Socialism — Death of Freedom

The unknown is always frightening. That is normal. However, there is an even more frightening event. That is when a major disaster could have been prevented had history been understood and the knowledge gained is utilized to prevent a disastrous event from occuring in the future. It has been correctly said; “If we ignore the past, we will not know what to expect in the future.”

The question is;  why is it so difficult for some people to learn from past?

In studies of past civilizations, it becomes clearly apparent that there were several critically important reasons that enabled communities to live together in peace and harmony.

A civilized community needs common attributes among the people and this has historically been provided by three important factors. The factors are:

1. Faith in a supreme being that establishes core beliefs and a set of rules, for the residents of the community.
2. A Family unit to build a strong foundation for the current and succeeding generations.
3. A circle of Friends for building a community with strong and common mores.

So, it was and still is: Faith, Family, and Friends.

The concept of Faith in a supreme being provides a civilization with a common belief system and a set of rules to live by.  Just think of the rules in the Ten Commandments.  Those who advocate moral relativity are literally promoting laws to be set by those who have the power to do so.  Relative morality destroys common rules, which the entire community lives by.

The concept of Family provides a close-net unit in which a mother, father, and children can bond and develop a common, constructive, and positive way to live together and to foster succeeding generations.   The leftists who advocate any kind of family unit are attempting to destroy the family unit.

The concept of Friends provides development of relationships outside of the family unit and fosters strength in building a broader community and a nation of socially healthy people with common purpose.  Acquaintances in leftist repressive countries spy on each other for the government.   There are no real friendships and no real communities in socialist’s dictatorship countries.  The government controls all.

While the strength of these three attributes help build a strong family, community, and nation.  Therefore, it stands that the destruction of these principles destroys a family, a community, and a nation.

When a nation becomes divided on the importance of these principles, the individual, family, and nation will cease to have common bounds and will subsequently succumb to cultural entropy. It is not being stated that people from a variety of countries and cultures cannot blend together in one country, what is being said is a love affair with family and community and nation is important.  A common set of rules promotes a positive feeling for all aspects of civilization.  Moral and cultural relativity does not promote a culture of democracy.

There is little doubt that we now have a divided nation and a divided government.  We have had a divided government before, but this one is different.  And, that’s because it is divided along the above-civilized norms and not just a difference in policies.

Furthermore, it is dividing the country by left and right ideologies, which will now be explained in more detail.

Today there is a growing force within the Democrat party and it is pulling our country further left. It seems a group called Justice Democrats is one of the central players in the ongoing war for the soul of the Democratic Party.  The Justice Democrats recruited a neophyte candidate with sufficient infrastructure to take down a party leader.  It is not only the Republicans and independents they are after; they also want to primary-out the Democrats who do not agree with them.  Their plans are to do nothing less than weave socialism into liberal politics in America and to do it by whatever means necessary.  How many radical leftist candidates are being supported by justice Democrat?

In the minds of the Justice Democrats, the ends justify the means.  This philosophy should alarm Democrats, Republicans, Independents, as well as any and all Americans.

Today, there seems to be three divisions within the Democrat Party.

1. There is the group of the original members who hover around the center.
2. Then there is the moderately left of center group, who for some time have been a bit more left of center.
3. Now, there is a growing number of Democrats who make up a group that is far left and openly support Socialism, even by extreme measures.  They even call themselves Social Democrats.

Presently the freshman representatives who are leading the radical left are pushing for more radical left candidates to run against the more moderate people in their own Democrat Party in the upcoming primaries.

Before we go further in our discussion, we should examine the bar of governance continuation or “Our Founder’s Political Spectrum.”  This bar simply explains the left and right of the political continuum.   Notice how the far left brings “Order” by brut force.  That is a dictatorship by whatever name you wish to call it.

Since the founding of our nation, there has always been a left right pull.  In our country, the right has typically been slightly right of center and the left has typically been slightly left of center. As can be seen in the above graph, our country was originally more of a Classical Libertarian or Conservative nation in the right of center than anything else.  We do have more social programs today than we did 200 or 100 or even 50 years ago, but that does not mean we are a Socialist, Fascist, or Communist country.  We are a compassionate people and our economic system is that of freedom, free enterprise, and Capitalism.

Now let’s examine another graph, which perhaps explains the left right continuum with a somewhat different perspective than the first graph shown above. The further left the more there is order to the extent that at the furthest point left there is extreme order implemented by a strong armed dictatorship through a system of Socialism, Fascism, or a Theocracy.

On the other hand, in the far right there is little or no central government force, which could lead to a bit of Chaos, rather forced Order.

Of course, innovation and new business activity thrives in the right of center environment, however in all civilizations some degree of order is required to protect other members of the community and/or nation.

 

Those who mistakenly believe the far right is dictatorial institution simply do not understand the reality behind the political continuum.  The far right is opposite of the far left. It ranges from Extreme Force on the far left to No Force on the far right.

One could say an example of the “far right” was the Wild West, when there was little or no law and order. In the recent or current environment, it could be the almost unbridled dot.com and/or digital business explosion. On the other hand, an example of the “far left” could be Germany under Hitler, USSR under Stalin, China under Mao Zedong, Cuba under Castro and in more recent times, the disaster in Venezuela under Nicolas Maduro.

The left can bring additional order through strict control.  However, every move to the left brings less individual freedom. The decision is how much order do we want, for too much order precludes individual freedom, innovation, and economic growth.

The right brings individual innovation, new products, and services through individual freedom and innovative thought.  It brings a higher standard of living for all.

Einstein once said innovation and discovery comes from the individual after many hours of solitude deliberative thought and inspection.

Einstein’s comment supports the fact of individual freedom is basic to human nature and it brings innovation.

Zbigniew Kazimierz Brzeziński said: “I think the notion of creating a perfect society by going counter to human nature is dead.  Because the basic error of communism is that it simply did not understand human nature.”

Winston Churchill said:  “Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy.”

The desire and need for individual freedom is a universal human characteristic.  The decision is how much individual freedom or chaos do we think is too much.  Total chaos can dampen civilized order.  On the other hand, how much freedom are we willing to give up?   Human nature says not much.

And now, the Democrat Left is pulling America more and more to the left.  The question is; just how far left can we go without losing our country to the extreme force of a Socialist Dictatorship?

A number of people in the far left group advocate all sorts of government intervention.  The leftist Socialist Democrats support the following:

1. Government controls over more aspects of everyone’s life
2. Government paid Medicare for all, as in Cuba
3. Government guaranteed jobs, as last seen in the USSR
4. Government confiscation of private property for public housing
5. Government censorship of speech, as in USSR, China, and Cuba
6. Government guarantee for equality of outcomes
7. Government paid free university education
8. Government guarantee of open borders—abolish ICE
9. The far left wants to rewrite the constitution
10. The far left wants more taxes on high earners and job producers
11. The far left believe in a failed economic system

All of these items underscore the scary thought of the Democrat Socialist’s position and could ultimately bring the extreme force of a Socialist Dictatorship.

Most everyone would agree that Mao Zedong was that strong man Socialist dictator. He said the following:  “Communism is not love. Communism is a hammer, which we use to crush the enemy.”  Now the left wing radical Socialist use the term “sledgehammer,” which they will use to destroy our free enterprise structure.

In recent years, a  number of the leftist have supported Che Guevara, some have even proudly worn a shirt with his name and face boldly emblazoned on the front.  Guevara expounded a vision of a new socialist citizen who would work for the good of society rather than for personal profit.  Che and his followers should have read Churchill when he said; “Socialism is a dream. Sooner or later you wake up to reality.”

Perhaps it is time to review some history on socialism.  It might help us understand the dangers of going left into Socialism.

During the 1800’s, Europe was awash in revolutions, throwing away the vestiges of the feudal system of Lords and Serfs and taking on something different.  The people wanted more freedom to make their own way in life.  They wanted more control over their destiny. Some in Western Europe thought moving left was the way of the future.

The radical interventionists were advocating the overthrow of the entire system of government and society as a whole.   There was a great deal of discussion, debate, and factional uprising in Western Europe during those years. Fredrick Engles supported Karl Marx in his work, which advocated the overthrow of individual ownership of production to be replaced by common ownership by the labor force who, in his thinking, were responsible for the factory produced goods or any other end user commodity that might be manufactured or produced.  We should understand that (Common ownership means government ownership)

Marx thought the workers should reap the reward of their work and not the owners who provided the investment capital and management for the business.   Karl Marx said his work was all in support of the working class and was designed to protect the working class from the predator capital hungry bourgeois.

In the Marx structure, the capital needs to support factories, mills, and food production were not recognized, as a separate component of the production and manufacturing process.  In fact, Marx thought capital was evil and dangerous to the workers.  He proposed that workers were indeed robbed of what they contributed to the increased value of the product by the labor they put into the manufacturing or production of the product and therefore the workers should benefit not only from their pay but also from the added value they put into the product. Furthermore, he thought the workers or government bureaucrats could manage the production process. He gave little or no value to a need for capital, professional management, and the distribution process.  His outlook on this was over simplistic; end users would purchase what they needed, therefore there was no need for professional management and a distribution process.

Marx gave absolutely no value to the formation of capital and the management of the organization’s activities. His sole emphasis was on the value of labor.  Marx also totally disregarded human nature and individual initiative.

There was, of course, the owner, management, and capital formation opposition.

These disparate views gave rise to political positions taken that represented the two opposing sides.  The sides were, of course, the value of labor vs. the value of ownership capital.

The terms left and right became pseudo names for these political positions basically, left for laboring people and right for ownership people.

The terms left and right referred to the political affiliations originating early in the French Revolutionary era of 1789 – 1799 and referred originally to the seating arrangements in the various legislative bodies of France.

As seen from the Speaker’s seat at the front of the assembly, the aristocracy sat on the right (traditionally the seat of honor) and the commoners sat on the left, hence the terms right-wing politics and left-wing politics.

What Karl Marx also failed to understand was that both labor and capital are required for production.

Most of the workers in Western Europe, decided that while they wanted more freedom and more income, they did not believe that Karl Marx and his radical approach to a civilized community was the answer.

The importance of their Faith, Family, and Friends or community was of sufficient importance in their life that they could not be traded away for an esoteric promise of universal equality.

The socialist and communist philosophy of promised equality was basically rejected in Western Europe and a more-or-less midpoint was reached through negotiations after a number of revolutions and some bloodshed.

Naturally, if a society is pushed too far right in political policies only the owners of land and production will benefit. In this case, there will be resistance from the left, for the workers bare the toil of hard work in the production of goods.

On the other hand, If political policies are pushed so far left to provide only promises for the production workers, there will be no capital or company survival income to keep production flowing and workers paid.  Under this scenario everyone loses and that happens in every socialist attempt to govern.

Throughout the failed attempts to promote the Marx theory in Western Europe, Leon Trotsky was watching, listening, and learning. He began to see how the Marx philosophy might prove beneficial in the attempt to replace Czar Nicholas II and the Czarist system in Russia with a Socialist Dictatorial Organization.  He would sell the Marx theory to the people and gain control and power.

Russia had a number of uprisings during the later years of the Czarist reign.  Perhaps the most noteworthy was the peasant uprising in St. Petersburg in 1905.  It was actually an accidental uprising, but there were several hundred people killed by the palace guards.

Subsequently, groups formed and each tried to who gain power. There were four primary groups of philosophical positions.

1. There was the group that was trying to maintain the Czarist political structure by accepting the resignation of Czar Nicholas II and appointing a new Czar.
2. The second group of note was proposing a representative government through the Duma (assembly) with regional recognized representatives and a Prime Minister.
3. Then there were the Social Democrats, who were attempting to have a greater support for the industrial workers and farm labor with a milder form of industrial ownership with state control.
4. The fourth group was the pure socialist, (come communist) who supported state ownership of all manufacturing and production facilities.  In this form, the party held power over the individual.

These philosophical positions became active after the St. Petersburg uprising in 1905. Furthermore, they played a role over the next decade or so, as well as in the 2017 Revolution.

There were actually two Russian Revolutions of 1917, the first occurred in February.  It was the overthrow the imperial government by a transitional government.  The second one was in October. It replaced the transitional government, which had held temporary power, by Trotsky and Lenin’s far leftist or socialist, which was the Socialist Revolutionary Party. In turn this became the Communist Party. Their promise of equality was mesmerizing to the populace.  Peasant farmers were promised they would receive land and they were indeed given small tracts under Lenin’s 1917 “Decree on Land.”   That Lenin commitment did not last long.  First the larger farmers were run off their land by government enforcers.  Over the succeeding years, this continued and even peasant farmers were then forced off their small farms and were required to join collectives. They could not even have a garden in their backyard.   The communist party was called to “liquidate the kulaks (peasant farmer), as a class.”

The years 1917 through 1922 were extremely bloody as the Social Democrats accepted a more socialistic dictatorial position and they transitioned into the Bolshevik Party or specifically the Communist Party with Lenin in its leadership role.

It should be understood that the term Bolshevik simply means the majority in Russian, while the term Menshevik means minority.

In fact, the party of Trotsky and Lenin was the original a Menshevik Party, while the party of Aleksandr Kerensky the Prime Minister of Russia in transition was the original Bolsheviks Party.  This all changed under the second revolution in October of 2017.

While both factions believed that a proletarian revolution was necessary, the original Bolshevik generally tended to be more moderate. The peasant-based new Bolsheviks, the Socialist Revolutionary Party became more radical under Trotsky and Lenin

In other words, the less radical party was ousted and overtaken by the more radical party in what became a corrupt, violent, and bloody political overthrow.  This would be like our original Democrat Party being ousted by the new left wing Social Democrats, as we currently see happing in Democrat Party in the USA.

This happened in Russia and over the years, it happened in China, Cuba, Cambodia, Vietnam, and Venezuela to name just a few counties.  All of these counties suffered.  Some have found their way back to common sense.  Others have not.  Still other countries and some people without the knowledge of Socialism seek to experiment with the failed philosophy of Socialism. Some blame past failures on implementation and ignore the systemic reason for failure.

People in some countries experiencing revolutions or even milder forms of change are vulnerable to the excessively wild promises made by the Social Democrats. The greater the promise the more likelihood is that the Social Democrats or Socialist will gain power because of their extravagant promise of utopia for all.   And then, it will take some time and some very hard lessons for the people to learn nothing is free.  The group of populace who think they gain equality,, security, and freedom, end up with nothing.

The possibility of Socialism is a scary proposition and yet that is where some of the Democrats are, as we begin year 2019.

Socialism did not work out very well for the people living in the USSR or the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.   In 1918, when Vladimir Lenin was fighting to take power in Russia, he promised: “Land to the Peasants, Peace to the Nations, Bread to the Starving!” The pledge came in a letter to Socialist, urging them to revolt against a provisional government that was working to transition Russia from a monarchy to a democracy. It was bloody time.  Upwards to 60 million lost their lives in political purges, gulags, and famines.

It did not work out very well for the Chinese living in China during their revolution. It was a very bloody time in China, as well.    Mao Zedong condemned the capitalist and declared they must be removed from society. He’s youthful followers formed the Red Guards, which led a mass purge of the “undesirables.”   Upwards of 100 million people lost their lives in the Chinese revolution to Socialism.  Did the “undesirables” under Mao Zedong equal today’s “deplorables” under the Democrats?

It did not work out very well for the people living in Socialist Eastern Europe either. Millions of people lost their lives or fled with only the clothes they were wearing.

In 1947, on the eve of independence from Britain, India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, an avowed socialist supporter, announced there would be “striving so that we may fulfill the pledges we have so often taken…. the ending of poverty, and ignorance, and disease, and inequality of opportunity.” In the 1950s they followed the socialist creed and the state seized control of steel, mining, machine tools, water, telecommunications, insurance, and electrical plants.”

However, poverty grew rampant in India. The Socialist policies did not improve the country; they made the country much worse.  Economists blame India’s lingering problems on socialist policies started by Nehru.

India is now finally learning about the woes of Socialism, but it took decades of starving, a stagnate economy, and zero growth to learn.  They are now improving under a somewhat free enterprise system.

Fidel Castro, in a 1959 speech on the progress of his revolution, announced that he was certain the new leader of Cuba would “decree the re-establishment of all rights and freedoms, including the absolute freedom of the press of all individual rights.”

But the opposite happened. Today, Freedom House that ranks press freedoms states; “Cuba has the most repressive media environment in the Americas. … The Cuban news media are owned and controlled by the state and the independent press is considered illegal.”   In addition to no press freedom, the people living in Cuba have virtually no freedoms at all.  The free enterprise system left Cuba decades ago.

A Rose Marketing survey, which was conducted among 1,067 Cubans in Havana, Santiago de Cuba, Holguín, Camagüey, Pinar del Río, and Cienfuegos found that about 27 percent of Cubans earn under $50 per month; 34 percent earn the equivalent of $50 to $100 per month; and 20 percent earn $101 to $200. Twelve percent reported earning $201 to $500 a month; and almost 4 percent said their monthly earnings topped $500, including 1.5 percent who said they earned more than $1,000.

Another recent consumer study by the Boston Consulting Group found that about half the Cuban population lives with a median household income of $300 to $400 a year.

In any case, Socialism has not worked well in Cuba.   One might ask the political prisoners in Cuban jails.

When Hugo Chavez came to power in Venezuela in 1998, he promised health care for all. In 1999, he got it written into the Constitution, which stated: “Health is a fundamental social right, an obligation of the State.”

Chavez also promised to make wealth more equal, “overcome poverty” and mandate higher wages. He made initial progress in expanding medical care and reducing poverty, however, the success was short-lived. Experts say it was based on using existing wealth created under a capitalist system rather than creating new wealth.

“He took from the private sector that existed, and enjoyed buoyant oil prices, to buy off the electorate.” “This strategy was great in the short term, but it crushed investment and new businesses. Predictably, when economic activity and oil prices went south, he resorted to printing money, and we all know what has happened.”

By 2018, the Venezuelan health system was a disaster. Hospitals were out of basic medicine, and also without food for children who were starving due to extreme poverty.

Medical care and the economy itself have since fallen into shambles under Chavez successor Nicolas Maduro, sparking widespread protests. The turmoil has devastated the country and now numerous countries, including the U.S., recognized opposition leader Juan Guaido, as interim president — and Maduro responded by saying he’s cutting off relations with the U.S.

Currently, it has not worked out very well for the 3.0 million who had lived in Venezuela under Chavez and Madurai’s Socialism.

At least this group got out.  This disaster is still ongoing, as we enter 2019 and the devastation is getting worse by the day.   Inflation is forecasted to be one million percent and now there are more uprisings in the streets by the people who have been devastated by Socialism.

The general population is recognizing the opposition leader as the interim president and the surrounding countries are dong the same. The situation is becoming more serious each and every day. It will not work out will for Venezuela or any country that embarks on the road to Socialism.

As we enter 2019 and begin preparations for the next round of primaries and then general election in our country, it is becoming very clear that the radical left wing in the Democrat Party is having a loud and more influential voice within the party as a whole.

The radical left is sounding like the Social Democrats of Russia in 1917 when they were promising the peasant farmers and industrial workers free land and food.   The radical left sound like the leaders in Venezuela who promised free health care and equality of incomes.

Socialism is a slippery slope that promises everything for free while stealing every personal freedom in support of the state. The people of the country end up neither.  No freedom and no milk and honey.

Many people confuse socialism with a strain of equitable egalitarianism, which advocates the belief that everyone should have equal outcomes. Many socialists might agree with this, but socialism is a public policy platform that argues for government control over the production and distribution of resources; it is not necessarily egalitarian.

Socialism fails because it is a failed system.  It simply does not understand human nature.  Innovation, economic growth, and improved living standards are only available through a free enterprise system.

The first civilization on the planet and our founding fathers understood this; why can’t the radical left in modern America.

It seems as if the radical left Democrats have moved moved beyond ignorance and straight into stupidity.