"Communism is dead," cried the Germans as the Berlin Wall fell in 1989 and so did many other Europeans. Their excitement grew as the Cold War began to thaw in Europe. Americans were excited too because it was our 40th president, Ronald Reagan that led the march to freedom or so it seemed. Many would like to think so but I say think again! As I have been perusing Dave Breese's book Seven Men Who Rule the World From the Grave, another man, whose corpse lay cold and dormant in the ground, has been resurrecting in the minds of many, especially in American Liberal academia. The man, Karl Marx, whose ideas spread like wildfire, never went extinguished. Instead, his philosophy in the form of cultural Marxism continues to percolate, even with the hope that his ideas will emerge victoriously in the future as the ruling principle for all humanity, "I am confident that when the two hundredth anniversary of the death of Karl Marx will be observed, the entire world will be socialist" (Foner 18). Most European countries are now socialist and America, which was founded on individual freedoms, has seen those freedoms erode under the auspices of homeland security and smothering bureaucratic regulation. We have seen this country over the last several decades go from Capitalism to Democratic Socialism from small government to big government. Communism is not dead! Karl Marx and his philosophy have usurped America and the world and his ideas do not offer a bright and promising future filled with utopia.
When Karl Marx died on March 17, 1883, the eulogies at his funeral were nothing short of idolatry and the promises made of the future were nothing short of utopia. The apotheosis of Karl Marx was disturbing. His friend, Friedrich Engels, gave a presentation of his life and work at Marx's funeral:
"On the 14th of March, at a quarter to three in the afternoon, the greatest living thinker ceased to think. He had been left alone for scarcely two minutes, and when we came back, we found him in an armchair, peacefully gone to sleep-but forever. An immeasurable loss has been sustained, both by the militant proletariat of Europe and America, and by historical science, in the death of this man. The gap that has been left by the death of this mighty spirit will soon enough make itself felt. Just as Darwin discovered the law of evolution in organic nature, so Marx discovered the law of evolution in human history; he discovered the simple fact, hitherto concealed by an overgrowth of ideology, that mankind must first of all eat and drink, have shelter and clothing, before it can pursue politics, science, religion, art, etc.; and that therefore the production of the immediate material means of life and consequently the degree of economic development attained by a given people or during a given epoch, form the foundation upon which the forms of government, the legal conceptions, the art, and even the religious ideas of the people concerned have been evolved, and in the light of which these things must therefore be explained, instead of vice versa as had hitherto been the case.
But that is not all. Marx also discovered the special law of motion governing the present-day capitalist method of production and the bourgeois society that this method of production has created. The discovery of surplus value suddenly threw light on the problem in trying to solve which all previous investigations, both bourgeois economists and socialist critics, had been groping in the dark. Two such discoveries would be enough for one life-time. Happy the man to whom it is granted to make even one such discovery. But in every single field which Marx investigated-and he investigated very many fields, none of them superficially- in every field, even in that of mathematics, he made independent discoveries. This was the man of science. But this was not even half the man. Science was for Marx a historical, dynamic, revolutionary force. However great the joy with which he welcomed a new discovery in some theoretical science whose practical application perhaps it was as yet quite impossible to envisage, he experienced a quite other kind of joy when the discovery involved immediate revolutionary changes in industry and in the general course of history. For example, he followed closely the discoveries made in the field of electricity and recently those of Marcel Deprez.
For Marx was before all else a revolutionary. His real mission in life was to contribute in one way or another to the overthrow of Capitalist society and of the forms of government which it had brought into being, to contribute to the liberation of the present-day proletariat, which he was the first to make conscious of its own position and its needs, of the conditions under which it could win its freedom. Fighting was his element. He fought with a passion, a tenacity, and success such as few could rival. His work on the first Rheinische Zeitung (1842), the Paris Vorwarts (1844), the Brussels Deutsche Zeitung (1847), the Neue Rheinische Zeitung (1848-9), the New York Tribune (1852-61), and in addition to these, a host of militant pamphlets, work in revolutionary clubs in Paris, Brussels, and London, and finally, crowning all, the formation of the International Working Men's Association-this was indeed an achievement of which Marx might well have been proud, even if he had done nothing else.
