Democratic Socialism: Recycling a Bad Idea

10 09 2018

Upton Sinclair was an American author, very popular in the early 20th Century. He was a Progressive, after the mold of many, such as Wilson, Jack Reed (assisted Lenin and the Bolsheviks-he is buried on Red Square), Margaret Sanger, etc. of that era, and founded the California chapter of the ACLU.

His unsuccessful political career included a run for Congress on the Socialist Party ticket, and also for the Governors office on the Democratic ticket, where his greatest success was with his “End Poverty in California” (EPIC) campaign, although not great enough to win him the mansion. On reflection of his political career, in the late 1950’s, he mused, “American’s will take Socialism, they just won’t take the name…we have to outflank them.”

It is with that as a backdrop I make the following comments, related to this meme of Bernie Sanders, self declared Democratic Socialist.Image may contain: one or more people and text

I submit to you that the Progressive and “Social Justice Warrior” rhetoric against “old, white, misogynistic, chauvanistic and racist men” has more to do with marginalizing opposition and advancing the Democratic Socialist ideology than any of the aforementioned disparaging accusations.

You don’t get any older, or whiter, or manly (ok, maybe more manly) than Bernie. But hey, I give Bernie kudos for having the cajones to wear the brand!

In 2016 (according to that right wing rag, the Washington Post), twice as many voters under 30 yrs. old voted for the Democratic Socialist than for Clinton or Trump combined! (Clinton-766k, Trump-828K, Sanders-2M+)

If that’s not concerning enough, think of it this way: The Democratic Socialist candidate got 63% of that voting block compared to Hillary’s 37%. Worried yet? Wait there’s more!

Vladimir Lenin was vaulted to power by the Bolsheviks in 1917 Russia. Lenin called himself a Democratic Socialist, and their party was the “Socialist Democratic Labor Party”.

Now the situation in Russia was a bit more drastic in early 20th Century than here, now, but the language/rhetoric being used is exactly the same. Lenin capitalized on what he labeled as “Polyezni”, or “useful idiots”, to gain power, and then to carry out the next step, which was to basically marginalize, then eliminate his opposition. (I’ll not get into the gory details; you can look up “Red Terror policy”.)

Lenin said, “Communism is the end of Socialism”, or perhaps more generally translated, “The goal of Socialism is Communism”. The declared enemy of the Socialist Democrats is the “Bourgeoisie”, the Middle Class, those Capitalist business owners who own the greater percentage of wealth, both then and now.

It looks like an ever increasing portion of American voters are now willing to own the brand of “Socialist”, and judging by many of the candidates being nominated for the upcoming mid-term elections, it seems the old guard Democrats, those old Truman and Kennedy supporters, are losing ground within the party. In fact, based on this trend and some of the new Socialist nominees commentary, Truman and Kennedy would not be welcome in today’s Democrat Party. (Heck, they’d actually be in the right half of the Republican Party today!)

I leave you with this famous quote from the greatest British Premier of my lifetime, Lady Thatcher:

“Socialism works great, until you run out of other people’s money.”

Advertisements




David Crockett: Frontier Statesman

15 06 2014

crockett_portraitI saw this piece by Derry Brownfield and had to post it. Derry was one of the countries premier ag broadcasters and outspoken on many issues.

David Crockett served 3 terms in the U.S. House of Representatives. Upon his defeat for a 4th in 1835 by an Andrew Jackson supporter, he bid farewell to Washington declaring, “You may all go to hell and I will go to Texas!”. He was killed in action defending the Alamo in 1836.

Derry Brownfield
February 7, 2003

Colonel David Crockett was a member of Congress when the Georgetown fire, which could be seen from the nation’s capital, consumed many homes and left women and children suffering in the streets. Crockett, along with other congressmen, appropriated $20,000 for their relief. Later that year, while campaigning in his district, he met a farmer named Horatio Bunce who said he voted for him once but couldn’t do it a second time because he either did not have the capacity to understand the Constitution, or that he was wanting in the honesty and fairness to be guided by it. Horatio told him the Constitution must be sacred and rigidly observed in all its provision. He told Crockett that he read in the papers last winter where he voted for the bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers of the Georgetown fires. David Crockett replied “certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve suffering, particularly with a full overflowing treasury, and I am sure if you had been there you would have done just as I did.”

“It is not the amount Colonel Crockett, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man. If you had the right to give anything the amount was simply a matter of discretion. You could have given twenty million as easily as the twenty thousand. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all. The Constitution neither defends charity nor stipulates the amount. You will vary easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individuals members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose.”

At a later time in the House of Representatives, a bill was taken up to appropriate money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. The speaker was about to put the question to a vote when Crockett arose: “Mr. Speaker: I have as much respect for the money of the deceased and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice.

We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please but as members of Congress we have no right to appropriate a dollar of public money. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week’s pay to the object. If every member of Congress will do the same it will amount to more than the bill asks. The bill failed to pass.

Later Colonel Crockett spoke, “You remember that I proposed to give a weeks’ pay? There are in that House many very wealthy men who think nothing of spending a week’s pay for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity and justice to obtain it.”

Colonel David Crockett was elected to Congress in 1827 and served until 1835. In one hundred and seventy five years congress has changed very little. The only real change we see is that there isn’t a Davy Crockett there to control them.

© 2003 Derry Brownfield, All Rights Reserved

http://www.newswithviews.com/brownfield/brownfield11.htm





What Does Marxism Look Like? Retired Green Beret Lt. General knows

23 03 2012

In this video entitled “Marxism in America” General Jerry Boykin discusses his background and training in understanding Marxist insurgencies and how current government actions parallel Marxist tactics.





The Coming Revolution

8 02 2012

I have said for 15 years that the next American Revolution or Civil War will be started by the Left.  Today, more than ever, that belief has solidified and is fast becoming apparent.  I will go further and say this, February of 2012: In my opinion, the next elected President will either be George Washington or Joseph Stalin.  In surveying the field of candidates at this point, I see no George Washington.  However, “Joe” could already be in office and consolidating his power.

The Bolsheviks are inside the gates and the near objective is the death of “capitalism”.  Occupy Wall Streeter’s (OWS) are chanting for the death of capitalism.  (Heck, they’re chanting for the deaths of CEO’s, cops, and tea partiers, with some of them advocating the return of the guillotine.)  However, history proved the Bolsheviks to be mere pawns in the eventuality of Stalin’s rise to power against even Lenin’s wishes.  Although Lenin was a Marxist Bolshevik, he was not the authoritarian figure that Stalin sought to be and became after Lenin’s health declined.

Collectivism

There is an ideology that has been around in America for a long time now, but has never had the momentum and support from our institutions that it currently enjoys. That ideology is collectivism. It has existed in varying degrees around the world in political movements like socialism, communism, and fascism.  In its mild form it opposes capitalism, seeks to redistribute wealth, limit private property ownership, all through government regulation.    (“Social Justice” is another term that is frequently used by collectivists.) This is “social democracy”.  We are becoming very close to that now, if not already there.

Collectivism always puts the group needs before the needs/rights of the individual.  The ultimate in a secular collectivist society is Communism, where the government owns or controls everything from food production to education.  It manages information flow through news media, the arts, and academia.  The duty of each citizen is to the state. The natural result of this philosophy is the weak perish, and the middle class disappears. The ultimate goal of total equality is nearly met, and for all the rhetoric of “social justice”, well…everyone lives in poverty except the ruling elite.

Islam is another collectivist society in which the rights/needs of the individual are not important, but demands each citizen serve the collective in order to maintain it. The only practical difference between Islam and Communism is that Islam is a Theocracy, in which all aspects of life and society are controlled by the ideology, dispensed upon the collective, by the collective, if a theocratic government is not available. In Islam, once again, the ideal governmental system is a Theocracy in which the authoritarian government is Islam. Again, the middle class is virtually none existent, while the ruling elite prosper.

