September 3, 2009

Left-wing Democrats in congress and supporters of the party alike do not want to use the term liberal anymore.  They want to be called "Progressives."  The problem is there is no progressive movement.  If anything it is regressive, because personal progression is stunted when there is a redistributing of wealth.

I have a better name by which to call them: Neo-Marxists, or, if you will "SOCIALISTS."

Since the election of Barack Obama and the radical agenda proffered by Nancy Pelosi, Charles Rangel, Barney Frank, Harry Reid. Chuck Dodd, Ted Kennedy and their ilk, I have begged, urged, preached and tried to motivate the people around my town and all with whom I speak, to start calling Democrats "The Socialist Party."  They are no longer Democrats, for the very word "Democrat" comes from a compound Greek word literally meaning "The People are the Judges" or "Critical People."  Thomas Jefferson was one of the first to use this term and he meant it just as Aristotle used it: "The people are the authority."

The Democrats today do not believe this!  They work, act and promote an agenda that purports the people as being too ignorant and too weak to make good decisions for themselves, their families or for the country as a whole.  This is not "progressivism," this is Marxism! Marxism regresses the people, enslaves them and sends them backwards both economically and socially. 

Let me say it here before I go any further: Barack Obama is a Marxist!  Nancy Pelosi is a Marxist and yes all the left-wing idealogues in Congress are Marxists.  In a word they are the epitome of Karl Marx' Communists.

Not to confuse the terms "socialist" with "communist" but a fact of communism is that it is socialistic in the whole spectrum of functionality.  Communism is scientific socialism, meaning that society is the guinea pig upon which social experiments can be conducted and controlled by the government.  Communism was originally envisioned by Marx and Frederick Engels as the last stage of their socialist revolution.  From the mind of Marx, communism is the next step on the socialist's agenda.

So what's the difference between communism and socialism?  To start, consider this:  Communism's mantra is  "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs;" Socialism's mantra is: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his deeds." Basically socialism wants to distribute income from the higher wage earners to the lower income worker to try to balance and equal things out, thus to create as close to a single class society as possible.  Communism, on the other hand focuses on needs and those needs are what the government say they are, rather than what they really are.

Accordingly to Marx, communism was the societal infusion of charity, forcing people with means to help those who don't.  The idea of "welfare" came from this school of thought as did most of LBJ's Great Society programs.

In a socialist economy, the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy. On the other hand, in a communist society, there is no centralized government - there is a collective ownership of property and the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.

The conventional wisdom of macro-economics states that a capitalist society can evolve into something better or, as in the case of European countries today, something far worse.  For capitalism to evolve, the first step is socialism. From a capitalist system, it is easier to achieve the socialist ideal where production is distributed according to people's deeds (quantity and quality of work done). For communism (to distribute production according to needs) it is necessary to first have production so high that there is enough for everyone's needs. In an ideal communist society, people work not because they have to but because they want to and out of a sense of responsibility. The underlying problem with this theory is the fact that in the old Communist regime of the Soviet Union, work was mandated under strict penalties of imprisonment or the gulag.

Barack Obama and his ilk (Pelosi, Reid, et. al) have merely taken the elements of a capitalistic society in flux, paired with an economic panic and (as in the words of Marxist extraordinaire Saul Alinsky) didn't let "a crisis go to waste"! These are the very words quoted by the President's Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel back on February 2.

What's in place now is a socialist movement, one by which all left leaning democrats in Congress have paid lip service to, if not out-and-out endorsed.

So let's call the Democratic party the "Socialist Party."  Any blue dogs and conservative leaning Democrats can either join the GOP or, better yet, form a Conservative Party and lead out many of the conservative Republicans who have been overshadowed by the Moderate faction known as the Rino's (Republican In Name Only).

Socialism, as envisioned by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels was, ideally, a system where everyone would share the benefits of industrialization. Workers would do better than in the English system at the time (The Communist Manifesto was published in 1848) because there were more workers than bosses and the majority would rule. As a purely economic system, socialism is a lousy way to run a large scale economy. Socialism is not a political system, it's a way of distributing goods and services. At their ideal implementation, socialism and laissez faire capitalism will be identical as everyone will produce exactly what's needed for exactly who needs it. In practice, both work sometimes in microeconomic conditions but fail miserably when applied to national and international economies. And they fail for the same reason: Human perversity. Too many people don't like to play fair, and both systems only work when everyone follow the same rules.

Socialism is left of liberal. Pelosi-Rangel-Dodd-Kennedy brand of Democrats are left of liberal.  So call them what they are:  SOCIALISTS!  Even though Marx said that "democracy is the road to socialism," He was wrong about how economics and politics interact, but he did see their similar underpinnings.

You can elect your officials, let them make decisions for you, mandate your pay and heath care and the like, but you cannot better advance yourself in the workplace because the "pay is always the same."

We believe that the Constitution of the United States speaks for itself. There is no need to rewrite, change or reinterpret it to suit the fancies of special interest groups or protected classes.