And consequently, Marx was the best-hated and most-calumniated man of his time. Governments, both absolutist and republican, deported him from their territories. The bourgeoisie, whether conservative or extreme Democrat, vied with one another in heaping slanders upon him. All this he brushed aside as if it were cobweb, ignoring them, answering only when necessity compelled him.....His name and his work will endure through the ages" (Foner 38).
As numerous as these words are, they are all to important to illustrate why Marxism still rules in the minds of many, "therefore, we can conclude that this speech represents the way Marx and his work was understood by his followers and the degree of influence he and they hoped would result in the world outside of their immediate circle" (Breese 57). Engels knew Marx the most as he was the closest associate to him throughout his life. According to Philip Foner, who included this eulogy of Engels in his book, Karl Marx Remembered, "Marxism is today the most influential body of thought in the world. Hundreds of millions live in societies whose fundamental principles-socialism-were laid down over a century ago by Karl Marx and his collaborator and friend, Friedrich Engels. Both were Germans, but they propounded principles that were and remain universal" (Foner 10). Marxism today is like an undercurrent that stimulates the political structure of most nations around the world. The undercurrent is not seen but is all too powerful to control the networks and grid systems of the world. Certainly, Marx's philosophy is a measurable thing and that measure is in the degree of influence, "Karl Marx and the political structure that grew from his work has conquered and presently controls one-third of the population of the world. For most of the era following WW II, Communism has been the form of political ideology and consequent government in iron control over the lives and fortunes of one-and-a-half billion people" (Breese 58). So despite the Berlin Wall falling and many believing that Communism was dead, since 1918, the world has not failed to make any major international political decisions apart from considering what Russia and the Communists will think. We see the measurable outcome of Marx not only in political control but in academia as well; the ghost of Karl Marx extends into a belief structure that dominates the minds of men and the culture.
To think that Western societies have been exempt from the influence of Marxism is a grave error in thinking, "the portion of the earth we call the Third World is highly Marxist in nature. Western societies have not been exempt, either, for particularly on the academic level, multitudes have been in thrall to Marxism" (Breese 59). This is truly disturbing as we see multitudes of young people graduating from Liberal colleges being taught that Communism is the only political system that works. And young people are very impressionable, especially when social action calls for revolution. As young adults are taught to be social agents of change in the global world courtesy of John Dewey's radical ideas integrated in the educational system, Marxism becomes the conduit for that change. And so cultural Marxism becomes the norm. Just as Darwin and Freud changed the culture, so too did Marx. The only way to change the culture in a radical way is to implement the ideas through the educational system and academia and we can observe this daily. As orthodox Christianity and objective Truth were pushed out, the Age of Enlightenment spread new ideas like a dark pestilence and took hold with near universality; Theism shifted to Atheism. All the emerging philosophies since the mid-19th century, have radically changed the western culture from God-centered to man-centered and all these new philosophies such as Darwinism, Freudianism, and Marxism are Godless and soulless. No one can argue that. Before we can understand how Marxism took hold of the culture and the think tanks of academia, we must first understand the man, Karl Marx.
Karl Marx grew up in Germany, in a Jewish, upper-class home. His father easily converted to Lutherism in 1817 suggesting that religion was a not a conviction in his home, rather it was for more practical reasons. Religion was not the core in Marx's home, it was merely observed, similar to that of Darwin and Freud. Marx's early life consisted of attending religious school for a time in which some of his early writings discussed Christ, the gospel, and Christianity but nevertheless, Marx was not an actual participant in the Christian faith. He eventually went to law school at Bonn and Berlin but became more interested in abstract philosophy than in the actual practice of law. He achieved a PhD in 1842 at Jenna "where the requirements expected of doctoral candidates were less stringent than they were in Berlin" (Breese 59). Marx's interest in philosophy was inspired by the intellectual percolation happening all over Europe originating from the Enlightenment. Hegel's ideas were also being circulated but Marx only retained some of the dialectic concepts; he was against Hegels' idealistic emphasis and instead embraced the materialism of Ludwig Feuerbach as a life philosophy. In 1842, Marx began to express his literary skills and radicalism through the newspaper, Rheinische Zeitung. As the editor, he filled the paper with shocking statements calling for radical reforms in the government. This unsettled the readers and the government as well. Consequently, the government thought Marx to bizarre to continue so his paper was shut down after a year.
Marx was furious, so he moved to Paris-a city more open to radical ideas and more willing to house the "malcontents of the world" (Breese 60). Paris, after all, was still recovering from the shock of the French Revolution in the eighteen forties and the bloody event was still fresh, circulating in the minds of many and so it was incorporated into communist thought (to this day, it is seen as the proud heritage of the communist movement throughout the world). Out of the French Revolution came a new man-a professional revolutionary-the world's most dangerous man willing to jeopardize his life to produce revolutionary change. It is important to understand that behind the terrors of the French Revolution was the philosophy of Jean Jacques Rousseau, the father of the Enlightenment (1712- 78), who believed that science and art had not improved humanity but rather corrupted it. Rousseau was not an orthodox Christian. He rejected the concept of original sin and in its place viewed the advancement of civilization as corrupting humanity (even though sin/corruption has been around long before even the most primitive clans). So, a society represented by Capitalism, royal-government, and a long-established church must be rejected and man must revert back to nature. Only righteous men could rule-men like himself with his point of view, despite the fact that he fathered five illegitimate children by his semiliterate mistress, Therese le Vasseur. Those children he sent off to die in a local children's "hospital." His ideas at the time were inchoate, but later matured into the bloody French Revolution. So, no righteous man was he. His ideas only "gave [the] evidence that man has a lower [deprave, degenerate] nature, which if given free reign, could turn him into a monster" (Breese 61). Gorbachev, when addressing the United States in 1989 about the heritage of communism, said that the two events that accomplished the socialist world revolution were the French Revolution of 1789 and the Russian Revolution of 1917. How can communism be considered freedom and how can communism be considered the only political structure that works when "these were two of the cruelest political earthquakes in the history of the world" (Breese 62). Why would any sane person consider these two events as sacred to their heritage? Rousseau's ideas were just ideas, lacking in complete common sense, yet the masses bought into them as "enlightened" just as they did with the ideas of Karl Marx.
While Marx was developing his socialist world revolution in Paris in the form of laws which he called "scientific socialism" (which is laughable), he joined the Communist League where he became the leader (just like Hitler led the National Socialist Party). The League insisted that Marx bring his "gift" to the world on print in a manifesto. So he, along with his friend and colleague Engels, published the famous Communist Manifesto. The manifesto, complete with 75 pages of invective against the establishment and the proclamation that revolutionary socialism would come eventually, even inexorably, filled the printing presses (Breese 63). Marx was determined that this revolution would come because of the abuses of the Bourgeoise or the Capitalists: the owners of the means of production who exploit the wage-laborers who have no means of production on their own, so they are reduced to sell their manual labor in order to live. It is interesting to note that Marx says in his manifesto that "the bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation" (Communist Manifesto 19) when it could easily be argued that it's been the godless, soulless philosophies through cultural Darwinism, Freudianism, and Marxism that have destroyed the family unit making it just a money relation. At the end of the manifesto, Marx promises utopia that results from a classless society or no social-stratification, and the proletariat losing its' chains. These ideas of his in vast circulation all over Europe certainly stirred up the masses.
