Connect with us

Culture and Religion

This is EXACTLY what socialism is: Part 2 of 2

Published

on

That is not real socialism!

Part 2: The Dictatorship of the Proletariat

[This is the second article in a two-part series examining the oft-repeated claim that what is occurring in Venezuela is “not real socialism.” The first part examined the first phase of socialism: the Proletarian Revolution. This part will examine the second phase of socialism: the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.]

 Karl Marx was known to often quote “Mephistopheles” from Goethe’s Faust.

Everything that exists deserves to perish.”

 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. The excuse, But! That’s not real socialism! is thrown out a lot. 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, plank by plank, comparison of Marx’s theory of socialism, as shown through his writings, with both Lenin’s Soviet regime and the Chavez-Maduro Venezuelan regime.

As illustrated in the last article, Venezuela has been suffering under a Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

This is exactly what socialism looks like: it is an ugly beast soaked in human blood and sadistic power plays

According to Marx, once the Proletariatian class has achieved power – the Dictatorship of the Proletariat – it “will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the State.” This task, he explains, “cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads.” This is precisely the reason that socialism requires a dictator.

This fledgling stage of socialism, the period of transition from capitalism to pure communism, is of utmost importance. It is the explicit task of the communists in this fragile critical period to institute capitalism, Bourgeois crushing policies that, “by means of measure, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.” In other words, socialists must push forth policies that are economically insolvent and crippling. It is only through the complete destruction of the old that the new can emerge.

In the Communist Manifesto, the socialist bible, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels lay out 10 planks (10 processes/methods) through which the Proletarian Dictatorship will demolish every last trace of the capitalist system. Since socialism is not an exact science, each plank will be accomplished and carried forth at varying times, in varying ways and in varying degrees until, finally, a new world a born.

The below table illustrates the level and means of governmental adherence to the 10 planks for the Soviet Union (under Vladimir Lenin) and Venezuela (under Hugo Chavez and Nicolas Maduro).

10 COMMUNIST PLANKS
PLANK 1: Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes
Soviet Russia – Lenin  (1917-1924) Venezuela – Chavez/Madura (1999-present)
·       1917 Decree on Land: abolished private property and redistributed land among the peasantry; peasants seized the land that belonged to monasteries, churches, and nobility

·       1918 Fundamental Law on Land Socialization: “All private ownership of land, minerals, waters, forests, and natural resources within the boundaries of the Russian Federated Soviet Republic is abolished forever.” This included “All privately owned livestock, agricultural implements, and buildings of estates that are worked by hired labor shall be taken over by the land departments of the uezd, gubernia, regional, and federal Soviets without compensation.”

·       1922 Land Code: “The 1922 land code nationalized all land and prohibited its purchase, sale, bequest, and mortgage. Land in cities became state property together with all buildings. In the countryside land was divided among the peasant families. The use of hired labor was banned.”

·        2001: 49 laws passed that redistribute land and other wealth

·       2005: legislation is passed which mandated the break-up of estates and the subsequent redistribution of that land to the rural poor

·       Ownership records required: Private land owners must show a record of ownership, “a consistent chain of property title going back to 1848, if they are to enjoy full property rights – otherwise they face expropriation.”

·       Example: The El Maizal farm, seized in 2009, was then set up as an agricultural, peasant commune.

·       Private Citizens “can legally squat on and apply for a piece of anyone’s land who they suspect cannot prove definitive ownership..” This has led to some of Venezuela’s rural inhabitants forming unofficial coalitions for the extensive occupation of properties. As Foreign policy points out, “…the ensuing disorder and legal battle drains and resources and reduces productivity on an estate, which is then subsequently declared noncompliant with the productivity clause of the land law, and becomes eligible for redistribution to those who invaded the property.”

·       As of November of 2015, the government claims to have expropriated some four million hectares of private property.

PLANK 2: A heavy progressive income tax or graduated income tax
Soviet Russia – Lenin  (1917-1924) Venezuela – Chavez/Madura (1999-present)
·       Following the Russian civil war and after decimating the economy to just 14% of what it had been only a few years earlier, peasants began to revolt. Lenin then reintroduced some capitalist aspects back into the internal Russian economy. He called this The New Plan. Instead of taxation via food confiscation (which created a famine), under the NEP the peasants paid in graduated taxes within the communal structure. The state remained the owner of the land. ·        Referred to as the “tax revolution” by various socialist propagandists, Venezuela has a progressive tax structure.
PLANK 3: Abolition of all rights of inheritance
Soviet Russia – Lenin  (1917-1924) Venezuela – Chavez/Madura (1999-present)
·       1918: inheritance is abolished through the Decree Abolishing Inheritance ·        Venezuela has a progressive death tax (inheritance tax) that can be as high as 55%, effectively cutting some individual’s inheritance in half.

