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
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:
- the Proletarian Revolution
- the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, and
- 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.
Armbands and the death of a Republic
Weeks ago, David Hogg and sister unleashed a new fashion statement for “their” movement. In an attempt to copy Tinker, they want people to protest guns by wearing armbands. The movement Lauren Hogg named #ArmbandsForChange encourages students to make their own armbands, a surprising move for people trying to capitalize off of the death of 17 students. Nonetheless, obvious criticism and comparisons to Nazis ensued. However, I believe Corey Stallings of LowderWithCrowder correctly opined:
Before you break out the hammer and nails to crucify me, I’m not saying the kids are Literally Hitler. I’m not a leftist, after all. I know their choice of armbands wasn’t intentional and they’re copying student hippies from the ’60s. Alls I’m saying is a group of armband-clad underaged lemmings marching in the name of big government isn’t the best look, regardless of their intentions.
We have to cut the kids a little slack on account of their ignorance. They lack experience and perspective to understand the complexities of issues and their actions. This is also why it’s silly to let them dictate American gun policy.
Also, while we’re on the subject, armbands, ribbons, and other grandstanding gestures don’t do anything for a cause. I have yet to find a single person who changed their opinion on a subject thanks to a clever Twitter hashtag. Facts and stats, on the other hand, are effective like Michael Moore taste-testing for Little Debbie. Unfortunately for anti-gunners, facts to back up their views are scarce. Which leads to the dependence on superficial gestures. Which might accidentally harken back to Nazis.
The March for Gun Confiscation is taking place, and while armbands aren’t a major theme, the implications of what they are doing are a reason for liberty overs everywhere to brace themselves. Mob mentality has a dark history and they compare to a little-known story that impacted the Founding Fathers and our history.
Not Quite Tinker
Tinker v Des Moines is a case about students who wore armbands to protest US involvement in the Vietnam War. This is what 14-year-olds learn about in high school government classes. In both cases, armbands are involved; however major differences arise. For Tinker, it was a passive method of protest. Also, Tinker was honest, in that, the Vietnam War was the subject of protest. The Hoggs, on the other hand, want major gun restrictions, to put it mildly. They mask this intent under the guise of protesting gun violence, a term coined by gun control activist in the first place. The scopes of these respective protests are vastly different. One protested a poorly executed military misadventure, the other wants to take away the rights of the people. The latter is quite aggressive. As Stallings noted, the facts aren’t on their side, so they rely on emotions to dictate policy and conversation. They are trying to awaken the mob. Emotions and intimidation are all part of a time-tested means to advance evil. The Nazis are only one example. Another brought down a Republic.
The Dutch Republic
Before the United States, the Dutch had a Republic. The Dutch Republic was a maritime empire dominating Europe in world trade. They even had the world’s first stock market. But all the while, the Dutch struggled with a division between people who believed in the ideals of Republicanism(Republicans or Patriots) or the people who wanted a strong government leader, the Orangist (monarchists). The Orangist supported the royal family, in this instance is William III Orange.
There’s a Dutch movie on Netflix called Admiral. It’s about how Admiral de Ruyter, one of the greatest admirals of all time, navigated both war and politics. Better action scenes than most of Hollywood. It features Charles Dance, who played Tywin Lannister, so there’s some familiarity for the American viewer. Anyway, in the movie, the Orangists are depicted wearing Orange armbands.
In history, Charles II made an alliance with the French and German states to coordinate an invasion of the Netherlands. The statesmen, Johan de Witt had long helmed the Republic and through multiple wars, but this war would be his last. The alliance caused such a panic, that mob rule took over. The Orangists seized Cornelius de Witt, Johan’s brother for “conspiring against William III” and tortured him. Violent demonstrations took place. Johan de Witt resigned. He shortly after went to see his brother. The mob seized the de Witt brothers and tore them to pieces and hung the remains against a lamppost. 1672 was the fall of the Dutch Republic. Though the rise of William III, the eventual King of England following the Glorious Revolution, would save them from England, the Dutch Golden Age was ending.
The mistakes made in the Dutch Republic were noted by the Founding Fathers. In Federalist 20, James Madison critiques the Dutch Republic as an example of a failed confederacy. He refers to the United Netherlands as “imbecility in government.”
A weak constitution must necessarily terminate in dissolution, for want of proper powers, or the usurpation of powers requisite for the public safety. Whether the usurpation, when once begun, will stop at the salutary point, or go forward to the dangerous extreme, must depend on the contingencies of the moment. Tyranny has perhaps oftener grown out of the assumptions of power, called for, on pressing exigencies, by a defective constitution, than out of the full exercise of the largest constitutional authorities.
The Founding Fathers put in place many precautions in order to prevent mob rule or imbecility in government as seen in the Dutch Republic. The confederacy, Madison argues was ineffective, and true patriots know that we must avoid the same mistakes.
Hoggs and Mobs
Whether it be larger forces than them or they themselves, their actions are dangerous. I don’t believe that these kids were trying to be Nazis; however, they are, likely knowingly, trying to incite a mob. A more accurate comparison than Nazis would be that they are like the Orangists, wearing orange coincidentally used to protest guns every June. Their protest is assertive and, if successful, will strip the natural freedoms away from many Americans, especially their age group of young adults. Their armbands are identifiers in which they intend to normalize and further mobilize their calls to control the liberties of the people. Calls to actions such as theirs are why the people necessitate a Constitution empowering a unique federal system including a Bill of Rights to specifically protect freedoms from a single tyrant and or the tyranny of the majority.
Sheepdogs, Guardians and Liberty control
The issue of security is a serious matter, we should be following the realistic examples of what works to keep our children safe.
So what is the best way to protect people from evil? Taking a page from ranchers or other rural folk who need to protect their flocks from predation may be the best way of figuring this out. We know what doesn’t work, and that would be depriving the people of their liberty of self-preservation. But this doesn’t stop the left from obsessing over inanimate object control. This is a futile pursuit since even in an environments where the Liberty of self-defense is heavily controlled, shootings still take place.
It would be far better if we did not need these measures, but the Socialist-Left has insisted upon tearing down the country’s moral underpinnings to replace them with it’s vile collectivist ideals. So we have to decide the best way to protect from that which the enemies of Liberty on the Left have imposed on the nation. The fact of the matter is that these commonly held arms have been around for over 100 years while these attacks are of a more recent phenomenon. It also needs to be pointed out that Despite Heightened Fear Of School Shootings, It’s Not A Growing Epidemic as reported on Left-Leaning NPR.
Examine how is security provided in other fields to decide what Will Work.
As has been always the case, Liberty control will not work because evil will always find a way to kill. Witness recent events in Austin, Texas where bombs replaced guns in bringing on terror. Even if guns could be wiped from existence criminals, terrorist or governments would find a way to deliberately slaughter people. Therefore the choice is that of restoring our moral underpinnings or providing new guards for our security. While the national socialist Left still holds sway over the culture, media and government indoctrination centres that necessary restoration will have to wait. So the only realistic option is one of armed, on-scene responders to protect our most precious resource.
Similar circumstances teach the best forms of security: The example of livestock control and protection.
Law enforcement personal are often referred to ‘sheepdogs’. They maintain control over crowds of people in varying situations while also protecting them. We can extend this analogy further as a way of illustrating the way to keep people safe from predation. Ranchers have two main types of animals to assist them, for control they use the venerable herding breeds of dogs ranging from the Border Collie, Australian Shepherd, Corgi, Sheltie, etc. To protect them they also have animals commonly referred to as Livestock guardians. These range from special breeds of livestock guardian dogs to Llamas or Donkeys. They normally live with the flock to provide around the clock protection. They also blend in with it to a certain extent so that the predators cannot single them out.
Guardian protect the flock while sheepdogs maintain control.
In both situations it’s the guardians who blend in and are always on the scene in case of attack. With the ‘flocks’ of humans, the guardians are the people carrying concealed weapons. Those bent on evil don’t know who this may be, their numbers or location. The element of uncertainty keeps the human predators at bay. By contrast the sheepdogs usually stand out in a crowd. While they also offer a deterrent effect, this can be negated by their visibility. They can also be targeted first in an attack to defeat that layer of security.
In the world of the rancher attempting to both protect his (or her) flock, they have the sheepdogs to move and control the flock while the guardians protect it. The sheepdogs do offer a layer of protection, but they cannot be present all the time. It’s the livestock guardians who bond with the flock who protect it around the clock.
Recent events illustrated that it’s impossible to keep people safe by banning guns or any other Liberty control measures. The only way to keep them safe in the immoral environment brought on by the Left, is to have both uniformed law enforcement and those carrying concealed on site as dual layers of defence. Merely decreeing a ‘Gun-Free’ zone or banning firearms are dangerous notions that do not work. These fanciful Leftist constructs only serve to deprive the innocent of the Liberty of self-defence and do nothing but raise the body count.
When have the Enemies of Liberty on the Left ever compromised on the 2nd amendment?
The history of freedom always has been one of it’s enemies slowly ratcheting it down with restraints in the name of equality or security.
Everyone knows the drill by now, a ‘Serious Crisis’ takes place, the Left immediately demands the surrender of more human rights forcing the innocent to pay for the sins of the guilty. Meanwhile, those who dare defend those rights are pilloried with almost every pejorative in the book.
The history of Liberty Control has always been one of unending incremental infringements on our rights. The enemies of Liberty on the Left always follow the same progression. They begin with spurious claims over the ‘easy access to guns’, getting whatever they can, after which they reset the sequence for the next go around.
The Left’s idea of ‘progress’ is always one direction, with demands that the pro-liberty side give up as yet more of their freedom. Each time around it’s the same story, with only ever worsening regularity. But why is this the case? When have the Liberty controllers on the left ever compromised on the common sense human right of self-defence, or any other liberties for that matter?
Liberty Control down through the ages.
The dirty little secret of Liberty control is that it has it’s roots in racism, epitomised in the infamous United States Supreme Court case DRED SCOTT v. SANDFORD, (1856):
It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.
Please note that it specifically mentions “the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.”, as the partial rationale for the decision.
Further on, the past century has saw an inexorable sequence of infringements with the examples ranging from the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968 to the Brady act of 1993.
In some rare cases, the Republican party spearheaded some partial relief of earlier infringements, but these were always accompanied with other restrictions. The overall trend has always been ever intensifying restrictions on the rights that are supposed to be free from infringement.
The Left’s idea of ‘compromise.’
It should be obvious by now that the enemies of Liberty on the Left do not want anyone to have the basic human right of self-preservation. They have made that clear in many articles, editorials and videos on the subject of repealing the 2nd amendment or outright gun confiscation. Consequently, it can be presumed that anything short of that immediate goal is a ‘compromise’ to them.
The win-win eventuality for them is that their ‘compromise’ positions sets up for their ultimate goal none the less. Asserting government control over everyone’s private property with ‘Intergalactic’ Background Checks followed on with the governmental permission requirements in gun registration that will eventually lead to gun confiscation. They would also like to control free-speech with the expedient of ‘Political correctness’ or entirely undefined ‘Hate speech’. But for now they merely want to get people used to these restrictions on Liberty.
The Left’s increasing stridency towards Liberty has intensified as of late, which is quite odd given that they supposedly support the concept with the self-labeling as “Liberals”. The Left has become single-minded in their pursuit of gun confiscation(and it’s precursors), to the point of rejecting measures that would actually serve to protect the children. As is typical of the nation’s Left, they self-label their obsession with taking guns away from the innocent as being ‘reasonable’. Meanwhile, they vehemently oppose workable solutions to the problems they caused in the first place.
Their latest tactic is to exploit the victims of mass murder in a bid to shut down debate and impose their unworkable ‘solutions’ to the exclusion of anything else. Do they even sound ‘reasonable’ or ‘Liberal’ for that matter? They incessantly complain that the proponents of Liberty won’t surrender their principles and once again yield to their demands, but when will they ever compromise and defend liberty?