Since Marx saw himself as an instigator of pro-socialist ideas, his ideas were planted as seeds in the minds of many, and it certainly helped that the soil of these minds, already ripe from the French Revolution, were open to his ideas. Thus, it created a reform mood that diffused all over Europe; fertile ground for his manifesto to take root. So, Marx and his friend Engels capitalized (note the italics of capitalized....a man who made his living from exploitation and manipulation could easily himself be classified with the Bourgeoise) on this and devoted their time working endlessly to promote these communist ideas via speech-making, publishing, and writing for a coming socialist world revolution. Out of this came another major piece, Das Kapital, with more economic theory that "was in a quantitative sense so far ahead of any other book of its time that it simply blanked out the competition" (Breese 65). Before the people could assimilate to the ideas in Das Kapital, along came the sheer wagonload of volumes 2 and 3 smothering the populace. Over and over in the literary works of Karl Marx are prevailing themes, most notably atheism, dialectical materialism, and economic determinism with the foundation being materialism, or the notion that everything is constructed from atoms and molecules and anything that is not is denied existence. So, the intangibles or the immeasurable realities like God, religion, love, honor, courage, and fidelity do not exist (since they exist in the minds of the Bourgeoise, the communists must redefine them). This Marxist thought of materialism coincides with atheism in that it must also deny the uniqueness of man himself. Just as in Darwinism, where man is not considered a spiritual being because he is driven only by impersonal forces and Freudianism where every thought and emotion is merely a chemical and electrical synaptic exchange within the cranial vault, so to is it with Marxism where "the human is merely matter in motion determined by the chemistry of his brain. The Marxist have, therefore, placed great stock in what we now call the conditioned reflex, the knee jerk response of a mechanism to a stimulus. Pavlov's dogs were for the Communists the great lesson on the nature of human beings" (Breese 68). These philosophies, that have been assimilated in core-curriculum in schools and colleges everywhere and are percolating all over the intellectual cafes of the world, reject the soul of man. This is a sure harbinger to come; men without a moral compass can only lead to a dystopian future, certainly not the promised utopia of Marxism, "what remains [of Darwinism, Freudianism, and Marxism] is the philosophic cadaver of a body without a soul" (Breese 69). Marx, like most other radical philosophers who contradicted their own beliefs, incited and provoked the masses for no real reason other than to make a name for himself by leaving his destructive mark on the world. It can be safely assumed that Marx was not looking out for the best interest of others as the core of Marxist thought is Godless. Atheism is the philosophy of a fool, "it is the emanation of an unsound mind" (Breese 68) and it is a form of insanity. But who is to say that the ideas of Marx are correct? Does history really move like a wave in dialectical materialism, the other feature of Marxism?
Marx arrived at his theory of Dialectical materialism from a confluence of ideas-some from George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. To Marx, it is the notion that all of reality, and especially all historical processes, move in a dialectical fashion. In other words, history is like a wave because the only stable society according to Marx is the Communist society. In other societies that are inherently unstable, nature will eventually rise up against the status quo. Marx then borrowed Hegel's idea that the status quo is the thesis and the opposing wave motion is the antithesis. The antithesis will eventually overwhelm the thesis and the outcome, called the synthesis, is a resolution of these two opposing forces. But wait! In the astounding mind of Marx, history is not done yet because the synthesis will become the new wave or thesis, and another new wave, the antithesis, will become the synthesis. And so this process repeats itself over and over. In the final conclusion of Marx's thought is the theory that the last wave of history will become the socialist world revolution overwhelming the thesis or Capitalism and it will bring a beautiful, lasting resolution to history. Sounds really fancy, insightful, and profound, doesn't it? Or perhaps it's just a play on words. Dialectical materialism explains why many a communist thought is "the wave of the future" (Breese 69). But Marx was not satisfied with the slow pace of history. He felt that social evolution was not helping history move quicker so it needed help. And that help would come in the form of a revolution, hence concluding his manifesto with the words, "workers of the world, unite; we have nothing to lose but our chains. We have a world to win!" Marx was an admirer of Darwin so in keeping with Darwin's theory of the survival of the fittest, workers must move history quicker along. But in order for history to move quicker and in the right direction, according to Marx, not only do the workers need to unite in the form of a revolution but everyone who possesses goods must hand them over to the state, for the good of the whole group and the good of society. Workers must work collectively, not individually. For Marx, the individual was anathema and counted for nothing and was only significant as he functioned for the good of society. This concept or feature of Marxist philosophy is called economic determinism.