·       Land: Due to the land use laws, even long-time family land may not passed down to posterity. For others, their land may be seized after inheritance, even after the payment of death taxes on that property.

PLANK 4: Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels
Soviet Russia – Lenin  (1917-1924) Venezuela – Chavez/Madura (1999-present)
·       Kulaks: Peasants who seized the most productive lands were called Kulaks and were among the several groups of citizens deemed to be “unreliable elements,” and thus, were sent to Lenin’s concentration camps.

·       Class warfare was so ripe under Lenin, which then worsened under Stalin, that any peasants with one cow more than other peasants often came under mob attack.

·        2001: 49 laws passed that redistribute land and other wealth

·       Opposition land seizures: The National Guard is used to seize large swaths of private property of individuals opposed to the regime, often in the dead of night.

·       Example: “…the most high profile case was the occupation and seizure of land belonging to Manuel Rosales, a former governor and chief opposition candidate to Chavez in the 2006 presidential election.”

·       Choosing the winners and the losers: According to Foreign Policy, Chavez and Maduro have used vast information databases on individual citizens to punish dissent and to reward loyalty. “Pro-regime individuals (chavistas in local parlance) in states with pro-regime governors are substantially more likely to receive land grants from the National Land Institute than opposition or political unaffiliated individuals.”

·       Title withholding: Those who received land often do not receive land titles so that the regime can exercise leverage over such individuals during election times.

PLANK 5: Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly
Soviet Russia – Lenin  (1917-1924) Venezuela – Chavez/Madura (1999-present)
·       Supreme Economic Council: Banks were centralized and the Bolsheviks attempted to move the economy toward the abolishment of money by instituting a bartering system. ·        Dozens of banks have been taken over by the government, including the Spanish-owned Bank of Venezuela.
PLANK 6: Centralization of all means of communication and transport in the hands of the state
Soviet Russia – Lenin  (1917-1924) Venezuela – Chavez/Madura (1999-present)
·       Lenin pushed forward the idea that the press, when in the hands of the enemy, is like a weapon and must be oppressed.

·       1918: “Bourgeois and even opposition socialist presses came under attack sporadically; papers were ordered to shut down, editors placed under arrest, and ‘detachments of sailors’ sent to printing offices that failed to comply.”

·       1918: All socialist and Bourgeois papers are shut down. The Bolsheviks now have a monopoly on communications.

·        2007: Important communications companies are nationalized.

·       2007: Public demonstrations ensue after the government refuses to renew the broadcasting license of a TV station, because it has criticized the regime.

·       2010: Six television channels are shut down by the government “for not adhering to the rules for transmitting government material.”

·       2012: Globovism, an opposition television station, pays a $2.1 million fine to avoid being shut down after their coverage of a prison riot.

·       2015: Public transportation fares are raised.

PLANK 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
Soviet Russia – Lenin  (1917-1924) Venezuela – Chavez/Madura  (1999-present)
·       Instituted collectivized farming

·       Peasants, land use, and production were controlled by the Commissariat of Agriculture.

·       Grain and other agriculture products were confiscated for redistribution by the Cheka.

·       The state became the owner of all things. It sought to be the producer and the distributor.

·       Extreme centralization occurred, especially during the civil war.

·        2001 land law “allows the government to confiscate privately owned land judged to be idle or unproductive.”

·       Instituted a new state-owned farming sector

·       Production rates: Even for the approximate 10% of land owners who are able to prove land ownership all the way back to 1848, expropriation may still take place should the government deem that land to be delinquent in meeting agricultural production level mandates.

·       Terms of Use: Those who receive land grants must adhere to production plans

·       2007: Important energy companies are nationalized.

·       2007: Government takes control of all Orinoco Delta petroleum explorations.

·       2007: The government expropriates the companies Exxon Mobile and Conoco-Phillips.

·       2008: The government nationalizes a large, Venezuelan subsidiary of a Mexican-owned cement company called Comex.

·       2008: Household fuel distributors and gasoline service stations are nationalized.

·       2012: Price controls are extended on more basic goods. Businesses are threatened with expropriate for price control noncompliance.

·       2014: A new mandatory fingerprinting system is put in place at supermarkets to ensure citizen purchasing limits.

·       The government now owns over 500 businesses (which are losing money).

PLANK 8: Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture
Soviet Russia – Lenin  (1917-1924) Venezuela – Chavez/Madura (1999-present)
·       October, 1918: Universal labor conscription

·       1918: Lenin established the first concentration camps. The camps were to serve two purposes. First purpose was forced labor. The second purpose was the imprisonment and subsequently, as Lenin himself stated, “…the cleansing of the Russian land of all harmful insects, of fleas – swindlers, of bugs – the rich, and so on and so forth.” A decree in 1919, mandated the establishment of at least one concentration camp in every provincial city in order to fully utilize prison labor for public works. These camps were the inspiration for Hitler’s concentration camps filled with Jews. Under Stalin, these camps would later come to be known as Gulags.

·        2016: The regime issued a decree mandating factories allow their workers to farm the land should the government so desire. Resolution No. 9855 mandates the formation of a “transitory labor regime.” The entire population is now a defector army waiting to be drafter to labor camps.

·       As hunger spread, the Venezuelan government encouraged city-dwellers to begin planting urban gardens.

PLANK 9: Gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by more equitable distribution of the populace over the country
Soviet Russia – Lenin  (1917-1924) Venezuela – Chavez/Madura (1999-present)
PLANK 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, &c, &c.
Soviet Russia – Lenin  (1917-1924) Venezuela – Chavez/Madura (1999-present)
Public education had already been instituted prior. It is worth noting that both governments began imposing their own controls over education, including the implementation of propaganda in the curriculum.

Nine out of ten!

Venezuela has clearly demonstrated a strong level of adherence to and activity within nine out of the ten of the communist planks. The train wreck that we see when we turn on the news is capitalism being destroyed: it is the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Socialism requires a dictator.

The impotent, vacuous claim that what is happening in Venezuela is not real socialism is blatantly false! This is socialism. This is the second phase, the phase of ruinous, devastating destruction of society. This is exactly what socialism looks like: it is an ugly beast soaked in human blood and sadistic power plays.

When asked to define his life’s mission, Karl Marx answered, “To dethrone God and destroy capitalism.” Is it any wonder socialism is the ideology of destruction, of murder, or famine, of misery, of slavery, of desperation, or death?

Venezuela is socialism. It is the latest chapter in a 100 year old story that always has the same ending.

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.

Culture and Religion

Snatching Defeat from the jaws of Victory: ‘Writing out’ Most Guns with the Bump-Stock ban.

Published

on

By

Bump Stock

The latest Liberty grabber wave has crested, but Trump is about to give them a tremendous victory over the 2nd amendment.

Now that the Sturm und Drang of the March for gun confiscation has ‘died down’ it has become evident that, much like previous movements of the past, it came to nought aside from some localised suppressions of Liberty. The problem is there a vestige of this assault of freedom that is still rearing it’s ugly head, that of the infamous ban on so-called “Bump-Stocks”.

Those who are rightly concerned about this assault on Liberty can still inscribe their opposition with the Moonshine, Cigarettes and Fire-sticks bureaucracy [Better known as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms – BATF]  pushing through a new ‘law’ that all by himself, Trump has taken to “Writing Out”.  The deadline is June 27, 2018 11:59 PM ET for everyone to post their opposition to this ‘Law’.

First they came for the Bump-Stocks.

For those who may not care about someone else’s concerns over freedom, just be mindful of a reprise of Martin Niemöller Poem starting with the line: “First they came for the Bump-Stocks, and I didn’t object – For I didn’t care about Bump-Stocks…. Soon enough, they get around to coming after the firearms everyone else cares about, and eventually that will be hunting rifles or shotguns. If you chose to remain silent those guns will be “written out” as well.

But don’t just take our word for it, listen to what the Liberty grabbers have stated in bragging about the subject:

Delaney Tarr [March for Our Lives]

When they give us that inch, that bump stock ban, we will take a mile.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.):

Upon being asked if the bill was a slippery slope toward further gun restrictions, she said, “So what? … I certainly hope so.”

Apparently we’re not supposed to notice when the Liberty grabber Left broadcasts their intentions to the world. We’re supposed to let them get a foot in the door of a pretext for further bans before objecting.

Giving up the question.

David Deming over on the American thinker, Made the very important point that sacrificing one more time to the Liberty grabbers of what seems to be nothing is in essence:

If we agree to ban bump stocks because they facilitate rapid firing, we have given up the question. We have agreed in principle that any dangerous gun can be banned and confiscated by an arbitrary executive order. All guns are capable of rapid fire, and all guns are inherently dangerous. Pump-action shotguns can be rapidly fired and reloaded. Jerry Miculek can fire five shots from a double-action revolver in 0.57 seconds. High-capacity magazines most certainly facilitate rapid fire, so they also will have to go. A writer who wants to ban all “private individual ownership of firearms” recently argued that “even bolt-action rifles can still fire surprisingly fast in skilled hands.” He’s right. All magazine-fed guns will be outlawed.

