Monday, February 04, 2019

Why I Don’t Like Socialism or Communism


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 SecurityThis 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?

No comments: