will be peace.
And you have to love
Marx’s closing address:
The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly
declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all
existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic
revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a
world to win.
Socialism, An Economic Failure
The basic premise of
socialism, where all the gain is consolidated and equally distributed, has
merit. The problem is implementation. It is impossible to coerce or take from
an unwilling participant, something they don’t want to give, and expect them to
remain passive. That is why we have nearly a dozen armed conflicts today around
the world where one group is claiming that the other group took away their land
50 – 3,000 year ago and they want it back, now.
So, where many people are
opposed to violent confiscation, the “democratic Socialists” propose a gradual
re-distribution of wealth to those in need. If these re-distributions actually
solved problems and the recipients became productive citizens who began helping
others, this would have merit. But since Pres. Lyndon Johnson began the “War On
Poverty” in the 1960’s, the welfare rolls have continued to expand, rather than
decrease over the past 60 years.
We how have generational
poverty on welfare to the 3rd and 4th generations, with
no end in sight. We are inviting poor people from all over the world to come
and belly up to the bar of social welfare. Since we are not siphoning off the
drain on the economy, it is beginning to hemorrhage. We have people complaining
that one paycheck cannot support one family while they insist in the next
breath that half of us are obligated to support the other half.
The math works out this
way. We all know that a + b = c. When
a =
income and b = welfare paid, we
are okay as long as c is still a
positive number. But when a becomes
smaller than b, then we have a
negative c and economically we are
under water.
It is not different than
the dinner table. If the appetites or number of mouths are greater than the
food available, there is unhappiness. If this goes on for too long or the
difference between them becomes too great, we have death.
Since they have failed to
produce one country in the world on socialism that has remained solvent without
resorting to capitalism, to some degree or another, I would conclude that
socialism is a flawed system, not one that wasn’t given a fair shake.
Limited Socialism
Some people have
challenged the opposition to socialism by claiming that many countries use some
form of socialism in their economies. This is very true, but not a conclusive
argument for Socialism. Limited drains on the economy can be compensated for,
but prolonged drainage becomes crippling.
America has several
programs in this category and some that aren’t.
1. Social
Security – This is not a Socialist
program. The money for Social Security was taken from the paychecks of
Americans as a forced retirement or pension. The money I receive was not taken
from another to give to me. It was taken from me to be returned in good faith
when I fulfilled the requirements. The fact that the program has been
mismanaged and the money never invested, so the dollar I received today was
taken from you yesterday, doesn’t negate the argument, that was the deal. I
balked at this because I knew that if I took the same money and placed it in a
reasonable investment of 5%, over 40 years, I would have had much more money
than what Social Security will pay to me from retirement to death. But it is
the law.
2. Medicare
– This is not a Socialist program.
Money has been taken from my paychecks every year just to go into supplement
Medicare and I also pay a low premium each month. I would rather have had that
money to put towards private insurance and have had the Government butt out of
health insurance so that premiums today would not be sky high. Competition in
the market place is the best remedy to
lower prices and improve service, not State control. Regulation always leads to
higher prices while competition always lowers them.
3. Un-employment
insurance – Again, this is not a Socialist program. It was
deducted from my check and my employers. It is also a waste of time. One time
while unemployed for nearly a year, I applied and received unemployment
insurance. The problem was that I could only collect no more than 25% of what I
had been earning and every dollar I earned over the limit was deducted from my
payments. So, not matter what I did, I couldn’t have more than 25% of my
previous income. I couldn’t live on 25%, so I quit and just found another job.
4. Let’s
see, we still have CHIPS, Medicaid, Welfare, and a host of other programs that
deserving needy people can apply for. These can help as a stop gap, but do
nothing to help a person get out from under the need. It has become so bad,
that in many poor housing projects, they have multi-level marketing type
meetings in apartments where residents share techniques and skills needed to
qualify for various welfare programs. If a woman doesn’t get married and has
several children, she can bring home more money than if she worked by milking
the system properly. This is not the intention. Welfare is not supposed to be a
right or forever.
Socialism in Communities
There have been many
experiments with communal living throughout time. The Disciples of Jesus
reportedly had all things in common. It was voluntary, but disobedience was
harsh as Ananias and Sapphira found
when they colluded to not give all. The Lord struck them down, not because they
were unfaithful, because they lied about it.
The Book of Mormon also
records a period of nearly 200 years after the visit of Jesus Christ to the
Americas that they also had all things in common and there were no poor among
them. This too was a voluntary program and was disbanded when the people set
their hearts on riches rather than helping those around them.
Other conservative
religions have also had communal living which they shared everything. Some were
short lived while others have lasted for over a hundred years. Mennonites and
Hutterites still have systems operating today in many places.
The Hippies in the 1960’s
preached of communal living where everyone shared equally and there are some
communities still in existence today, but most have dissolved.
The Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter-Day Saint, (also known previously as Mormons) also had a time when
this was tried in a couple communities. Some members wanted to do it and it was
voluntary. Anyone leaving was given back everything they put in to it. It
worked for about 10 years until it fell apart from envy. It is interesting that
even today, faithful members of the Church covenant to give all that the Lord
has given them or will give them to the Church for the building up of the
kingdom of God. For me it is not an idle promise. Whatever I have is his and he
can have it anytime he chooses.
I actually had an
ancestor that this happened to. He was from Kentucky and joined the Church in
the 1830’s. When he was asked to move to Missouri with the rest of the Church,
the Lord gave him a dream where he saw a beautiful spot in a grove of trees
where he was to build a cabin for his family.
He went to Missouri,
found the spot where the dream told him it would be, homesteaded it, and built
a cabin to raise his family. A couple of years later, the Prophet Joseph Smith
was in the area and stopped by to visit. He said, “Brother Woodland, you have a
beautiful spot here and the Lord has said that he needs it for Zion.” My
grandfather answered, “If the Lord wants it he can have it. I only hope he
gives me another almost as good.”
The prophet lowered his
head in thought for several minutes and said, “Brother Woodland, the Lord is
touched by your willingness and promises you that this piece of ground will be
an inheritance for you and your family forever. You can keep it.”
Conclusion
So, my major concerns of Socialism
or Communism are as follows:
1. Socialism
creates class warfare, whether it exists already or not.
2. Socialism
requires violent revolution to implement.
3. Socialism
confiscates property and assets for re-distribution.
4. Socialism
centralizes all sectors of the economy under the control of the State.
5. Socialism
controls education, and thereby thought and opinions.
6.
Socialism calls for the centralization of all
communication, controlling expression & dissent.
7. Socialism
calls for the redistribution of housing, as well as, property and money.
8. After
centralization, all control resides in the State and public officials.
This last one is what
most people never think all the way through. Who are the people making these life
and death decisions for us and our future?
Most Socialist economies eventually
become run by totalitarian governments and Socialists love to shy away from
that discussion. But the reality is, that this is what happens, all the time. Even
in our Republic, we have to fight tooth and nail to keep the balance of power
in the government. Socialism makes it that much harder. The more Socialistic
the economy becomes, the more totalitarian the government grows.
When the State controls
all:
1. The
property,
2. The
factories and production capability,
3. The
credit and money,
4. The
education, and
5. All
the housing,
What is left for the
people other than to be the serfs of the State?
