Connect with us

Culture and Religion

This is EXACTLY what socialism is: Part 1 of 2

Published

on

That is not real socialism!

Part 1: The Proletarian Revolution

“We have trampled underfoot the principles of democracy for the sake of the loftier principles of a social revolution.” ~ Leon Trotsky

Socialism requires a dictator. Clearly, this has been achieved in Venezuela.

In the midst of the humanitarian crisis in Venezuela, a rallying cry can be heard: But! That is not real socialism! Presently, those belonging to the Directorate of Delusion and Denial, the legions of socialist apologists, are at full attention. We are told that the tragedy which is presently occurring in Venezuela is not real socialism. This claim is nothing more than a “Hey! Look over there and not at me!” tactic; a method of diverting attention away from one’s own guilt, enabling the retention of one’s own foolish pride and sanctimonious sense of moral high ground.

As such, I wish to offer a thorough repudiation of the not real socialism denials regarding Venezuela’s present economic destruction, political corruption, social upheaval, and widespread human misery. Although Karl Marx did not himself conceive of communism, he is idolized and revered as communism’s supreme theorist and the father of the communist movement. His writings inspired revolutionary movements around the globe, beginning in 1917, with the Bolshevik revolution in the Soviet Union which was led by Vladimir Lenin. The collectivist dream then spread to Latin America via the Soviet Union during the cold war as a tactical way to weaken the United States of America’s foreign relations and to weaken US influence in South America.

Practically speaking, there are three phases of socialism:

  1. the Proletarian Revolution
  2. the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, and
  3. complete communism (a classless society which has fully abolished the State).

This article will focus on the first phase in socialism: the Proletarian Revolution.

Socialism is a macro-philosophy (lacking specifics, inadequate in guidelines). Since socialism lacks details, socialists have been able to swim around in perpetual fluidity, skirting any and all responsibility for peddling a mortiferous ideology. Thus, it is important to measure how “socialist” a country is against the philosophy of Karl Marx, the communists’ god.

The following is a point by point comparison of Marx’s theory of socialism, as shown through his writings, with both Lenin’s Soviet regime and the Chavez-Maduro Venezuelan regime.

