Realism of a Federal Republic vs. Democratic Socialistic Views (A word From Karl Marx) LOL

Realism of a Federal Republic vs. Democratic Socialistic Views

(A word From Karl Marx) LOL

Human existence as we know it could disappear and the environment and animals would do just fine; adaptation is a concept that needs to be learned by these socialists.  The people of the United States need to be more attentive and respond to attacks on our freedoms and liberties, whether the attack is from an adjacent state on our continent or a state on the other side of the World on another continent.  We should be more aware of our responsibilities than our rights in most cases. 

We as Americans are separate citizens by state, but we are also united as one under the federal constitution, as such we need to be more vocal about attacks on each state as on the whole.  Most of the shows of aggression have been tolerated by our complacency, as a free people, freedom is not to be comforted under the blanket of our own little fraction of the United States.  Freedom is an endless endeavor.  Most attacks on our nation, The United States, have been mostly brushed off because they come from the Liberal or the morally unimportant states, but beware if it happens in one it happens in all.  (Misery loves company) It is interesting to note that a lot of Americans in their own little compartmentalized communities don’t really care until one of these undetected political or material missiles is launched upon them, what the citizens of the United States have to realize is that if it happens to one it happens to all.  We are all, each and every one of us, in this together.

Thomas Paine writes of this very thing in his “Rights of Mann”, the first part, which is an answer to Mr Burke’s Attack on the French Revolution (1791-1792).  Although the premise was that the dead should not rule the living, Thomas Paine gives this account for each generation’s responsibility.

“It requires but a very small glance of thought to perceive that although laws made in one generation often continue in force through succeeding generations, yet they continue to derive their force from the consent of the living.  A law not repealed continues in force, not because it cannot be repealed, but because it is not repealed; and the non-repealing passes for consent.”  - Thomas Paine

It is foreseeable then that if a law that is controversial to the morality (which includes honesty, goodness, ethics, and principles) and virtues of this country is passed it can also be canceled by another generation in time.  Except, if it becomes accepted as an important law by future generations, then the law has changed the frame of mind of that generation that is yet to come.  It has then become the responsibility of the past generations of Americans and our responsibility as the present generation to maintain a perpetual and stable legacy to award our children and newcomers to the United States of America with the same liberties and freedoms that both past and present generations enjoy.

In reality, those that came before us and paved the way, like trailblazers, awarded their Authority to us to, so, in turn, we could mold the next generation to maintain and award the next.

Our Federal government is set up as a Central Hub to the web of state governments that exist; each state is equally connected to this web under the United States Constitution and federal laws.  The Constitution, contains the amendments, of which the first 10 are called the bill of rights, one of these rights is the right of states (the 10^th amendment),

Amendment X (10)

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people”. 

Where the points of attack have been concentrated on, by those that want to damage our country and accordingly our legacy to our future, is through the Constitution itself that is on the federal level, which enables the attackers to bypass the states right and the people; as a consequence makes the state and the people accountable to follow the federal in one action, no matter how sovereign the individual states are, the law becomes the more supreme law in all of the United States, the individual state cannot and has no ability to object.  As a result, the law that is passed federally affects all the states, even the complacent ones.  In comparison, a law that is passed in California, while California is viewed as a liberal and wacko state by the rest of the country, can and will in effect dictate the laws in a state that may be viewed as a more conservative, like a mid-western or southern state.  The contentment by the people of the United States offends me; or is it just the blatant ignorance and lack of knowledge, I can’t decide.  The Socialistic ideologists are slowly gaining a foothold in America, after being dormant for so many years.  They have done this through semantics and word switching.  While making the verbiage sound patriotic its main goal is to subvert the very foundation that has made this country great and a Mecca for all of those in the world that want to live in freedom without oppression.  Although; Freedom is won, it is not handed out, people of many nations fight for a better way of life and find that they can do it in the United States because of our fair constitutional laws.

Idealism can never overpower realism.  There is a fatal flaw in the liberal and Socialistic view that cannot be refuted.  The belief that all things are abstract concepts, of which there may be a particular individual instance…

Not holding to the realistic view that things exist and go on while they are even though they are not being observed.  The old adages, “Does a bear crap in the woods?” or, “Does a tree make a sound while falling if there is no one there to hear it?”  Of course a bear craps in the woods and all sound is relative to motion.  Nevertheless, the liberal might ask, ”How do you know if you weren’t there”?  The rhetoric gets thick in any debate with a person that embodies idealism as their religion.  The fact is, is that life and matter go on whether anybody is there to supervise it or not and this is a hard concept for the liberal to acknowledge.   

Idealism n.  1. Forming or pursuing ideals, esp. unrealistically.  2.  Representation of things in ideal form.  3.  System of thought in which objects are held to be in some way dependent on the mind. – Oxford dictionary – Oxford University Press; Third Edition

The United States of America is falling fast into this trap, the liberal minded Democratic base is flooded with Idealistic vivacious adventurers that constitute abstract thinkers, so spent on greener grass they relegate their wit and intelligence on how it should be: as opposed to dealing with the immediate convention head-on and taking a stand for the betterment of the public in the present and in an objective and straightforward manner.  The reality of our social structure is that we are, as people and citizens of the United States, bound together with our government through our legislature and representatives as constituents to those that represent us, governed by the United States Constitution that was established in 1787.  The representatives are to support the values and the message of his or her constituency.  It can’t get any more simple or non-discriminatory.

The American people are still a remarkable society, through patriotism and social order when given a task to accomplish, their pride and patriotism is second to none.  A larger scale of this existed for a little while after the tragedy that was Sept 11, 2001 (9/11) the day that should stand alone forever in the hearts of Americans.  It was truly a masterpiece, for a little time, our country became as one through adversity, REALITY HAD HIT!  9/11 woke the liberal daydreamers up and for a little while things went right.  Sure the economy swayed and the people stopped traveling for a short period, however socialism and the feel good nomonalistic democrats had no answer for the peace and resolve that united a country that only one year before seemed so divided.

However, as quickly as the tragedy happened the realists dream was over.  The politicking, divisiveness, and social partitions that hold our country apart and versus one another that what was going on before 9/11 started right back where it left off.  Blame was shifted from one side to the other in the halls of our government.  Much of the blame was, of course, on President George W. Bush from the democratic and liberal segment.  (How any one could blame a man, who had only held the presidency for a restricted nine months is beyond me.)  Therefore, it was supposed that, President George W. Bush was to do in nine months what the earlier Clinton and Gore administration had eight years to do?  You have to be kidding me.  The liberals saw it fit to drone their philosophies right back into our faces.  Always demanding that we need ideas on how to do this and, “how are we ever going to stop the world from crashing in around us”?  When it was well known that America was vulnerable to an attack of this scale, by the very nature that makes us a free society.  Yet, the liberal representatives never offered up a decent proposal with sound realistic judgment; so as not to help the President, who sits on the other side of their aisle, and avert the potential of the President to become considered a great leader and as a consequence downgrade the Republican Party.  All for spite.  It’s almost like playing catch with your big brother.  You know, when the ball is thrown either at you very hard or so high over your head that it is impossible for you to catch, and your big brother importunes, ”Why didn’t you catch it?”

These two political philosophies, “true” conservative republicans and liberal democrats, or moderates as they like to call themselves these days, differ as much as the living from the dead.  Yet are compelled to coexist in a land of freedom and opportunity, because the very nature of a free society is to listen to what another thinks.  Not to succumb to their ideals, but to learn how each ideal fits into the larger plan of freedom.  I say true because of the semantics that play a great part in how a position is perceived in this day and age of reasonable approved thinking. 

In reality many representatives in the government have demonstrated, through time, that they are political vampires that live off the social dead.  The social dead being the immovable morally unmotivated and apathetic people of growing resident mass that have infiltrated our American society or what the democrats like to call, their “voter base” that serve their purpose in the liberal democrats system.  Like vampires, the democrats hold office in our government to suck the living life out of the souls that they retain as a hostage to become a god in their world whether deprived or prosperous, socialist or Federalist, conservative or liberal. 

Parts of the Democratic Party social dead are what I like to call the “FAMILIARS”, resembling the vampire world.  Familiars of the liberal politico, are the political wannabees that serve their cause for their masters, the political elite in the democrat party, with the promise that one day, they (the familiars), themselves will be taken to political immortality and ride on the coat tales of the party elite.  This idealistic new slave trade has actually become a reality through the promises of lifestyle and “rights” protection given to the diverse voting blocks; though at opposite ends of the spectrum, the voting blocks beat to the same drum, when it comes to political familiarity, to strive for an agenda that delegates that they justify all means to get to the end; an end that is only in their best interests and not, in reality, the best interest of America as a whole.  Not knowing that these protections and rights that they are being promised have been already spelled out in our constitution and laws, in order to subvert the wording of the constitution from within, if only people would be taught the true wording of the Documents of the men and women that formed this nation during its establishment.  The guise and rail that the democrats bring this train of imperialistic decadence is DEMOCRACY.  A word that is so bastardized that the words semantic is untraceable. 

John Adams, the second president of the United States, said, “Remember, democracy never lasts long.  It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself.  There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”

Liberals and their socialistic democrat ilk are nomonalistic vampires: out of sight out of mind is their philosophy.  According to Nominalism, all that is required in reality for a general name to be applied is the presence of two objects, each of which is different from the other--otherwise they would be the same object.  The only real relationship, which exists between them, is that of difference.  Therefore, the only thing that these two different objects will share is the same name.  Once a name is put to the object then it can be demonized; or an object that has a name can be assimilated to become the thought or intellect of the party.  This can be seen in the human rights argument of abortion.  Liberals believe that abortion is such an easy argument for them.  Proclaiming that a woman has the right to choose what she wants to do with her body.  (Why doesn’t the human that is being formed have a right to choose?)  Nominalists conjure up the thought that if it doesn’t have a name it isn’t real and it doesn’t meet their concept of being two objects; Accordingly, the child or “fetus” that is inside the woman that has the “right to choose” is left nameless.  This is similar, then, to their denial of the existence of entities and their apparent relationship to attributes in other spheres of our society.  Thus, the liberals and wavers of the “right to choose” semantic, do not see the child in the womb as a separate object they will argue that there is no relationship between the child or fetus and the mother or that it is like removing a tumor or a lump of fat likened to the practice of liposuction.

Since the beginning of history how many social services have been created by a liberal secular nomonalistic based form of government?  The answer is NONE!  We have always relied on the realistic rational social portion of the population to rise to the occasion and build hospitals, Universities, and many other institutions through compassion and civil obedience only to have them bastardized and used against the freedoms of those that built them.  A school that was started by a Presbyterian Church can no longer show a nativity scene outside for the public for the reason that it is now a secular institution; because the public uses the facilities to get well. 

A hospital that was founded, and still bares the name, of a religious denomination can no longer have a statue of Christ in its foyer because it receives federal money.

Because of the realists’ true view of the world around them, not the narrow ideological view of socialists and liberals, realists seek to truly solve the problem at hand and rouse to the call of duty.  Not to disclaim or argue over petty items that fit their own agenda to move people away from openness and directness that would pit one form of society against the other.

Socialism –

Socialism is one, which doesn’t put into any account for the human endeavor and treats people less equal than the previous government that it, overthrew.  Karl Marx brought this to the world stage.  He was thought to be an enthusiastic thinker of his time.  What Marx set out to prove was that not only had “human nature” changed many times in the past: but he philosophized that “there is no such thing as a static human nature”.  Marx claimed that we are products of our environment, particularly of the economic system in which we live.  Just as people living under capitalism are motivated by capitalist and entrepreneurial motives and think those are natural and fixed.  Marx And Engels also believed if people’s values have changed radically in the past, he implies, they are certain to change again radically in the future.  Especially when motivated by a philosophical and economical change to better their lives. 

In a socialist society it would be nonsense to say that people will always naturally tend to become owners of factories because such owners would be as impossible, and such desires would be as irrational as the desire to own the Moon.  Society would be there for all to admire.  In reality, Socialism entreats the less educated, while abolishing the more knowledgeable and affluent, redistributing the property and corporate owners wealth among those that were held down in order to some how equally divide the wealth of a nation.  The willingness of the socialistic government to help the people is a gallant measure for sure, but at its heart it still only allows for a few elites, and that was the plan for Marx and Engels.  Marx, with Engels help, would become the new elites and dictators that would be the only ones to enjoy the fruits of the populations labor.  The workers that are given the promise of equality would still be doing their mundane job piecemeal, while the elite few enjoyed the advantages given to them through their newly acquired ruling power.

In the socialistic world the initiative of the government is: to take care of the people, to make sure that they are up to production, and to oversee the proliferation of the working class; not because the people are the government, but because they are so less fortunate, need so much, are the slaves to the system, and are needed to fulfill the duties at the whims of the government.  In order for this type of government to succeed the socialistic government creates the need for the people to suck off the teat of the government as the way to be fed and to be the way of life for all to acquire their daily necessities such as food, clothing, and medicine.  What does this form of government accomplish?  Even under the watchful eye of the Soviet government that existed from 1917 to 1985; people because of their inherent nature were willing to participate in fraudulence and “The black market”.  The Socialistic system only runs and is kept running because the people would vote to keep it running so they could get their rations or what the people thought was owed to them for their production.  It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy and self-serving form of government.  Treat the people like mushrooms; “Keep them in the dark and feed them bullshit”.

Democratic Socialists envision the dream of the wealthy being brought to a lower status while raising the status of the poor and less fortunate to that of where the wealthy were lowered – a “Middle Class”.  The middle class is to be somewhere in the middle of the absolute wealthy and the absolute poor.  This balancing act would never last because it is nothing more than a pipe dream; a truly idealistic view.  A couple of reasons why a government like this would not stand the test of time is that, one, you can’t keep an educated man out of the economic loop; and two, you can’t keep greed out of human nature.  These two personas, especially when combined are a wrench in the gears to an idealistic socialistic liberal society.

In order to keep the educated man out of the loop the Socialistic government would have to insure that the working man is never truly educated enough to realize that there is an alternative way in which a society could exist, and that my readers would be…with liberty.  Books and history would have to be re-written.  The books and authors names would have to be erased or manipulated so that suspicion as to why the thoughts and dreams of these men and women were not allowed to plant the seed of reform is never raised.  Much has been done in the United States to hide historical fact and not teach, as a fundamental the liberties of America and from where and from whom they came.  We can note some authors that have had their books turned into movies and movies that have been adapted from this type of civilization.

It has been said that a true socialistic society has never been attempted.  I feel that the conditioning for a socialistic form of government is in the process.  Once enough people are under the control and enslaved in various ways by a faction of the government of today, the slippery slope to socialistic life becomes past the point of no return.  The great proponents of this form of government were Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.  Although Engels penned most of the “Communist Manifesto”, these were the ideas of Karl Marx as supported by influential bankers of Europe, prominent families, and other partakers of this backroom influence in the world political arena.  Engels spent a good deal of energy studying so-called “primitive communist” societies to show that sharing could be as natural and widespread an attitude toward wealth as acquisition.  Therefore, it expresses both hopes and threats.

Marx and Engel were greedy men; the reason that they came up with the socialistic idea was to enable their own socialite progression, but it could only happen in an alternate society.  Both Marx and Engle became rich off of the spewing of their perfect societal view.  All you have to do is read Karl Marx’s speeches to find that he was more opposed to Capitalism than he was a socialist, but he found that socialism was an appropriate vehicle to show his opposition to capitalism.  Not many people progress to prominence thinking that they can wave some magic political wand.  Granted, Marx and Engel were very aware of the fact that wealth and economic growth come through hard work; sometimes people get discouraged and feel that life is just a dead end job.  Marx preyed on the distrust that the people had for they’re superiors, taking advantage of the powerful political base that he could amass was all the intoxicating motivation that he needed.  Using the less educated mill and production workers to advance his dream was all too easy.  Striking a chord with the have-nots of his time, convincing the working people that the institution of private property would have to be completely wiped out and abolished before the individual could be reconciled with society and nature; In essence, closing the wide gap between social status and acquired wealth.  The “Communist Manifesto” written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, has 3 three prominent points.  These were fueled by Marx’s view that the owners of private businesses were the greedy ones that were keeping the working class poor and impoverished.  (It’s always interesting that capitalism is blamed on the greed of the business owners; instead, people blaming themselves for not striving to be business owners or leaders themselves.)

The three points of the “Communist Manifesto” are as follows:

The first, principle is to see capitalism “grind to a halt” through the revolutionary attitude of an impoverished people. 

The Second is the overthrow of the existing system (political and social) and its immediate replacement by the “dictatorship of the workers”. 

The third, although, supposedly temporary, a dictatorship would be formed and it would soon be superceded by the system of socialism, in which it would abolish all forms of private ownership and all people are put on a wage scale according to their work or “production”. 

This plan of socialism in theory is a grand and perfect developmental idea.  But, as we have seen before, education and free will is the downfall to a trained society.  In Marx’s brave new world, Social services like health, education, and housing would be provided free, and people would still be paid wages according to their work.  Marx thought that by eliminating the supposed oppressor (the wealthy ruling class) the class antagonist would disappear altogether.  Marx truly was an instigator, but was even more an antagonist.  In reality Socialism can do no more for the people that serve it or in a spirited manner than the corporations and the social elite that prepare the way, through their capitalistic way a life, for those that are free to want to accomplish rare endeavors and become leaders in their own right.

To extend the lie even further Marx, the instigator of socialism, proclaims that as a condition of our environment we can change the fact that up is down and down is up, even the law of gravity itself can be manipulated through conditioning ourselves that reality is what we make it. 

Here are Marx’s thoughts as written by Engels.

“But don't wrangle with us so long as you apply, to our intended abolition of bourgeois property, the standard of your bourgeois notions of freedom, culture, law, etc.  Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of the conditions of your bourgeois production and bourgeois property, just as your jurisprudence is but the will of your class made into a law for all, a will whose essential character and direction are determined by the economical conditions of existence of your class.”

Marx states that our laws and very character are directly dictated by our economical conditioning brought on by the wealthy corporations and their laws.  Marx’s socialism is not unlike the effects that can be brought on by a true democracy.  Socialism puts the trust of honest government in the hands of a few fallible men and democracy puts the trust in a majority of fallible man.  Within socialism, one is to believe that all will be treated with fairness; economically as well as socially for the betterment of the populous and production (what one produces, so shall he keep) and what if no one wants to produce, will they not eat and what of the excess production?  Socialism, liberalism, and communism are based on the assumption that all will produce; yet capitalism allows for philanthropy.  Which is he better, to help humanity through profit or obstruct humanity through individual industrious greed?  Democracy too has its pitfalls.

Marx alliterates that the wealthy, the owners of production and wage laborers, have made the world a class conflict between the “haves” and the “have-nots”, thus it is easier to distinctly verify who the enemy is.  Such is the canvas that America is painted on today: Minority race against Majority race, wealthy versus deprived, and private against corporate this tactic is accomplished to divide and conquer.

“The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society has not done away with class antagonisms.  It has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old ones.

Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses, however, this distinct feature: it has simplified class antagonisms.  Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other -- bourgeoisie and proletariat.”

“By bourgeoisie (literally dwellers in towns, the “ie” is added to emphasize the form of government) is meant the class of modern capitalists, owners of the means of social production and employers of wage labor.   In other words, the bourgeoisie those people that would be the purchasers of farmer’s goods.

“By proletariat, (people who work for a wage) the class of modern wage laborers who, having no means of production of their own, are reduced to selling their labor power in order to live.  [Note by Engels - 1888 English edition]”

I don’t know why Marx couldn’t see the flaw in his own reasoning.  No matter how much conditioning is done the “new conditions of oppression and new forms of struggle” will always replace the old ones.  We live in a fallible and imperfect world.  This is what our early leaders understood and Marx really underestimated human nature.  Marx claims that the worker is unable to obtain property and that his family is subject to the prejudices of the wealthy because the modern society has stripped him of his national character. 

Marx states-

“The proletarian is without property; his relation to his wife and children has no longer anything in common with the bourgeois family relations; modern industry labor, modern subjection to capital, the same in England as in France, in America as in Germany, has stripped him of every trace of national character.  Law, morality, religion, are to him so many bourgeois prejudices, behind which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeois interests.”

Superiority of one class has just changed from one ruling class to another if there is an overthrow of the wealthy.  A new wealthy will just take its place.  Marx’s hope relied on the philosophy that the capitalistic society would implode with the overproduction and if all labor were seen as capital then the capital of the wealthy would vanish.  Marx’s thinking however was that to the bourgeois society, “…living labor is but a means to increase accumulated labor, through the birth of children, like farm animals.  In communist society, accumulated labor is but a means to widen, to enrich, and to promote the existence of the laborer.”  In reality, Labor is not the reason; one does not excel by having a massive workforce, invention out of necessity and demand for that invention is the reason.  Otherwise we would still be trading salt as a currency.

Marx anguishes at the thought that a capitalistic society is the best form of freedom, Marx states, “In bourgeois society, capital is independent and has individuality, while the living person is dependent and has no individuality.”

“And the abolition of this state of things is called by the bourgeois, abolition of individuality and freedom!  And rightly so... The abolition of bourgeois individuality, bourgeois independence, and bourgeois freedom is undoubtedly aimed at.”

By freedom is meant, under the present bourgeois conditions of production, free trade, free selling and buying.

“…But if selling and buying disappears, free selling and buying disappears also. This talk about free selling and buying, and all the other “brave words” of our bourgeois about freedom in general, have a meaning, if any, only in contrast with restricted selling and buying, with the fettered traders of the Middle Ages, but have no meaning when opposed to the communist abolition of buying and selling, or the bourgeois conditions of production, and of the bourgeoisie itself.”

 

Marx was convinced that the democratic revolutions that swept Europe in 1848 had merely substituted one tyrant for another.  The bourgeoisie (owners of the means of production) had replaced the old aristocracy as the rulers in law as well as in fact.  Their slogans of freedom and equality for all, he felt, concealed a determination to remain supreme over the proletariat (industrial laborers), which made up the vast majority of society.  He did not reject bourgeois democracy because it was democratic, only because he felt it was limited to the bourgeoisie.  Economic power, not the vote, was the ultimate guarantee of political power.  He was in favor of using elections as an organizing tool, but he was certain that in most countries the ruling class (the bourgeoisie) would forcibly prevent any democratically elected socialist government from taking power.  However, socialism remained popular enough so that Adolph Hitler thought he had to call his movement “National Socialism” to gain widespread acceptance, even though once in power he vigorously exterminated socialists.  Marx goes on to prove that he has a case for an action against the wealthy “land owners”.  He uses the term “reactionaries” from time to time to describe those that are, Diehards and those people in society that is immoveable and stubborn to the cause of rebellion small shop keepers and peasants, “…for they try to role back the wheel of history… they thus defend not their present, but their future interests”.  I think that it would be absurd to think that Marx would totally believe that a takeover by the working class would be without bloodshed.  Marx did believe that the liberty was a social collective as well as the individual being united into a bond with the shared identity of the society as a whole with no individualism.  But, It eats the socialistic minded person up that there are people that have actually worked smarter as well as harder to acquire more.  America is a land that is based on individual rights, property, and freedoms, not in a collective or “hive” sense, but in an individual action.  In America we are not deprived of privacy: property or other wise.  Thus, we can afford to work and live in a private and free society granted to us by our U S Constitution.  Marx overlooked many factors that our forefathers bore out for the posterity of the country that they were forming; namely, rights and laws and the Lawyers and solicitors that would fight for those laws, as well as the deep religious beliefs that Americans and other countries have.  American government is the oldest form of government on the face of the Earth today.  As long as character and faith are existent in the United States of America, then we will keep striving on towards the next hundred years.  When Marx says that the middle-class owner must be made impossible, he simply means that society must be reorganized so that no one is allowed to own large masses of productive property.  Marxism and capitalism cannot exist together, just as a cannibal and a vegetarian cannot coexist.  Capitalism, along with the federal republican government does not need a collective body to direct the country, the people, as citizens of the United States, as freemen with diversity are already the body.  Is it collective?  As far as the government upholds the laws of the U S Constitution and the people are dutiful to watch for an opposing government, Yes; nevertheless, not the way of the automaton that socialism would endeavor to create. 

 

Karl Marx expresses his motivation and his view of nationality.

“The workers have no country.  We cannot take from them what they have not got. Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is, so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word.

National differences and antagonism between peoples are daily more and more vanishing, owing to the development of the bourgeoisie, to freedom of commerce, to the world market, to uniformity in the mode of production and in the conditions of life corresponding thereto.

The supremacy of the proletariat will cause them to vanish still faster.  United action of the leading civilized countries at least is one of the first conditions for the emancipation of the proletariat.”

Nationalism is not even the tip of the iceberg of our American patriotism.  People outside the United States do not realize the freedoms that we still have.  (Even though we as a country are giving our freedoms away as fast as we can, all in the name of protection, we are still afforded by our constitution our individual rights.  So far.)  Our patriotism is not one that an individual can sell because it cannot be bought.  We as a people are not mercenaries or any private army this country was founded on the principles of just and right men and women.  When Stalin had to resort to nationalism to muster the support of Russians behind him during World War II he basically threw what he had as a nation together to fight, an undersupplied military.  The Socialist is not given to patriotism, but nationalism is a word that has been developed to define a feeling of community among a people, because of common descent, language, and religion within a country.  A Patriot is one who loves his or her country.  Patriotism is the love of country and goes beyond the disparate religious ties and language barriers of nationalism.  In America, we are dedicated to our individual freedoms and our birthright to be called Americans, not because we were born in the United States of America, but because we are Americans.  It is hard to describe to someone the feeling of being a patriot.  While I was living in Australia I saw a country that is much like America and could feel their patriotism, although Australia has wandered down the road of socialism there is still a sense of pride that resides. It was in those that longed for an environment of freedoms as in America.  Australians want a separation from Mother England and a form of government that is guided by a president just as the United States and along with that comes their patriotism.  In reality, America is far beyond the sociological extremity that compels a people to live amongst it just for the common good of being involved with a task or job.  Americans are compelled because it is their personal duty.  With this power of patriotism filling your being, one does not need the motivation of a Marxist socialism or communism.

This is what Marx and Engels write of what they have to overcome above the wealthy.

“When the ancient world was in its last throes, the ancient religions were overcome by Christianity. When Christian ideas succumbed in the eighteenth century to rationalist ideas, feudal society fought its death battle with the then revolutionary bourgeoisie.  The ideas of religious liberty and freedom of conscience merely gave expression to the sway of free competition within the domain of knowledge.

“Undoubtedly”, it will be said, “religious, moral, philosophical, and juridicial ideas have been modified in the course of historical development.  But religion, morality, philosophy, political science, and law, constantly survived this change.”

“In proportion as the exploitation of one individual by another will also be put an end to, the exploitation of one nation by another will also be put an end to.  In proportion as the antagonism between classes within the nation vanishes, the hostility of one nation to another will come to an end.”

Modern industry has established the world market, for which the discovery of America paved the way.  It has drowned out the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervor, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation.  It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom -- Free Trade.  In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.  The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the entire surface of the globe.  It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connections everywhere.

Marx like many of our Liberal friends claim that the charges against communism or any other form of government that is opposed to our federal republic made from a religious, a philosophical and, generally, from an ideological standpoint, are not deserving of serious examination.  Because of his following discourse:

 

“Does it require deep intuition to comprehend that man’s ideas, views, and conception, in one word, man’s consciousness, changes with every change in the conditions of his material existence, in his social relations and in his social life?

The bourgeoisie itself, therefore, supplies the proletariat with its own elements of political and general education; in other words, it furnishes the proletariat with weapons for fighting the bourgeoisie.”

The “dangerous class”, the social scum, that passively rotting mass thrown off by the lowest layers of the old society, may, here and there, be swept into the movement by a proletarian revolution; its conditions of life, however, prepare it far more for the part of a bribed tool of reactionary intrigue.

Professional criminals, prostitutes, beggars, etc. make up what Marx calls the Lumpenproletariat.

In a Marxist style world people that worked in the factory would still work in the factory.  The wealthy “land owning” leaders wouldn’t suddenly go to work in the factory along side the proletariat workers, they would either be killed or parts of them would splinter off and go along with the uprising to preserve themselves and slide into some leadership role because of their higher education.  In today’s American society how could you have a Marxist communistic government, who would set up the meetings, answer the phones, pay the bills, collect the mail, return the proposals, and make decisions?  The government?  No matter how blissful it looks there will always be a hierarchy that will dictate how and why things are done.  This is reality, the philosophical basis that exists in everyday life for the citizens of the United States would be dumbed down to arguments over what is for dinner and what to watch on TV while eating the decided on dinner.  This is why the Socialist, Communist, and liberal want to take the property away from those who have obtained it.

Capital as viewed by Marx is therefore not only personal; it is a social power.

Our Liberal comrades in the United States follow suit with the philosophy of Marx and Engels, by preaching the separation of church and state, the rules of political correctness, racial divisiveness, and the want of abolition of or the confiscation of private property.

These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.

Nevertheless, 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.

2.       A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3.       Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

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

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

6.       Centralization of the means of communication and transport in he hands of the state.

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.

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

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.

10.     Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.

In this sense, the theory of the Communists, like that of the liberal or socialistically minded, may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.

In place of the old affluent or wealthy society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.”

MediCare and Medicaid is a fine example of the conditioning of this socialistic malady.  MediCare lives off the taxes that hard working people must pay into as part of their employment, set aside by our government, to enable its existence.  It is not the high cost of the doctors that it can be blamed on, there will still be doctors and sick people that need doctors regardless of how much medicine is free; surgeries would still take place for the needy, because of human compassion.  Not all doctors proceed with their profession because of greed and the love of money.  Americans and the western world have taken care of each other for thousands of years.  The reality is that the concept of the MediCare System, is a pseudo-socialistic reform that is in place in the United States that encourages fraudulent claims and the practices of MediCare are not any better than none at all.  However, medical care is a tender topic with many Americans today because of the MediCare system that working Americans pay for in the form of the MediCare tax on top of paying for their own insurance.  Each paycheck that is handed out, regardless of status or position, on a payday has a deduction for MediCare tax.  The Democratic view that is portrayed in this modern era is tragic and the concept treats many like slaves and dogs while it claims to do the opposite.

How will it infiltrate?

Our public school system has bought into the Marxist liberal views as well, through a campaign known as “Goals 2000”, which pontificates Marx and Engels writings.  Socialism, Marxism, and Liberalism Always argue the point to the minute detail, while taking the statement completely out of context; they cast stones and cry foul at the statement.  The liberal way is to change the rules instead of adapting the argument around the context or to the rule.  This win at all cost philosophy makes their argument futile and without merit, but if our children are taught that this is the technique that must be used, then the truth is lost by our apprehensiveness to correct the fallacy at its very root.

Reality sustains the statement as fact and either adapts to the statement or refutes the statement on evidentiary fact, not twisting the statement on semantics and restating the fact at hand; either the statement is true or it is false.  One cannot add to or subtract from the statement to suit the needs of the refuter.

Karl Marx once commented that in only two industrialized nations were democratic institutions so firmly entrenched that a transition to socialism might be peacefully achieved: the Netherlands and the United States.  The Netherlands has already adopted the socialistic view as has most other industrial nations.  This is what sets America apart from the world; that we can sustain and preserve the sacred fire of liberty and the destiny of the republican model of government, perhaps as “deeply” and as “finally”, staked on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people.

Marx rejected the belief that such a society as socialism could be set up immediately as utopian.  People would need a long period of reeducation under socialism to condition them away from the selfish orientation produced by capitalism and toward the wider perspective necessary to create communism.  Many of his socialist and anarchist adversaries argued that it was impossible to achieve communism by passing through a stage, which retained and even strengthened the centralized state government.  Marx replied that it was impossible to leap directly into communism from socialism. 

And your education! 

Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention direct or indirect, of society, by means of schools, etc.?  The Communists have not intended the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class.

The bourgeois claptrap about the family and education, about the hallowed correlation of parents and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all the family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labor.

Our schools have adhered to the beat of the Marxist drum and have coerced and taught our children the fray of our government without giving them the meat.  Our educational system, which is the brainchild of Horace Mann, is now a centralized patrician that funnels its socialistic irrationality to the states educational system on the promise of federal monies that will be paid to the states.  While studying in Europe, the European political atmosphere influenced Horace Mann; on his return to America he strongly advocated a nonsectarian educational system.  This trip to Europe just happened to be at the time that Karl Marx was spouting his socialistic dreams and Horace Mann was intrigued by the structure and the political views that he could implant into the American school systems.  Along with the structure that was adopted from the Europeans, Mann saw a way to expedite the teaching process towards a more liberal view than that of absolutes that were being taught by the sectarian schools.  The schools were now ready to ignite the dispelling of history and create a force of working class that Marx had envisioned that could over throw a government laced with freedoms and liberties like America.  One of the ways is to create an atmosphere that provokes the students to believe that America has damaged and oppressed so many other countries around the world and that they can make it a better country if certain things were changed.  This is a liberal counseling method that is used in our public school system today.  By rendering the past as a fairytale and skipping through the vital points, Marx’s idea of new thought can become a reality.

In bourgeois society, therefore, the past dominates the present;(in other words, we learn by our mistakes.  Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.)  In communist society, the present dominates the past.  This means that we can create our own past to reflect a new future.

Many of the people that hold up the banner for the 1^st amendment tear it down as soon as it went up, because part of it doesn’t fit their agenda.  The 1^st amendment declares our freedom to publicly speak, publicly assemble, and revere God and the government shall pass no law to detain the freedoms or inflame a government adopted religion, which happened in Britain and caused the sects of religion to flee to the New World that is now America, in order to escape the Churches power: which was a mandated religion that still holds today in Great Britain.  We still don’t have a Church of America today, so where does church and state separation come from?  It is this Socialistic Liberal view that flies in the face of all logic.  Socialism cannot exist in a Christian society because it goes against all that is taught in the Bible, to strive to be the best in what you do and to be accomplish great things.  In a Socialist Liberal society morality and any realm of Supreme Being is passed over because of the humanistic age-old rhetorical question, “If there were a God, then why is there so much pain and suffering in the world?”  Why do we dwell on the negative? I’ll give you two simple reasons: First of all this question does not deserve an answer and second, because there is already enough evidence in this world that God does exist.

The reality is that we as humans are fallible and do not obey God, and only mention his name to swear or unless there is eminent danger; as the saying goes, “There are no atheists in a fox-hole”, Many people see the miracles of God through pain and suffering; one only needs to read the book of Job to understand this, also the writings and history of Paul the Apostle.

A Socialist wants to own his/her own business but not work to get it; the socialist wants to overthrow the business owner through mutiny and, in doing so, does not actually obtain it by merit. Not only does the socialist probably not understand the business that he/she just over threw, but doesn’t actually own the business because it is part of the social collective.  A Liberal wants to own to his/her business but have government subsidies and grants pay to keep the doors of the business open and be given certain privileges, by merit of other business owners paying taxes that are formed into a government budget for subsidies.  A realist shows up to his/her business; opens the doors; let’s the employees in; runs the production; and keeps the doors open by producing and selling a quality product, all while properly delegating a team for the purpose of hiring a workforce that includes a business structured on all aspects of the products produced, from development to delivery.

