“How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!”...Samuel Adams
As I continue my reevaluation of what for years of believing America has edged closer to socialism, let us admit to one important thing; when it comes to socialism and communism, no matter what the various talking heads say, it comes down to a case of some subtle differences in the basic underlying theory between the two and in the long run; it can be a case of semantics and no matter what name you call it, they are both an attack on America and freedom.
Also, lets remember that socialism and communism ARE not about the body politics, they are about economics
Or is it a case of newspeak: where Big Government is not as bad as socialism which is preferable to communism?
Or is it that a Progressive is better then a Liberal which is better then being a Socialist which in turn is far better then being a Communist.
However, as I'm about to show this newspeak has been used and still being used to bury the truth and not scare the citizens of our once great country.
How many hard working, patriotic Americans would be repulsed by candidate on both sides that claims to be communist and wants to put in place various laws, regulations and programs to control what is produced in factories or on the farm? Or, how these products get to the store shelf or eventually to your homes? Or maybe even what you eat or use? Or, that the government will take care of you from the day you're born till the day you die?
Yet, those same Americans will cry, “Where's the federal government?” when __________ (fill in your own outrage).
Or, will say, “Congress ought to pass a law.” when ____________ (I'm sure everyone can find SOMETHING that they feel there should be a law against).
Historical Look and Meanings
Long before Obama was elected to transform America.
Long before some people finally woke up and realized that America was being destroyed.
Long before the “talking heads” and uninformed Americans who's idea of communism are a couple of pages in the Manifesto.
Long before those either wish to put their own unique spin on the subject or to show how “smart” they are about socialism and communism; there was a battle going on in America between those who wanted to bring about change in America.
Fredrich Engels, Karl Marx's partner in crime, wrote in 1847 before the publication of the Manifesto, explaining “What is Communism”:
“Communism [Socialism] is the doctrine of the conditions of the liberation of the proletariat.”[1]
American Socialism
Although the idea of Utopian socialism was present in the U.S. even before its founding, it wasn’t until the 1890's when the idea of scientific socialism really began to take hold in America.
The decade of the 1890's was an era of panic and financial depression and just as today, there were those who wanted to change America; those who believed in “not letting a good crisis go to waste”. (Note: And most people thought this idea was an invention of the Obama administration)
It was also during this crisis that American socialists began to prey on people's fear, envy and greed. They used this crisis and began to develop a federation of unions and political organizations. Sadly, for America, these socialists began to lay the foundations for American Communism.
It was also during this period that these foundations were “invading” American colleges, particularly Harvard, where Michael Medved's hero, W. E. B. DuBois and others established the American Fabian Society based on the principles and ideas of the established of the Fabian Society in England.[2]
America was also beginning to outgrow its Nationalism or it might be said, the idea Utopian socialism.
Out of the American socialist movement a number of people came to prominence, very much like Marx and Engels became prominent as leaders of world wide socialist movement.
It is these proud and unabashed socialists and their writings that I will turn to show the differences between socialism and communism and how eventually America put its unique spin on it and as usual did it the American way, thus establishing the wayto American Communism.
One such socialist was W.D.P. Bliss, considered the pioneer historian of the world socialist movement; who wrote A Handbook of Socialism in 1895, that not only summed up what socialism is and what it is not but also showed the division between the three major ideologies of socialism.
“Socialism is the fixed principle, capable of infinite and changing variety of form, and only gradually to be applied, according to which the community should own the land and capital collectively and operate them co-operativity [sic] for the equitable good of all.”... Bliss
Now for those who want to argue that Bliss is wrong, after all most people's idea of socialism is what they hear on radio or television, let us look at what the Century Dictionary had to say:
“Socialism is any theory or system of social organisation [sic] which would abolish, entirely or in great part the individual effort and competition on which modern society rests, and substitute for it co-operative action; would introduce a more perfect and equal distribution of the products of labour [sic], and would make land and capital, as the instruments and means of production, the joint possession of the members of the community.”
And then there was what Victor L. Berger had to say in his article, American Socialism, published in the July, 9, 1898 edition of Social Democratic Herald:
“The definition of Socialism, as generally accepted now, is “the collective ownership of all the means of production and distribution.” This definition is about the same in all countries.”
Now, let's turn to what Socialism is not and once again I turn to Bliss.
Socialism is not Governmentalism [sic] or Paternalism
IF anyone has REALLY read the Manifesto or closely read the definitions of socialism above, you should notice the absence of one very important word that leads to the misconception of Socialism. NO WHERE does the word government appear.
For many of us, including myself, we were taught to believe that socialism meant a “nanny state”, it is NOT.
Nor is socialism an expansion of State activity.
“The state is not abolished, it dies off. The phrase of the 'socialist state' may thus be judged for its value as a slogan in temporary propaganda of socialism, for its scientific inefficiently.”...Engels
“Socialism is not turning things over to the State, to the municipality, or to government of any kind. By the derivation of the word from the Latin socius, an associate, by its history, by its use by Socialists themselves. Socialism is essentially fraternal, the very opposite of paternalism.”...Bliss
Finally and for better or worst, Fredrich Engels explained it this way:
“The first act in which the State really appears as the representative of society as a whole, namely, the seizure of the means of production in the name of society, is at the same time its last independent act as a State. Interference of the State in social relations gradually becomes superfluous in one department after another, and finally of itself ceases (goes to sleep). The place of government over persons is taken by administration of things and the management of productive processes,...”
Socialism is not the Regimentation of Society
Socialism is not meant to control a person's life, nor does it mean that the State should develop a fixed form of society, as outlined by Plato's oligarchy as defined in his idea of Utopia.
“It seems almost impossible to bring people to understand that the abstract word Socialism denotes, like radicalism, not an elaborate plan of society, but a principle of social action."...Sidney Webb
Webb continue on to point out that Socialism inevitably suffers if identified with any particular scheme, or even with the best vision we can yet form of collectivism itself and tells us:
“People become so much concerned with details, that they miss the principle." They cannot see the forest for the trees." [Editor's note: Is this not the American sheeple today, looking to blame the condition of America today on everyone or everything, yet failing to see the REAL cause. Basically, 'Not seeing the forest for the trees'?] The moment will never come when we can say, "Now Socialism is established," for Socialism is not a status but a life. Society is not to be run into it as a mould [sic]. Socialism is evolutionary, though the evolution may be a gradual and peaceful revolution.”
“True Socialism is as flexible in its system, as it is definite in its aim. Any system that would carry out its principle is Socialistic. This means that in different countries and under different conditions, Socialism would take very various forms.”...Bliss
“Socialism, therefore, cannot be identified with any one form of Socialism.”...Bliss
Socialism is not Co-operation
Socialism is not a workers paradise of co-operation between arbitrary groups of workers that has abolished competition.
In social science co-operation means the union of any group of persons, who agree on equitable principles for the purposes of joint purchase, production, distribution or consumption, based on their mutual benefit. This does not mean using government as a weapon to achieve the goals of joint purchase, production, distribution or here comes the key to the discussion of socialism and communism consumption.
Above all, socialism can be considered a union of the WHOLE of a community or society for the purpose of common ownership and management of land and/or capital.
Or as Hillary Clinton has said:
“We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society.”
Socialism is not Anarchism
Just as there are differences between Republicans and Democrats, there are differences between the two schools of Anarchism.
Those who believed in individual sovereignty (Individual Anarchism) and those who believed that “all things belong to all provided that everyone contribute their fair share of labor...” or Anarchist Communism.
Webb continue on to point out that Socialism inevitably suffers if identified with any particular scheme, or even with the best vision we can yet form of collectivism itself and tells us:
“People become so much concerned with details, that they miss the principle." They cannot see the forest for the trees." [Editor's note: Is this not the American sheeple today, looking to blame the condition of America today on everyone or everything, yet failing to see the REAL cause. Basically, 'Not seeing the forest for the trees'?] The moment will never come when we can say, "Now Socialism is established," for Socialism is not a status but a life. Society is not to be run into it as a mould [sic]. Socialism is evolutionary, though the evolution may be a gradual and peaceful revolution.”
“True Socialism is as flexible in its system, as it is definite in its aim. Any system that would carry out its principle is Socialistic. This means that in different countries and under different conditions, Socialism would take very various forms.”...Bliss
“Socialism, therefore, cannot be identified with any one form of Socialism.”...Bliss
Socialism is not Co-operation
Socialism is not a workers paradise of co-operation between arbitrary groups of workers that has abolished competition.
In social science co-operation means the union of any group of persons, who agree on equitable principles for the purposes of joint purchase, production, distribution or consumption, based on their mutual benefit. This does not mean using government as a weapon to achieve the goals of joint purchase, production, distribution or here comes the key to the discussion of socialism and communism consumption.
Above all, socialism can be considered a union of the WHOLE of a community or society for the purpose of common ownership and management of land and/or capital.
Or as Hillary Clinton has said:
“We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society.”
Socialism is not Anarchism
Just as there are differences between Republicans and Democrats, there are differences between the two schools of Anarchism.
Those who believed in individual sovereignty (Individual Anarchism) and those who believed that “all things belong to all provided that everyone contribute their fair share of labor...” or Anarchist Communism.
Both “schools” of Anarchism believe in the abolishment of the State.
The Anarchist Communist glorified the use of physical force and emphasized “the propaganda of the deed”, later to be known as the Bolsheviks, while the Individual Anarchist are not afraid to use violence, but they realize that their numbers were too small to successfully use force.
Socialism differed with both of these schools of thought. Socialists not only abhor the use of violence to achieve their goals, but believe in using the State. Socialists realized that “man is born into a society, a fact that man can not escape.” Thus they will use and work within society to gain freedom. (Remember: I am using their thoughts, their words, their philosophy.)
Socialism is not Communism
Many people will argue that difference between Socialism and Communism is a case of semantics, they mean the same and are equally bad. Yes, they are both bad for America.
Some will use the two words interchangeably.
While others will use Socialism instead of Communism in fear of not facing the truth.
Some will lump both words together as Communism or vice versa.
So, let's look at at the difference between the two. Again I will remind you that this is their philosophy and principles back before the newspeak began.
“Socialism puts its emphasis on common production and distribution; Communism on life in common.”...Bliss
Or as Berger would say a few years later in 1898:
“Communism proposes the common ownership of the means of production, or, in some cases, the means of production and consumption. Socialism, on the contrary, asks only for the common ownership of the means of production, as made necessary by the modern development of the tool into the machine. Socialism leaves consumption, i.e., the selection and the enjoyment of the means of life to the free will and the taste of the individuals.”
Communism makes less use of existing government and in most cases overthrows existing governments as evident by attempted overthrow of the French government in 1870 and the Russian revolution of 1917, which I feel marked the beginning of what everyone now recognizes as Communism. The key point is that since 1917, Communism has not only meant violent overthrow of existing governments and morphed into central government control and a dictatorship and the lost of freedom. Again I must remind you, the readers, that Socialism and Communism are ECONOMICAL theories and principles.
Many will say that by the very definitions and philosophies of the writers above, America is more socialist then communist, but remember, America has through the years put its unique spin on these ideas and created American Communism.
Continued in....In the Hour of the Wolf – The Reevaluation - American Communism
[1] Engels, Frederick, The Principles of Communism, Selected Works, Vol. 1 pages 81-97, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1969.
[2] Dobbs, Zygmund, Keynes at Harvard - Economic Deception as a Political Credo,
The Anarchist Communist glorified the use of physical force and emphasized “the propaganda of the deed”, later to be known as the Bolsheviks, while the Individual Anarchist are not afraid to use violence, but they realize that their numbers were too small to successfully use force.
Socialism differed with both of these schools of thought. Socialists not only abhor the use of violence to achieve their goals, but believe in using the State. Socialists realized that “man is born into a society, a fact that man can not escape.” Thus they will use and work within society to gain freedom. (Remember: I am using their thoughts, their words, their philosophy.)
Socialism is not Communism
Many people will argue that difference between Socialism and Communism is a case of semantics, they mean the same and are equally bad. Yes, they are both bad for America.
Some will use the two words interchangeably.
While others will use Socialism instead of Communism in fear of not facing the truth.
Some will lump both words together as Communism or vice versa.
So, let's look at at the difference between the two. Again I will remind you that this is their philosophy and principles back before the newspeak began.
“Socialism puts its emphasis on common production and distribution; Communism on life in common.”...Bliss
Or as Berger would say a few years later in 1898:
“Communism proposes the common ownership of the means of production, or, in some cases, the means of production and consumption. Socialism, on the contrary, asks only for the common ownership of the means of production, as made necessary by the modern development of the tool into the machine. Socialism leaves consumption, i.e., the selection and the enjoyment of the means of life to the free will and the taste of the individuals.”
Communism makes less use of existing government and in most cases overthrows existing governments as evident by attempted overthrow of the French government in 1870 and the Russian revolution of 1917, which I feel marked the beginning of what everyone now recognizes as Communism. The key point is that since 1917, Communism has not only meant violent overthrow of existing governments and morphed into central government control and a dictatorship and the lost of freedom. Again I must remind you, the readers, that Socialism and Communism are ECONOMICAL theories and principles.
Many will say that by the very definitions and philosophies of the writers above, America is more socialist then communist, but remember, America has through the years put its unique spin on these ideas and created American Communism.
“The goal of socialism is communism.”...Vladimir Lenin
Continued in....In the Hour of the Wolf – The Reevaluation - American Communism
Literature Cited and not linked
[1] Engels, Frederick, The Principles of Communism, Selected Works, Vol. 1 pages 81-97, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1969.
[2] Dobbs, Zygmund, Keynes at Harvard - Economic Deception as a Political Credo,
Probe Research, inc; Rev. and enl. ed edition, 1969.
