Thursday, January 24, 2008 11:49 AM
Politics
is an unusual attribute in humans.
We
have a comprehensive and thoughtful snapshot of the state of Marxism and its variants
written in 1946 by Frank J. Sheed. In Communism
and Man [1],
the author describes Marx and Engels in an objective manner that is far enough
distanced from our current political arena to give us some basic principles
upon which to make predictions and confirm some observations offered by the
author. When we look at Marxism and its numerous variants from a half
century ago and realize that little has
changed then we can be confident that the current course of adherents of
this strange political will remain invariant in this pursuit of this bent.
Marxism
can be simplified by noting that Marx considered himself to be a ‘scientist’[2]
and that he ‘barrowed’ some metaphysical theories from Engels and used this
framework to push for a major change in society in terms of opposing
capitalism. Engels mumbled about
‘spirit’ and ‘The Idea’ and Marx translated this into his ‘Material’ notions,
meaning economics and its associations with property, production means and such.
Many
apologize for the tangled and intelligible works of many authors by using the
hackneyed phrase: “What the author was
trying to say…..” and then go on to further contaminate the original ideas
with their own mangled views. This is almost as nauseating as the perpetual
‘pendulum’ cliché where we are compelled to swing on the blades of some huge cutting
machine reminiscent of Edgar Allen Poe’s giant scythe in his story The Pit and the Pendulum. [3]
Marx’s intents were clear even if the
message was garbled.
Sifting
thru the sloppy works of Marx we can come to his strange social mechanism that
allows (always false) predictions of the inevitable destruction of capitalism.
We learn about the words thesis, antithesis and synthesis. Here the concept of dialectical materialism was
introduced.[4]
It is a pitiful fact that Marx never bothered to define his main theory of Materialism
as in common with those who produce some incoherent theories that have no
change of being instituted. Barrowed from Engels and revamped into some form of
social mandate that controls our destinies, we find that when two opposing
forces collide (thesis v. antithesis) that this will result in a ‘synthesis”
that will resolve the issue. He certainly meant that the two classes he speaks
of, proletariat and capitalists, will suffer
some war and the synthetic product will be only one class. This is
essentially all Marx had to say and those who follow him do not alter his
maxims. Marx thought that if capitalism had rendered feudalism obsolete then
Communism would be the next logical outcome and would replace capitalism. This
would end the class struggles as there would only be one class—hence no battle
between thesis and antithesis. This revolution would then begin in states where
there were workers who were skilled enough to take over production and
ownership of factories and such and eliminate profit with a revolution. George
Bernard Shaw bought into this notion with his Fabian Society and his ‘equal
income’ mandates, which he refused to elaborate on, the only social topic he
was silent on. [5]
Shaw praised Fascism, Communism,
socialism and any and all theories that opposed capitalism. We can, however,
inspect the history of Communism to the present and wonder why it persists and
also wonder why the original ideas, however faulty, form the basis of many
attempts to change our society.
There
is no need to sift through the many false predictions here other than to
mention that such revolutions did not materialize in industrialized societies,
but many such revolutions did happen in peasant societies. They have all failed
to lead to a classless society and show poverty and ugly dictatorships as their
signal hallmarks. From his Manifesto we read this:
“The development of Modern Industry,
therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the
bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie therefore
produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of
the proletariat are equally inevitable.” [6]
This
failed, of course, but that is no basis for discarding Marx by the left. They
still all applaud Marxist Analysis as if this had anything new to add to the
rabid anti-capitalism rants. Marxist
Analysis is a circular argument beginning and ending with Marx. Modern leftists
and their radical partners still believe and wage war on class distinctions in
our society and have essentially one view: equality of income for all. This is
all we need to know about Marx and his followers. This also argues against IQ
and other measures of profound differences in skills among our citizens. There
is no equality.
At
this point, we can dump the tangled particulars of Kars Marx sum up and come to
the following conclusions:
[1] Marx snarled his own
ideas beyond recognition and the attempt to understand Marx is an essay in
mysticism and folly. The secret of Marxism is that here is no secret hidden
therein.
[2] Anti-capitalism is
the only solid root idea offered by Marx and that is what the left depends on
today.
[3] The wealth and power
of capitalist must be confiscated by any means available and high taxes are the
first choice to redistribute the wealth.
So,
how does Marx suggest we attack capitalism? Revolution is one way. This failed
everywhere it was tried. Barring that, how do the followers of Marx suggest or
demand how we attack capitalism? Taxation and legislation are other ways.
Bernard Shaw believed in some ‘permeation’ theory where the fundamental strong
points of socialism could be presented to national leaders along with the
obvious defects of capitalism and they would be persuaded to embrace his
notions. He talked to hundreds of ‘leaders’ from Churchill to Stalin. In 1931
he was the most famous person in the world. He made no convincing changing to
government policy with his works. Fabianism faded away and is now only an
historical curiosity.
Today,
the leftist quest for mandated ‘equality’ is based entirely on taxation and
legislation that seek to equate incomes that are frequently forced by the Rule
of Law. We have had to suffer through the Fair Deal, the New Deal, and the War
on Poverty, the Great Society, busing, affirmative action, welfare and civil
rights movements thus far doing little to achieve equality while wasting
several trillion dollars of tax money. Again, the nuclear glue that binds the leftists and radicals into a tight unit
is unanimous anti-capitalism. Whatever happens, capitalism must be heralded as
evil and taxation and regulation must be used whenever possible to push down
individualism and entrepreneurship. So, we must watch for this and test
potential political leaders as to their objective of following Marx.
This
quest to destroy the private proclivities of the successful and potentially
successful to make their own decisions about jobs, education[7],
investment and business ownership is eternal and no set of facts can dissuade
the leftists and their stooges to say anything nice about capitalism. Ronald Reagan
[8]
was hated as an anti-communist and the left formed ranks as
anti-anti-communists against him and his followers thus avoiding the tacky label
of communist even though this is an amusing double negative that shows obvious favor to standard communism.
We
can look at the political leaders and their tautological essays on taxes [9]and
racial policies and government controls of nearly every aspect of our society
for proof that the shrunken remains of Marx and his sycophants are sculpted in
lights and are beacons for justice and equality on his planet. They can buy justice for all with your money.
The New York Times whines this sorry song every day.
That
is all they have and the comments about are
all we need to dissect the political slogans and fluff we read in the New York
Times and other socialist grist mills of the left. We can merley test their
proposals against the notion of high taxes and big government. So, here goes!
So,
what does Hillary espouse? Does she have huge taxes in mind? Will she ‘raise
taxes for your own good” in the spirit of Marx. Is Obama any different? How about
Edwards?
We
go to Hillary’s website for her own words:
Hillary's economic
blueprint to restore the American middle class includes:[10]
Lowering taxes for middle
class families.
No
tax increases mentioned here? They only pay 4% of federal taxes now. Who pays
the rest? Do we tax the upper class here to make up the difference.
Providing quality,
affordable health care to every American.
Hillary
states: “Affordable: Unlike the current health system where insurance premiums
send people into bankruptcy, the plan provides tax credits for working families
to help them cover their costs.” How do we pay for this? Higher taxes? How do
you ‘pay’ for or provide tax credits and balance the budget? According to
leftist theories any tax credit has a “cost.” What is the cost here?
Making college
accessible and affordable.
How
do we pay for this? Higher taxes? Do we subsidize students? Do we offer college
to all even though only 1/3 of the population can survive college? Do we raise
taxes and subsidize more education?
Confronting the growing
problems in the housing market.
What
does that mean? A bailout for homeowners who fail to make mortgage payments? How
do we pay for this? Higher taxes? Should we freeze interest rates or subsidize
mortgage payments?
Bolstering retirement
security by promoting savings and investment.
How
do we pay for this? Higher taxes? Social Security, a rancid Ponzi Scheme of the
New Deal is going broke and Hillary and other Democrats refused to address this
issue in the first months Bush’s second term.
Returning to fiscal
responsibility and moving towards balanced budgets.
How
do we pay for this? Higher taxes? What spending cuts will Hillary make other
than the military? Hillary can balance the budget? What was her position on the
Balanced Budget Amendment?
Harnessing innovation to
create the high-wage jobs of the 21st century.
How
do we pay for this? Higher taxes? What can we produce and sell with high-wage jobs? Cars? Oil? Textiles?
Computers? The high energy costs of the proposed ‘carbon caps’ and carbon
‘credits’ will only raise production costs in the US while giving a break to
third world. How do we get high-paying jobs from this? Cold fusion? Forcing
shortages? Trading our SUVs for tennis shoes?
Creating a $50 billion
Strategic Energy Fund to jumpstart research and development of alternative
energies.
How
do we pay for this? Higher taxes? Where does this 50,000,000,000 come from? Taxes?
Hillary
proposed a 50 billion dollar punitive tax on Exxon. Will that lower gas prices
at the pump? Should we built expensive windmills at a mere 500% increase in
electricity costs to consumers?[11]
Strengthening unions and
ensuring our trade laws work for all Americans.
We
need more union labor? Why? Doe featherbedding help our trade? Do we subsidize
auto production in Michigan
So,
Hillary
Clinton, a known Saul Alinsky Marxist enthusiast, will ‘balance
the budget’ and call for tax cuts for the lower half of our citizens who pay
only 4% of the federal taxes now and will provide socialized medicine and more
with no new taxes?
The
tax issue is avoided here. Hillary cannot do anything in the future in terms of
balanced budgets without cutting spending and increasing taxes. A repeal of the
Bush Tax Cuts means a tax increase on those who
create new jobs. Such a repeal will guarantee lower tax revenues, which will
require more debt. The left cannot remember Jimmy Carter.
If
you look carefully at the proposals above you will notice that every item noted above is focused on the proletariat and confiscating tax money from the capitalists to form some
kind of ‘equality’ is the obvious intent. Every item is based on Marx.
Hillary
is a standard left-liberal 60s radical who believes only in big government and
tax increases.[12]
We have seen what this looks like before during the Jimmy Carter Era with 70% tax brackets
for those who run out industries and banks and produce jobs and services and
products. This is an attack on investment as the Marginal Propensity to Save
for the lower half of our citizens is essentially zero. Investment will suffer.
There
is little here that differs from the strange notions of Karl Marx [13]
and this is standard anti-capitalism. All we have to do is to look
at California New Jersey Clinton
“Centered on a cap and trade system for
carbon emissions, stronger energy and auto efficiency standards and a
significant increase in green research funding, Hillary's plan will reduce America
Cap
means limits on emissions and ‘trade’ means giving third world either US taxes
or production concessions that would shift our industrial production to Africa or South American or Asia .
This would constitute a huge tax increase and government strangulation of free
trade and business in the US
What is her stand on
illegal aliens?
“Clinton and her busload of traveling press
moved from there to the popular local Mexican restaurant Lindo Michoacan, where
a “roundtable” that was actually square passed a microphone around to tell her
people’s concerns about the mortgage crisis and foreclosures. She took notes
and munched on tortilla chips.
In broken English, one
woman told Clinton
“I have no income at all,” she
said. “So how will I survive?”
Choking up with emotion,
the woman said, “In my neighborhood, there are brand-new homes, but the value
is nothing. I’m
glad you are here so I can tell you, because you’re going to be the president,
I know.”
A man shouted through an
opening in the wall that his wife was illegal.
“No woman is illegal,” Clinton
This
is crude pandering for the votes of illegal aliens. She needs lots of votes She
will do anything she can to ‘share the wealth’ with ‘the poor’ who commit multiple
felonies to get here and avoid taxes. She will tax ‘the rich,’ which is the
upper half of Americans. Note that the Rule of Law is used selectively against
the enemies of socialism and Hillary can ignore the fact that she was speaking
and pandering to illegal aliens.
All They Have
Is Your Money And They Will Say And Do Anything Necessary To Get Some Or All Of
It.
rycK
comments?
ryckki@gmail.com
[1] Communism and Man , by Sheed, Frank J., (1897-1981), Published by
Sheed & Ward , New York
[2] Intellectuals by Johnson,
Paul, HarperCollins, Scranton , Pennsylvania , U.S.A.
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pit_and_the_Pendulum
[4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectical_materialism
[5] Bernard Shaw by Michael Holroyd , Vols 1,2,3 , Random House, 1988
[6]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx.
which cites Marx, K. & Engels, F. (1848), The Communist Manifesto.
[10]
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/middleclass/
[15]
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/
[16]
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/01/11/hillarys-many-voices-on-illegal-immigration/
No comments:
Post a Comment