Thanks to President Ronald Reagan and his realistic views America averted the continual waves of this the most deceiving of the socialistic views.  Among the other things that were averted in the 1980’s was the continuance of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics that fell during President Reagan’s terms as well.  In 1985, Mikhail Gorbachev came to power in The U. S. S. R.; in only a few short years Gorbachev introduced the policies of Glasnost (openness) and Perestroika (restructuring).  Glasnost and Perestroika altered the focus on Marxist socialistic behavior and allowed the grasp of Capitalistic and more economically competitive natures to mature and help the Socio-economically challenged U. S. S. R. to progress from its 60 sixty year “Iron Curtain” and Iron fist ruled country.  This was accomplished after so many years of the “cold war” between America and the U. S. S. R. Even the old Soviet Union understood the validity of realism, by coercing the “Socialist Realism” into education systems in Russia.  By this doctrine all literature in Russia from 1934 on was to depict positive heroes or the “New Soviet Man”.

In the political realm the socialist proclaims that the worker is being kept down and not given the opportunity to excel socially or politically.  In reality our federalist form of government that is still alive today, proclaims freedom for the worker to achieve the “American Dream”.  It has been well argued and documented that Socialism as an alternative system of society and government has failed to live up to its promises.  It is still more than a dream or at best a set of idealistic criteria as a means test or to judge the shortcomings of existing institutions and systems, Although socialism and its ideologies remain a popular political belief, especially by liberals that think that they were held back by some conspiracy or unfair tactic.  Yet, the socialist parties in America have quietly infiltrated their ideologies into the 2 major party political system and even though more democrats than republicans accept the socialist view, There are some leaders in the Republican Party that entertain a more moderate socialistic form than the rest.  These are socialistic ideas other than that of Karl Marx’s “Communist Manifesto”, the moderate socialist sought to achieve socialism by parliamentary means and by appealing deliberately to the middle class.

This social democracy, unlike Marxism, didn’t look towards the complete abolition of private property and the disappearance of the state but instead envisaged socialism more as a form of society in which full democratic control would be exercised over wealth, and production would be controlled by a group of experts working in the interests of the whole community.  This type of socialism is a long-term goal, the inevitable outcome of Liberalism.  Does this sound familiar?  It sounds a lot like the Democratic party of today, looking to instill the positive hero or “New American Man”.

This sounds a lot like the fairness flag that is waved by the Congressional Democrats in today’s world.  When in reality there are two sets of rules.  On the one hand the elite fairness flag waving democrats are crying foul play because the wealthy have what they want; while on the other hand do you think that these same people would be crying foul if the fortunes were reversed.  As I said before, wealth like freedom comes through hard work, the kind that Liberals tend to avoid.

  

In a Socialistic, or Communistic, even Liberal system of government, where is the control?  It is with the government and only with the government: those that hold the strings of the puppet configuration that leads to the portico of anarchy.

Who controls what the needs of the people are?  The government; There is no freedom in a society based on a totalitarian government controls.  Only what the government deems as freedom.  This is a very Orwellian concept that is very alive in our government today.  If we can remember that 2+2=4 and not 3 then we can form our own hypothesis on government and the realities that we face everyday.

Socialism cannot exist in America.  At its principle it is a breeding ground for lazy people and we have enough of those already.  Under its ideal condition, you would see a wannabee utopian society with the disappearance of the state, social classes, law, politics, feelings of individual accomplishment, and all forms of compulsion.  Goods would be distributed according to need and the unity of all humankind would be assured because of the elimination of greed.  This is PURE and BLATANT dreaming.  (And if a frog had wings it wouldn’t bump its ass while hopping.).  This view, Socialism, and all of its forms is found wanting.  Socialism could never find a society or humankind on this planet or any other that could eliminate greed.  The whole basis of socialism is to level the playing field.  Realistically that happened when there was just Adam, then Eve entered the picture and ruined socialism forever.

Greed is one of the seven deadly sins, but it is also human nature that is not going to be quelled by some utopian dream.  There will always be those that feel that they deserve more and those that want more.

Marx explains that

“When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. 

Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another.  If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organize itself as a class; if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.”

In reality America is on the verge of revolution, it has been said before and I say it again, now.  The revolt will come from a socio-economic base that is kindled by the liberal voter base that, at its roots, has America’s once religious universities, but now are clone cocoons that breed the diligent drones of the liberal socialistic fallacies of Marx and Engles.  Both can be termed nomonalistic because all of their writings and drivel about employee owned and communistic peaceful countries.  These types of fantasies never hold up in reality.  The convictions of the poor rising up through gift governments only tolerate that gift-government, life for a generation that it liberated.  Reality is that people will always strive to have what is not theirs.

Socrates wrote over 2000 years ago that, “He who is not contented with what he has, would not be contented with what he would like to have.”  Aristotle, who followed Socrates, takes a shot at liberals and socialists alike when he stated, “The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal”.  What Socrates and Aristotle, two of the worlds greatest minds, are saying is that there will always be superiors and subjects, men and women, etc. all that are at opposite ends of the spectrum.  In as much as a vegetarian would find it hard to coexist with a cannibal.

 

As we comb through the wreckage that will be caused by the liberal and socialist governments collision, we can be composed, have faith, and take comfort that through history a liberal form of government always is short lived.

A Welfare state is a society with a form of government that takes responsibility of protecting and promoting the well being of all its citizens.  Support includes coverage for disease, sickness, old age, occupational accidents, and unemployment.