America, conversely, was never set up to be collectivist in its ideology.  The founding documents, The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were designed to protect the rights of the individual from the state.  The stark difference from America and the rest of the world is that our Declaration points out that “all men are created equal” and are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,–That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers  in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” [Emphasis added]

See, America was never intended to be a “Top Down” authoritarian government. It is not a Democracy, where the mob rules, but a Representative Republic, governed by law instituted by the People, and Representatives of their own choosing.  In the words of Lincoln, “government of the People, by the People, and for the People.”

America has always been about the Liberty of Mankind to choose his own destiny, his responsibility to his God, and his duty to preserve these things for his descendants and his fellow citizens.  It has proven that the success of the collective depends upon the liberty of the individual. When the individual is allowed to prosper and flourish, the community prospers together.  That was the difference between the early Colonies of Jamestown and Plymouth. Jamestown had been a “collectivist” or communal endeavor in which all property was held in common and all needs came from the common purse, or storehouse.  This leads to the “freeloaders” who contribute little or nothing and consume as much as everyone else. Jamestown died.  Plymouth began as such but William Bradford recognized the flawed system and allotted a parcel of land to each family to provide for their own needs and any surplus could be sold or given to a neighbor.  Capitalism.

It is commonly misunderstood among the OWS crowd and many average Americans, that charity is squelched by capitalism.  Quite the contrary, capitalism begets charity, especially when the prosperous citizen believes in his Creator and therefore has a sense of duty to his fellow man which always results in a higher rate of contribution to community than an over reaching government taking from the prosperous and “redistributing the wealth” (as Mr. Obama would say) because the government requires its cut for inefficient administrative bureaucracy.

An authoritarian government can never create a benevolent citizenry.  It can only dispossess its citizens to meet its own needs.  A benevolent citizenry is created by allowing that society to prosper from within, to the point of plenty, when then by the dictates of conscience, not government, each person may choose charity, thereby raising the standard of living for all.  William Bradford proved it out.

The argument could easily be made that “Godless Capitalism” is evil.  I would not disagree; but would remind you that “Godless anything” is evil, including Godless Government, Godless Politicians, Godless Education, Godless Finance, and Godless Media.  But the striking thing here is this: Those who are decrying the evils of “Godless Capitalism” are of the very persuasion that ejected God from our institutions!!

Revolution Requires Chaos

If you haven’t picked up Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” by now, you simply must read it, although it will nearly be a review of the last 3 years.  Professor Barack Obama, our Chief Community Organizer taught Alinsky’s methods to his students.  Alinsky’s fundamental premise is found on page 116, “The first step in community organization is community disorganization. The disruption of the present organization is the first step towards community organization.”  He then advises the organizer, When you are labeled an “an agitator, they are completely correct, for that is, in one word, your function—to agitate to the point of conflict.”(p. 117)

Alinsky only left out one piece of the puzzle. What to do with what you break.  Breaking the targeted system is easy; rebuilding something that is productive isn’t.  But his acknowledgment at the beginning of the book should have given us a clue.  To: “…the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom—Lucifer.”

Speaking of Amahdinejad, the President of Iran has agreed with Alinsky that chaos is the way to get things done and he plans to instigate enough chaos to wake up the 12th Imam, so that Islam can enter its global glory.  Striking similarities here, if you ask me.

America stands at the most pivotal point in her history since the Kansas-Nebraska Act (which resulted in the Civil War).  We are polarized.  We are factionalized.  Our history has been rewritten to minimalize the importance of our Judeo-Christian foundation. Our institutions have been purged of morality that comes from that foundation. Our language is adulterated with vulgarities which are most commonplace in our youth.  Our youth have been hijacked by powers that redefine what family is and strip them of any faith in God that was instilled as a child, and replaced with a collectivist philosophy, “from each according to ability, to each according to need”. That’s Karl Marx, by the way.  It’s also most of the leadership in the current American Democrat Party, unions, our education system, and the media.

Chaos? I fear there will be more than anyone wants to see very soon.

Yes, Mr. Obama, I believe you have “fundamentally transformed America”. Made good on that campaign promise, “yes you did”, but you can’t take all the credit yourself. It’s been in the works for a long time.

The Historic lesson?  Collectivist revolutions always take you farther than you want to go.

The Spiritual lesson?  Godless revolutions always lead straight to Hell….

Where are you George?








%d bloggers like this: