People Can't Handle the Truth: American Communism Is In Place

Sometimes in my my various discussions on Twitter, I often had to explain to many closed mind, brainwashed people that there is a difference between Socialism & Communism. 

Some will say that like everything, things and words evolve, prime example is the word gay, from the middle English, gai, meaning happily excited, to a meaning for homosexual. This has also been done to the Constitution where many people and politicians change what the Founding Fathers wrote for their own particular purpose. Unlike those people I believe in source documents as well as any supporting to understand the meaning of various documents and terms.

Now, having explain that, I present the following for you education and comment.

In my re-evaluation concerning my position on socialism I showed that according to Frederick Engels in 1888, Manifesto of the Communist Party, should have been titled the Manifesto of the Socialist Party.

I further showed in the second part of my re-evaluation, the views of noted socialists through their writings the difference between socialism and communism.

Finally in part three, I showed how America has actually actually established its own unique form of communism, what I chose to call American Communism.

Now, “the knownothings” or those who just refuse to accept the facts, whether they be on radio, television, in print or the general public don't want to see or admit the difference. They would rather use soft terms like, Liberalism, Progressivism, Big Government or God forbid, Socialism. I present what I consider the evidence.

I am not going to rehash or go into a complete a repeat of past posts, but I will define some terms:

Socialism: The ORIGINAL meaning, as defined by Marx is society, not government, controls production and distribution. Much like a local farmer's Co-op or as the Riceman explains it, a hive mentality, everyone working for the “good” of society or the hive, with no real leader a TRUE democracy or as Vladimir Lenin said: 

"Democracy is indispensable to socialism"

SPECIAL NOTE to everyone: America is a REPUBLIC not a democracy as guaranteed by Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution.

Or, once again turning to Lenin:

“Under socialism all will govern in turn and will soon become accustomed to no one governing.”

Communism: As currently defined and accepted by those who have not taken nor will not take the time to study the sources or even read some of my prior posts, is a dictatorship established by violent revolution where government uses Marx's theories to control production, distribution and consumption. This idea was based on the model established by aforementioned Lenin:

"The goal of socialism is communism"

There will be some who will say its a case of semantics, others will say the main differences is “revolution” and “dictatorship”. 

To the former I say, if this helps you to avoid the facts and history nothing I can say will change your closed mind.

To the latter, look up the word revolution. It does not have to be violent. Prime example the Industrial Revolution. As far as a dictatorship, that is a political system, communism is a economical system.

Did America have a revolution to put in place the tenets of Marx's Manifesto, YES.

It was quiet and accomplished by politicians who got the taste of power and realized that the American people had gotten envious, greedy and to some extent lazy and realized that they could use their positions to gain control, a quiet less obvious dictatorship, with the illusion of freedom.

To accomplish this, they turned back Marx and passed laws / regulations in order to put in place as Karl Marx said: 

        “…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. 

Antiquities Act of 1906 - This act gave the President of the United States (POTUS) the authority, by presidential proclamation, to restrict the use of public land owned by the federal government.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. 

The 16th Amendment to the Constitution

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance. 

The Revenue Act of 1916 (39 Stat. 756) created a tax on the transfer of wealth from an estate to its beneficiaries, and thus was levied on the estate, as opposed to an inheritance tax that is levied directly on beneficiaries.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. 

This particular plank may be separated into two parts. On one hand the American Communists are embracing emigrants, illegal and legal in order to build a “power base” to maintain power and control. While on the other hand using courts and laws to take people's land through Eminent Domain and if necessary Condemnation.

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

The Federal Reserve Act of 1913. The Federal Reserve also was given the power to buy and sell treasuries and influence credit and money conditions. This power helped to stabilize prices and make full employment more likely for larger shares of the population.
Banking Act of 1933 (which establishes FDIC)

The Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act : July 21, 2010 

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State. 

The Interstate Commerce Act of 1887: First federal law to regulate private industry in the United States. It was later amended to regulate other modes of transportation and commerce. 

Communications Act of 1934: Established the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), a government agency established to regulate in the public interest interstate and foreign communications by radio and wire. The FCC is divided into six major operating bureaus: Common Carrier, Wireless Telecommunications, Mass Media, Compliance and Information, International (includes satellite regulation), and Cable Services. In addition, there are 10 staff offices, consisting of Managing Director, General Counsel, Inspector General, Engineering and Technology, Plans and Policy, Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, and Public Affairs, Administrative Law Judges, Communications Business Opportunities, and Workplace Diversity. (Editor's note: What does workplace diversity have to do with communications?)