Economic determinism to Marx was a form of natural selection but not in biological terms as described by Darwin. Rather, it was in economic terms. Since there is no God in Marxist thought and no unseen hand guiding the culture in the right direction, economic determinism is the only way to move society in the right direction. By removing all possessions from the hands of the individual and placing them into the hands of the state, "the class struggle would disappear and everyone would work according to his ability and give to each according to his need" (famous dictum, Breese 70). But still, even this concept of economic determinism was not enough power to move history to it's promised utopia. A firmer hand was needed to push history to it's intended end and that was what Marx called the Communist Party, a god of his own making (70). As Breese accurately points out with such insightful and profound words, "so it was that Marx, who advocated with his dying breath a classless society, [had in fact], created a new, firmer, crueler class than any bourgeois society in the whole world" (71). Those pro-socialist democrats crying out in anger over the abuses and oppression of the bourgeois (Capitalists) all the while advocating for socialism are either unwittingly, or wittingly, creating a more destructive class, crueler than any Capitalist nation known to man, the communist party. With the denial of the existence of the Living God, "Marxism in cynical contradiction turned to atheism to create a god for man to serve joyfully [and that is] the Party" (71). As noted earlier, the contradictions of Marx, similar to those of most radical philosophers, should have been cut off in the period in which it was presented. Thank God we do have a thoughtful public that can give a quick analysis, declaring such philosophies nonsense. As a result, most philosophies slip away into oblivion, joining the grave of a thousand other clever ideas created in midair by those who call themselves philosophers, sociologists, historians, and ideologists, never to be heard from again. Not so with Marxism. It had a large enough constituency and a sufficient enough voice to be heard so it gathered momentum, especially through the leadership of Vladimir Ulrich Ulanov, whose name was changed to Nikolai Lenin.
Under Lenin, the organizational structure was formed; "Lenin became the organizer Marx needed to produce the revolutionary cadres for the revolutionary conquest of bourgeois nations" (72). And the fertile ground for a Marxist revolution to take place was in the crumbling monster of Russia. The Germans saw a strategy too: if a Bolshevik revolution could be sparked in Russia, their enemy would be taken out of the war and would enhance their chances of victory over France and the West. So the Germans became co-conspirators in the Russian Revolution. Since Lenin was living in Zurich, Switzerland at the time, German spies were sent to Lenin to offer him an opportunity to return to Russia. Lenin, who sensed his "destiny" calling, obliged immediately. So, he and his party went back to Russia via a secret train and he immediately took to his soap-box with fiery speeches invoking radical change to overthrow the czar. By the narrowest vote, Lenin seized control of the government. Capitalizing on a weakened Russia by war and a disgusted people sick of the leadership of the czars, the ground was fertile for a revolution to take place: Russia became the first nation to be captured by the wave of the future. Just before his death in 1924, Lenin proclaimed the Communist conquest was just beginning, "Communism would move out across Europe, Asia, and the United States and would inevitably become the master of the world. Then government would wither away, police forces would be no longer needed, the family itself would become irrelevant, and the blessed society, the Communist utopia, would come to pass. Perfect happiness would come upon all men as the social contradictions of the world were resolved. So, bright with the promise of a changed world, there began under Lenin and then under Stalin one of the blackest eras of history" (73). The Communist parties of the world moved out and captured by subversion and aggression Eastern Europe, China, North Korea, North Vietnam, Ethiopia, Cuba, and other nations. They came promising peace and Communist utopia and instead, murder millions who resisted. Anyone lifting a voice in disagreement was killed. The Communist plot happened so swiftly that one-third of the world's population was taken under Communist/dictatorship control before anyone was fully aware of what was happening. So you see, the ideas and philosophy of Marx did not vanish and go down into the grave with his corpse. Instead, his ideas carried on into subsequent generations leaving a path of destruction, all needless because the masses failed to carefully consider the full intent of Marxism.