A   Seizure of Power: the overthrow of the “Have’s” by the “Have-nots” (group struggle) to end capitalism
Socialist Theory via the Writings of Karl Marx
The Proletarian Revolution: In The Communist Manifesto, Marx (and Engles) theorized a revolution in which the working class (proletariat) from across the globe would rise up and destroy the capitalist (Bourgeoisie) society, ushering in a new age of transition from capitalism to communism. Thus, the immediate goal for communists is “formation of the proletariat into a class, [the] overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, [and the] conquest of political power by the proletariat.” In Critique of the Gotha Programme, Marx re-emphasized his belief that “It is altogether self-evident that, to be able to fight at all, the working class must organize itself at home as a class and that its own country is the immediate arena of its struggle.”
B   Disregard for Democracy: democracy viewed as a tool to achieve power; a general disregard for democracy as being a systemic feature of the bourgeoisie social structure
Socialist Theory via the Writings of Karl Marx
Democracy is Bourgeoisie: In Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, Marx stated that “In a really rational state one could answer, ‘Not every single person should share in deliberating and deciding on political matters of general concern’…” In his Critique of the Gotha Programme, Marx laments “…vulgar democracy, which sees the millennium in the democratic republic, and has no suspicion that it is precisely in this last form of state of bourgeois society that the class struggle has to be fought out to a conclusion…” Marx continued, criticizing the Socialist German Workers Party’s emphasis on human rights as containing “nothing beyond the old democratic litany familiar to all: universal suffrage, direct legislation, popular rights, a people’s militia, etc. They are a mere echo of the bourgeois…” Marx continued, “They are all demands which, insofar as they are not exaggerated in fantastic presentation, have already been realized. Only the state to which they belong does not lie within the borders of the German Empire, but in Switzerland, the United States, etc.” Marx believed that true democracy wouldn’t not be born until the communist age had arrived in completed form. As such, he stated that democracy was, in actuality, the absence of all opposition to socialism.
Soviet Russia – Lenin (1917-1924) Venezuela – Chavez/Madura (1999-present)
A provisional government was formed in March 1917, after a brief Russian Revolution. Lenin and his socialist Bolshevik party then urged the Provisional government to hold election for a new Constituent Assembly (legislature). Many groups spread the idea of democracy and of representative government of the people of Russia through fliers in anticipation of the upcoming election. The Bolsheviks, however, only received just under one-quarter of the votes in the November 1917, elections. The Socialist Revolutionary Party won a majority of assembly seats. On January 6, 1918, assembly members arrived to find the radical Kronstadt sailors, Lenin loyalists, had locked all doors, claiming the assembly had been dissolved by the Council of the Soviets. Lenin announced in a speech he and the soviets had “taken all of the power and rights into their own hands. The Constituent Assembly is the highest expression of the political ideals of bourgeois society, which are no longer necessary in a socialist state.” Hugo Chavez was elected President of Venezuela in 1998. In April of 2002, nineteen anti-Chavez protestors were killed and hundreds more wounded. That year, a referendum vote, which ultimately failed, was held to remove Chavez from office. 2004 marks a major turning point for democracy in Venezuela: from 2004 onward there has been evidence of election rigging by the Chavez-Maduro regimes. In addition to ending limits on the number of terms he could serve as President, Chavez sent one Presidential challenger into exile. “For nearly 14 years, Hugo Chavez labored with tireless energy, undeniable charisma, and ruthless design to destroy the opposition, silence critics, and intimidate skeptics, all while leaving the Potemkin façade of a “democracy,'” stated a 2013 article in The Atlantic. Nicolas Maduro is no better. Since being “elected” after Chavez’s 2013 death. In 2016, the loyal high court pressures several opposition members of Venezuela’s National Assembly to resign, ensuring Maduro’s socialist party remains in power. The high court also declares legislation passed by opposition members to be unconstitutional and, thus, invalid. In March of 2017, the high courts stripped all power from the National Assembly, effectively dissolving the legislature. After international condemnation, the courts reverse their decision just three days later. Changing strategies, Maduro held a national “election” at the end of July to establish a Constituent Assembly tasked with creating a new constitution. The assembly has been packed with Maduro cronies.
C   Revolutionary Dictatorship: establish a revolutionary dictatorship for society’s transitional period from capitalism to communism
Socialist Theory via the Writings of Karl Marx
Dictatorship of the Proletariat: Marx new that Capitalism wouldn’t transform into Communism overnight. He wrote of the need for a strong, central power to keep the forward momentum of the revolution. “What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges,” explained Marx in Critique of the Gotha Programme. “Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat,” wrote Marx. Clearly, he understood that many would resist the revolution and cling to their capitalist ideals. Karl Marx elaborated on this matter in the Communist Manifesto, stating that the Communists are “the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others… they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.” Thus, the Communists must (with the governmental club) force society into submission. Only after society is subdued and the residue of capitalism washed away can the true socialist utopia emerge; the final stage of communism in its completed form.
Soviet Russia – Lenin (1917-1924) Venezuela – Chavez/Madura (1999-present)
With Lenin’s Bolshevik seizure of power in January of 1918, so ended the Russian people’s brief chance at the representative democratic form of government of which they had dreamed, and the age of the Bolshevik dictatorship began. A civil war ensued. Rival socialist parties were subsequently banned, and their members were threatened into submission, imprisoned, or killed.   Lenin instituted a special police force know the Cheka to crush uprising and enforce citizen compliance, always on the lookout for those who wish to undermine the Proletarian Revolution. This marked the beginning of the Red Terror. Any individual or even and entire group or entire families. During the civil war, in July of 1918, the Bolsheviks convene, creating a new Soviet constitution. In August of 1918, Lenin is shot in the face, but ultimately recovers from an assassination attempt. During the war, Lenin ordered the confiscation of the peasant’s grain supply, leading to mass starvation. The civil war end in victory for the Bolsheviks in November of 1920. Lenin and the Bolsheviks have secured their Dictatorship of the Proletariat. A later uprising in 1921, of the once-loyal, radical Kronstadt sailors, in response to letters from their starving families back home, was quickly quashed. Chavez began his mission to secure a Dictatorship of the Proletariat not long after taking office. His aggressiveness in this arena only increased over time. Chavez shut down radio and TV stations which didn’t coo in adulation for the Chavismo, stripped land and businesses from political opponents, and imprisoned political opponent and any judges who issued rulings against him. In March of 2005, laws are passed instituting large fines and prison terms for anyone who slanders (criticizes) public officials. In 2009, term limits of elected officials are abolished. In 2012, stricter gun control laws are put into place, with Chavez stating that the ultimate goal in the future the elimination of firearm ownership from all citizens. Shortly thereafter, private gun ownership was banned. In 2013, Maduro’s regime begins using the military to control citizen crime. Maduro continues Chavez’s pattern of imprisoning political opponents. In 2016, Maduro forces confiscate firearms and crush them in a public square in Caracas. Then, in April of 2017, Maduro began issuing some 400,000 weapons to Chavismo loyalists. With the July 30 creation of the Constituent Assembly, Nicolas Maduro is one step closer to establishing the Dictatorship of the Proletariat in Venezuela. The world will continue to watch in angst.

Based on the information above, alongside Karl Marx’s own words, is there any evidence to suggest that the first stage of socialism has not been completed in Venezuela? The Proletarian Revolution has since passed into time, ushering in the next stage of Venezuelan history: the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

Socialism requires a dictator. Clearly, this has been achieved in Venezuela.

Next, I will examine Venezuela’s diktatura. I will present the ten planks of communism and the regime’s adherence to each therein.

Part 2 will publish tomorrow.

Paige Rogers is a Christian artist and author, and a former professional practitioner in the field of Early Childhood Development. She is the creator of ThePaintingPastor.org, a blog offering Christian reflection, exhortation and discernment alongside various artistic techniques visually documented through Paige's unique artistic endeavors. A lover of learning, Paige is an avid enthusiast of history, civics, political geography and human nature, physical geography and the sciences. She is an incurably inquisitive and chronically creative “egghead.” Paige is a strong supporter of America's service members and veterans.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Culture and Religion

Dr. Michael Brown on Donald Trump fulfilling Bible prophecy with Jerusalem announcement

Published

on

Dr Michael Brown on Donald Trump fulfilling Bible prophecy with Jerusalem announcement

Many in the Jewish world believe that Jerusalem must be united and a Third Temple built before the Messiah can come. Christians have a similar interpretation of prophecy, except that it pertains to the 2nd coming of the Messiah. Dr. Michael Brown has perspectives on both ideas as a Messianic Jewish believer in Jesus Christ.

In this video, he discusses whether or not President Trump announcing recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel fulfills Bible prophecy. Spoiler: He doesn’t know, but he points to those who believe so. He also points out the hypocrisy of Muslim leaders attacking Jews in Israel for what a gentile in the United States announced.

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Birth of a patriot

Published

on

Birth of a patriot

Do you remember the first thought that crossed your mind? The fact that our first memory is of some eventful moment years later does not mean that we did not observe and contemplate the environment we were born into. Also, instilled in the human from birth is an instinctive knowledge of right and wrong. This we label as our conscience. I believe our conscience can be fed encouragement during the infant stage of life through receptors that feel the sense of tenderness and love. The flip side of this coin of love is a cold, callous environment where an infant’s emotional receptors languish for lack of nourishment.

Conscience is the strange presence from which we develop scruples and those contentious things called principles. The struggle that we all go through in life is finding a balance between our conscience, as it relates to charitable duty; and providing the basic needs for ourselves and a family; if such be the case.  It is from this conflict that we either emerge somewhat void of our call to duty to do that which our conscience dictates, or we become overwhelmed with the continuous challenge of balancing life’s demands and our desires with the call to duty. When duty calls and is accepted, responsibilities can weigh heavily on the time commitment resulting in a conflict between our desire for pleasures and the sacrifices our resulting responsibilities impose.

Recognizing that we are in constant conflict is the beginning of understanding our intentions when we begin any enterprise requiring thought of future actions. In a sense we are weighing decisions in our mind daily. That is not necessarily the case for those who have buried their sense of duty and neglected to assume responsibilities.

Intent is a forest of many trees. Low lying branches and under brush block our view ahead. Conflicting intentions make each and every action one of indecision. Only the stalwart and pure of heart can formulate actions with perfectly clear intentions. Man being the imperfect creature that he is can seldom produce an outcome that is without evidence of conflicting intentions.

Having said all that, now we need to move on to the intent of this article. The hope is to bring light to some of the constitutional debates that face our nation. Most of these debates on law and constitutionality are decided by the robed figures that were selected to serve on our highest courts. Since the selection of these robed justices were in themselves chosen by imperfect man with agendas dictated by intent, we must admit that their rulings are subject to a measure of scrutiny.

Without taking the effort to provide Biblical proof, I will make the statement that the authors of the books that compile the Bible were the word of God written by mere man inspired by the presence of the Holy Spirit. The holy script reveals the will of God’s natural plan for man with the beautiful revelation of Christ and the liberty of acceptance or rejection.  Thankfully all of humankind are instilled with an inherent conscience. It is up to the family unit and society in general to either feed or starve this emotional receptor.

This finally leads me to the documents pertaining to the forming of Americas government. There are multiple sources one can read and study that lead us to our present Constitution. We had the Articles of Confederation, the many Federalist papers and numerous letters of communication which can all be researched through various sources. Before you begin to have an even cursory look at any of these documents remind yourself of the presence of intent in the mind of any of the authors. We shall make the assertion that, while the authors of the books of the Bible had direct inspiration from God, the inspirations of our founding fathers were taken from the laws conveyed in the Old Testament, the spoken words of Christ and the resulting letters of Christs apostles. Add to that assertion, the fact that the founding fathers were well read pertaining to history of previous cultures and governmental history.

Original intent is a termed coined by many of us that wrestle with all ruling of laws regarding the constitution. One thing we can rest assured of is that the intention of the founding fathers was a patriotic desire to form a government that would be an improvement in the name of individual liberty from the oppressive forms of government that had been ruling their lives before they declared their independence. The Declaration of Independence is a declaration to the world to express the intent and reason for the action of rebellion from oppressive rule. It was a document penned with inspiration and manifest of their intent to restore freedom, liberty and justice to all. It is an excellent example of man taking presence of conscience, moving into the realm of duty and assuming responsibility for their actions.  Behind it all stands intent. If we study the minds of these God-fearing patriotic men and apply that to constitutional considerations, we will come to the conclusion that freedom with a minimal rule of law was their primary intent.

Potential patriots are born every minute. The quality of nutrition through love and encouragement given them at the infant stage will determine the future level of their calling to duty and the responsibilities they assume. The choice to do so is ours, belonging to both parent and society.

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

A lesser known sexual abuse scandal regarding a retired justice of Texas and Southern Baptist figure head

Published

on

A lesser known sexual abuse scandal regarding a retired justice of Texas and Southern Baptist figure

Justice Paul Pressler, who once served on the 14th Court of Appeals in the state of Texas, is no household name but is among the lesser known figures that are being outed for their alleged sexual misdeeds.

A former Bible student under Pressler, Duane Rollins, claims that he was sexually assaulted frequently by Pressler during the late 1970’s and early 80’s which began when he was 14 years of age.  Rollins is now suing Pressler for over $1 million in damages.

Pressler is best known for leading the charge for the so-called “conservative resurgence” in the Southern Baptist Convention and attempting to purge as many liberals and moderates in the SBC as he and others that supported his cause could.  Some felt that without Pressler, the SBC would have become another progressive leftist church body like the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), the United Methodist Church, Presbyterian Church (USA),  Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), United Church of Christ,  American Baptist Churches USA (ABCUSA), or the Episcopal Church of the United States.

Those people might be right.  As much as I like Jonathan Aigner’s push to bring historical worship back to the Christian Church, he is also somewhat progressive in his theology if not all the way.  His other passion is the so-called push for so-called biblical equality and allowing women to serve in church leadership roles that were normally held by men and only for men (Pastors, Priests, Deacons, Elders).  This is based on the interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:12 which calls for women not to teach over the authority of a man.  I will save my thoughts on the ordination of women here and bring them up if needed in a future post.

However, without Rollins, the SBC might have not only ordained women but would have joined the other mainline churches in embracing a progressive gospel over the Biblical Gospel.  Now, if Pressler truly abused Rollins then his sins were found out as warned in God’s Holy Word (Numbers 32:23).  Even if Pressler is found guilty of sexual abuse, that should never be an excuse to acquire a license to sin.  Instead, we should repent and try to do better.  All have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God (Romans 3:23).

Further Reading

What Exactly Do We Know About Judge Paul Pressler

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/ponderanew/2017/12/12/3192/You might not know the name Judge Paul Pressler, but you should. Without him, the largest (though currently shrinking) Christian denomination would look quite different.

Pressler is now 87 and retired. He surfaces now and then to endorse GOP political candidates or throw temper tantrums on the convention floor, but he is no longer a vocal leader. That’s why it has been jarring for some to hear the recent allegations that he groomed and raped an assistant of his for years, beginning when the man was 14 and continuing for decades.

Paul Pressler, former Texas judge and religious right leader, accused of sexually assaulting teen for years

https://www.texastribune.org/2017/12/12/paul-pressler-former-texas-judge-and-religious-right-leader-accused-se/A lawsuit filed this fall alleges that Paul Pressler, a former state judge, lawmaker and leader on the religious right, repeatedly sexually assaulted a young man over a period of decades, beginning when the boy was just 14.

A former Texas state judge and lawmaker has been accused of sexually abusing a young man for several decades starting when the boy was just 14, according to a lawsuit filed in October in Harris County.

Former judge Paul Pressler accused of sexual assault

http://www.star-telegram.com/news/local/community/fort-worth/article189424619.htmlA former Texas state judge and lawmaker has been accused of sexually abusing a young man for several decades starting when the boy was just 14, according to a lawsuit filed in October in Harris County.

The lawsuit alleges that Paul Pressler, a former justice on the 14th Court of Appeals who served in the Texas state house from 1957-59, sexually assaulted Duane Rollins, his former Bible study student, several times a month over a period of years. According to the filing, the abuse started in the late 1970s and continued less frequently after Rollins left Houston for college in 1983.

Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily

Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.