Department of Transportation (USDOT or DOT) established by an act of Congress on October 15, 1966

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.

Reforestation Relief Act of 1933: established the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC); it provides work in reforestation, road construction and developing national parks.

In 1965 youth conservation corps program was finally developed. One of the major concerns of President Johnson’s war on poverty was how to help the rising number of teenage drop-outs and draft rejectees break the “cycle of poverty.” Sargent Shriver, the President’s General in the War on Poverty, incorporated a youth conservation element into a new training program to be known as the “Job Corps.”

8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. 

Maybe this should read, unequal liability for all not to work and draw government handouts, thus establish armies of those on welfare to continue to keep American Communist controlled government in power.

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. 

Sustainable Communities Initiative: Provides grants to improve regional and local planning efforts that integrate housing and transportation decisions, and increase the capacity to improve land use and zoning to support market investments that support sustainable communities.

By taking advantage of these grants, thus giving federal government more control this is taking place at the state level as more and more American Communists push for the combination or unification of city and county governments. Using a local example, the combination of Jefferson county, Kentucky and the city of Louisville, Kentucky into Metro Louisville.

An outstanding source for more information on this is Spreading The Wealth, by Stanley Kurtz.

10. Free education for all children in public schools.

The responsibility for K–12 education is suppose to be the providence of the states under the Constitution. However, American Communists believe that there is a compelling national interest in the quality of the nation’s public schools. Therefore, the federal government, through the legislative process, provides assistance to the states and schools in an effort to supplement, not supplant, state support. 

The primary source of federal K–12 support began in 1965 with the enactment of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA).
 
Department of Education in 1979

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001

Common Core 

Now there is talk of free college paid for, thus controlled, by the government using taxpayers money.

Now, something I pray people noticed. Although a number of these planks have been put in place by Congress and in doing so congress abdicated their duties under the Constitution to the Executive branch.

Also, remember this, even though Congress passed the laws putting these planks in place,   they are not the responsibility, under the Constitution, of the federal government.

Now, its up for you to decide.

Semper Fi!

In the Hour of the Wolf – A Time to Reevaluate With an Eye on History

“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.

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.

“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.

Concern for Poor Maybe Gospel, But Redistribution of Wealth IS Socialism - UPDATED

I fully realize that as I write this, I am opening a major can of worms. I also fully realize that some will accuse me of being anti-Catholic, anti-poor and if "the Reverend"  Al Sharpton reads this I am racist. But as Thomas Jefferson said, "Question with boldness, hold to the truth, and speak without fear."

Let's begin by laying some groundwork.

When it comes to it there is a difference between Socialism and Communism, although some may say it's it just a case of semantics.

In W.D.P. Bliss' Handbook of Socialism (1895), Bliss devotes chapter one to the definitions of socialism as defined by various Utopian Socialists, Socialists and Marxists but I feel that the Century Dictionary definition presents the most concise, "Socialism is any theory or system of social organisation 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, and would make land and capital, as the instruments and means of production, the joint possession of the members of the community.is that principle of society according to which the community as a whole, fraternally organised, should collectively own and co-operatively operate land and capital for the equitable good of all." In chapter 2, Bliss goes on to define "What Socialism is Not" and says, "Socialism is not Communism" because while, "Socialism puts its emphasis on common production and distribution; Communism on life in common. Communism makes less of existing political institutions as instruments ; Socialism would very largely use them."

In a later publication by Victor L. Berger (July 9, 1898), he says, "The definition of Socialism, as generally accepted now, is “the collective ownership of all the means of production and distribution.” While Communism proposes the common ownership of the means of production, or, in some cases, the means of production and consumption."

Finally, there will be those who throw around the word "Communism" and will cite the The Manifesto of the Communist Party (Manifesto) with "great authority" neglecting to mention or cite what Frederick Engels had to say in Preface of the 1888 English edition, "Yet, when it was written, we could not have called it a socialist manifesto (my emphasis) . By Socialists, in 1847, were understood, on the one hand the adherents of the various Utopian systems...."

With the meaning of Socialism defined lets take a look at idea that Pope Francis insists that his concern for the poor and critique of the global economic system isn't some novel, communist-inspired ideology but rather the original and core "touchstone" of the Christian faith.

Some U.S. conservatives have branded the first Latin American pope a Marxist for his frequent critiques of consumerism and focus on a church "that is poor and for the poor." But in an interview contained in a new book, Francis explains that his message is rooted in the Gospel and has been echoed by church fathers since Christianity's first centuries. (Yes it has, BUT the charity is from the individual, not from the STATE, "And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him." When the STATE takes money just to redistribute it to the poor that is NOT charity, that is mandated, thus SOCIALISM...OM)

"The Gospel does not condemn the wealthy, but the idolatry of wealth, the idolatry that makes people indifferent to the call of the poor," Francis says in "This Economy Kills," a study of the pope's economic and social teachings, excerpts of which were provided Sunday to The Associated Press.

Specifically, Francis summarized a verse from the Gospel of Matthew which is the essential mission statement of his papacy: "I was hungry, I was thirsty, I was in prison, I was sick, I was naked and you helped me, clothed me, visited me, took care of me." (This mission is laudable, AND if the Church wants to give money to help the poor, then so be it. BUT using the power of the State to take money from its "wealthier" citizens just to "help" the poor does not constitute charity it constitutes a tax. Maybe the pope should remember that ""Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." After all, how many trillions of dollars has America wasted on the "War on Poverty" and all that has been accomplished is the development of a dependent class of citizens living in a government controlled cage who do not know what Freedom is except what the government tells them it is....OM)

"Caring for our neighbor, for those who are poor, who suffer in body and soul, for those who are in need: this is the touchstone. Is it pauperism? No. It is the Gospel." (Yes it is, but does it say anything about the STATE doing it?...OM)

He cites church fathers dating to St. Ambrose and St. John Chrysostom as expressing the same concerns, and noted somewhat wryly that if he had said the same "some would accuse me of giving a Marxist homily."(As long as the pope insists on taking money from one group of individuals just to give it to another group, I feel he is....OM)

"As we can see, this concern for the poor is in the Gospel, it is within the tradition of the church, it is not an invention of communism and it must not be turned into some ideology, as has sometimes happened before in the course of history," an apparent reference to the Latin American-inspired liberation theology.

ADDENDUM:

Although Pope Francis has called for more regulation of financial markets, he STILL rejected suggestions that his criticisms of unbridled capitalism smack of Marxism.

In the same interview published in La Stampa newspaper on Sunday (11 January) he said, "Markets and financial speculation cannot enjoy absolute autonomy," calling for greater ethics in the economy and a better distribution of the earth's resources.
"We cannot wait any longer to resolve the structural causes of poverty in order to cure our society of an illness that can only lead to new crises," he said. (Now, I have to ask, are these statements any different from: Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. Or 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.[Manifesto]...OM)

Conservative Catholics, particularly in the United States, have criticized some of his past pronouncements on the economy, with several openly calling him a Marxist. (Considering the Pope appears to believe in the same things that the Progressives/Socialists of America do....OM) But the Argentine pope said he was just stating Church teachings. (Although I am not Catholic, I do not remember ever hearing that the Church saying that government should control of production and distribution....OM)

"If I repeat some sermons by the first fathers of the Church in the second or third centuries about how the poor must be treated, some would accuse me of preaching a Marxist homily," he said. (BUT didn’t the first fathers of the Church & even Jesus believe that it was up to the individual, NOT the STATE to take care of the poor? After all weren’t there “Poor Houses” and forced labor in Europe during the middle ages and wasn't the PEOPLE that changed the sysyem....OM)

 

He has condemned huge salaries and bonuses, calling them symptoms of an economy based on greed and also said speculation in food commodities was undermining the global fight against poverty and hunger. (Its called CAPITALISM, if one has the God given skills to earn a huge salary or bonus, then who but God can tell the person what he can or can not do with his earnings....OM)

This interview is also from a chapter of an Italian book called "Pope Francis: This Economy Kills," to be published this week by two seasoned Vatican reporters, comes out this week in Italian.

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/01/11/pope-says-concern-for-poor-is-gospel-not-communism/?intcmp=latestnews

Addendum source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/07/us-usa-congress-gastax-idUSKBN0KG25X20150107 with Reporting By Philip Pullella; Editing by Raissa Kasolowsky