Most philosophies have no need for proof, for "they are stated as articles of faith" but in order for "any system of philosophy that purports to change the world must over the passage of time prove it's point. The test of time is the great test any philosophic view must eventually face" (71). We see that Marxism has taken hold, notwithstanding the many broken promises of Communist utopia. As Breese asks, and any sound thinking individual for that matter has a right to ask, "had and have these captured nations become worker's paradises? And does Marxism really bring heaven on earth?" The answers to these questions are not only very clear, but tragic as well. Consider what Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn said,
"I am very much aware that eastern Slavic orthodoxy, which, during the sixty-five years of Communist rule, has been subjected to persecution even fiercer and more extensive than that of early Christian times......In this persecution-filled age, it is appropriate that my own very first memory should be of Chekists pointed caps entering St. Panteleimon's Church in Kislovodsk, interrupting the service, and crashing their way into the sanctuary in order to loot. And later, when I stated going to school in Rostov-on-dov-passing on my way a kilometer-long compound of the Checka-GPU and a glittering sign of the League of Militant Atheists-school children egged on by Komsomol members taunted me for accompanying my mother to the last remaining church intern and tore the cross from my neck.......Orthodox churches were stripped of their valuables......Tens of thousands of churches were torn down or desecrated leaving behind d disfigured wasteland that bore no resemblance to Russia as such....People were condemned to live in this dark and mute wilderness for decades, groping their way to God......15,000,000 peasants were brought to death for the purpose of destroying our national way of life and of extirpating religion from the countryside.......Hatred of religion is rooted in Communism. Khrushchev simultaneously rekindled the frenzied Leninist obsession with destroying religion.......The ruinous revolution has swallowed up some sixty million of our people" (National Review 1983).
This does not describe the promised Communist utopia of heaven on earth. No, this describes hell on earth! Solzhenitsyn's article in the National Review titled, "Men Have Forgotten God," sums it up in those four words. Communism is atheism at its core. But for those still in denial, there is only one question to ask: is Marxism true? When you consider it's dominance and results in China, Eastern Europe, Russia, and other nations, the answer is clear. But in terms of it's promised worker's paradise, you need only to ask the millions of slave laborers who were worked to literal death in disease-infested camps in the most sadist, cruelest conditions known to man. It is reasonable to say that the philosophy of Marxism has been responsible for the violent deaths of over one hundred million people. It has also been responsible for the closing and burning of thousands of churches and it has produced the most "abject" slavery known to man. There are countless books narrating these tragic consequences of the pitiful philosophy of Marxism and yet the masses still to this day are swept away by the power and seduction of Marxism, "the mind gropes for words to describe the pathetic gullibility of the millions of people who become willing Communist cadres and whose lives are now the stumbling, burned-out remains of a groundless faith and a hopeless future" (Breese 75). Despite these wanton and egregious acts of Communism, the fire of Marxism still burns strong and is propagated, especially among the young and impressionable that are driven by ideology. Many are being trained in the Marxist ideology as it is carefully presented and illustrated in the most clever of ways. In a free society, it would be difficult for anyone to realize the "near total-extent to which thought control is practiced in its most sophisticated form in the educational structure, the press, and in all other avenues of information within a Communist society" (75). To this day, when facing any trouble in the Communist system, instead of acknowledging the fallacies of Marxism/Leninism, any shortages, suffering, and political instability are blamed on the improper teaching of Communist thought. Any difficulties arising from Marxist thought is attributed to a defective application, not a shortage of Truth. Therefore, Communist methodology is altered, not the ideology. These facts alone should raise concern in the hearts and minds of many who are all too familiar with Soviet Russia and it's military prowess.
As the Soviet Union retained its military expansion, the United States reduced its military might. So, its intention of world conquest may still be in the making. A dictatorship must be evaluated in terms of its retained capacity, not its stated intentions. For the Marxist, stated intentions, promises, and agreements are much different than how the West views these things. For the West, an intention, a promise, and an agreement are what they are. For the Communist however it is another device used to lure its enemy into submission and to make the enemy mistaking think that the agreement, promise, or intention is simply benign. Foolish for anyone to look at the most powerful dictatorship in the world and in naivety think that they don't ever intend to use that power. Despite this truth, Marxism, being the largest export from the Soviet Union, continues to influence the masses, particularly in the intellectuals in the West. A large number of Western academicians in England, Germany, France, the United States, Canada, and many others, are Marxist in thinking and teaching. Their rejection of Judeo-Christian morality and their acceptance of atheism reinforces their belief that democracy is for the naive and is only useful to achieve their quickest objective: infiltrate minds with Marxist ideology through evolution or slow change rather than revolution. This impact of Marxism on the student mind not only takes place in the Soviet Union but Western academia as well. As a result, we are seeing droves of student intellectuals being recruited to serve the Marxist party line. The great thrust is seen in the ideological conquest of the college and university campuses. And this voice is speaking for them in the mouths of so many teachers of philosophy, sociology, history, political science, and especially journalism (Breese 76). These are the useful idiots that Lenin spoke of and as they have achieved their quickest objective: infiltrate the minds in academia, they have yet to achieve their greater objective, and that is to make a smooth transition from Socialism to Communism, the end game.
To understand this transition from Capitalism to Socialism and then to Communism, we must first understand the difference between Capitalism, Socialism and Communism. Free Market Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production (capital) are privately owned: goods and services are traded in a market which may or may not be free, profits are reinvested in (new) technologies and industries. It is a system that provides incentives to produce and excel, however, unfairly concentrates wealth and power into the hands of an elite or plutocracy (corporate fascists) only when abused or frustrated by government intervention (regulations). Socialism is a left-residing, authoritarian political-economic system (government) whereby the state owns the fruits of production (revenues generated by the means) by confiscating them in the form of excessive taxes and inflation (a hidden tax caused by over expanding a money supply based on fiat currency). It is an ideology stressing the collective (group, system, planet) over the individual and it is a system whereby citizens and businesses are dependent upon the government, welfare, and subsidies rather than the general welfare contemplated by the U.S. Constitution (the Constitution did not mean welfare in general but the general welfare, a big difference between the two). Communism is a far-left, authoritarian, political-economic system whereby the state (government) owns the means of production (capital) as well as the fruits of production (products) and distributes such to a classless society, all of whom work for the state. To sum it up in one sentence: "the good of the many outweigh the good of the few" (Curtis Bowers)
Based on these three definitions, it is easy to see which political system America falls into. American used to be small government, but that has radically changed. We have seen this country go from small, independent enterprises, little debt, and a small government with a Laissez-faire approach (provided by the U.S. Constitution) and nuclear families to large conglomerates, little entrepreneurship, and a big massive government smothering the populace. Little can be done anymore without the government being involved. Individuality and hard-work are no longer rewarded. Instead, we see a national debt exploding, more people inundating the welfare system, a people burdened with taxes, and companies regulated to the gill in straight jacket politics, and a debt burden so large that would make Andrew Jackson regret ever being president of the United States. Today, there is very little reward for hard work, success is punished, and instead, laziness is rewarded. This, no doubt, explains the lack of productive individuals who care little about effort and hard-work and have figured out that smoking pot is not only hip and cool but rewarding as well. Cultural Marxism, through its destruction of values and morals, have all but destroyed the nuclear family. All of these things are Socialism and in terms of economic socialism: keep printing fiat money and keep taxing and spending. Capitalism is dead and Communism is resurrecting. We are moving inexorably in a Communist direction. As Margret Thatcher once said, "the problem with Socialism is that you run out of other people's money." Well, that problem is solved by a giant printing press and a Federal Reserve determined to burden this nation and economy with more debt. We are now addicted to an artificial money supply thanks to John Maynard Keynes, whose economic theory laid out the philosophical rationale for endless government borrowing and government spending of fiat money. It is not surprising that John Maynard Keynes was from socialist Europe. Between Marx and Keynes, no two men did more to destroy the original intent of the founding fathers and set the groundwork for cultural Marxism and corporate fascism that was later to flourish as competing Totalitarianism ideologies hell-bent on destroying a self-governing Republic that sought to practice true free-market Capitalism. The ghost of Karl Marx continues to haunt the world. Embedded on a tombstone in Highgate Cemetery in north London where the corpse of Karl Marx resides are the words, "Philosophers have attempted to interpret the world, but their real purpose is to change it" (77). Let's pray and plead to the Almighty God that the philosophy of Karl Marx does not continue to prevail beyond that of his grave.
"OUR CONSTITUTION WAS MADE ONLY FOR A MORAL AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLE, IT IS WHOLLY INADEQUATE TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ANY OTHER"........JOHN ADAMS
Citations:
Quotes and paraphrases from the book Seven Men Who Rule the World From the Grave by Dave Breese. Moody Publishers. Chicago, Ill. 1990
Foner, Philip. Karl Marx Remembered. San Francisco: Synthesis. 1983
Marx, Karl. The Communist Manifesto. Gateway Edition. Chicago: Henry Regnery. 1954
YouTube video:...Cultural Marxism - The Corruption of America by OriginalIntentDoc.