Automatic redefinition.

In point of fact, the ATF previously ruled that Bump-Stocks [and presumably other ways of ‘bump-firing a gun – Fast fingers, Rubber bands and Belt-loops] don’t actually convert ordinary semi-automatic firearms to a “Machine gun” because the trigger has to be pulled for every shot. Now with the President’s authorising this linguistic legerdemain, this definition codified in the law has been blurred to the point that any gun that can be ‘Bump-fired’ could also be banned. However, they can’t very well ban fingers, belt-loops or rubber bands, so they will just ban each and every gun that can fire too fast.

Just ‘Write-out’ this legal requirement and Voila! Any gun that can be fired too fast for the sensibilities of the Liberty grabbers can be thought of as a “Machine Gun” and banned instantly – converting most of the 120 Million gun owners into instant felons. With a bit of training,  most guns can be fired faster, so in essence, letting them change this legal definition could have them ban just about every gun in existence.

The Takeaway.

One might not care about the fate of thousands of inert pieces of plastic or what happens to those who have them. One might not care if someone won’t be able to bump-fire a weapon in this particular way. But we on the Pro-Liberty Right will rue the day that we let this go through in exchange for nothing.

If we let the powers that be arbitrarily proclaim that some guns with these pieces of inert plastic are “Machine Guns’, the day will soon dawn when ALL guns are dishonestly ‘written out’ as the same. It will then just be a slippery slope to everyone having to undergo a background check, registration and of course – TAXES – on guns that we already own. Followed by the inevitable confiscation of those guns.

Those who remain silent now will only have themselves to blame when this happens – so now is the time to stop this dead in it’s tracks. The comment window is only open for a few more days [Jun 27, 2018 11:59 PM ET], make the best of it.

 

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Is Mike Pence too political for church?

Published

on

There have been a lot of talk lately about Mike Pence speaking at the SBC. Many complained claiming it was divisive and political. Jonathan Leeman wrote an article for The Gospel Coalition criticizing the very idea of Mike Pence speaking. I will address this article in greater detail on the points that I agree and disagree with. But first, let me answer the very question I posed: Pence isn’t too political to address a congregation, but his speech was.

In short, Mike Pence’s address offered zero substantive theological content. It was merely about his privilege as serving as Vice President. While acknowledging this privilege merited a short section in the beginning, it needed no more continuation. Instead, Mike Pence droned on and on about his experiences and the administration’s accomplishments.

I think there’s only one way you can sum up this administration: It’s been 500 days of action, 500 days of accomplishment. It’s been 500 days of promises made and promises kept. 

Pence’s address followed a pattern of praising Trump with loosely intertwined references to God and praising his hosts as guest speakers often do. The intertwined religious language while praising the accomplishments, not of God, but of the President is the briefest summation of Pence’s speech to the SBC that can be offered. The only biblical passage cited was Psalm 126 in reference to a story that served as praise to the Trump administration. God wasn’t working though Trump in Pence’s speech. Instead, Trump was working. At the end of his speech, Pence did offer a superficial message about praying for America with a quoting scripture.

Mike Pence had an opportunity to address the leaders of many churches. He blew it. But would all politicians do the same?

Politicians Should Be in the Pew, Not the Pulpit?

Jonathan Leeman’s article for The Gospel Coalition draws this conclusion. He has five reasons for not allowing politicians to address a church event.

  1. No reason to give attention to a politician’s words over a plumber’s or an accountant’s, at least not in our assemblies or associations.
  2. Having a political leader address our churches or associations of churches tempts us to misconstrue our mission.
  3. Undermines our evangelistic and prophetic witness.
  4. Hurts the unity of Christ’s body

Reason one is most certainly true. However, I believe we ought to separate the person from the profession. On the basis of spiritual maturity and calling should a politician or any notable guest address an assembly. This first reason is the one I believe to have the most merit in regards to the situation at hand. Inviting a politician to address a Congregation is wrong if the only reason is that they are a politician. However, if the politician is a member of the church, what is wrong with having a fellow member speak?

Reasons two and three are certainly tied together in there logic. I believe these reasons hold merit for Pence’s sacrelidgious speech but are not inherently true of all politicians who accept such similar offers. Reasons two and three open a multitude of separate issues both independent and dependent on the circumstances. Meaning, yes this could happen, but the degree in which we can mitigate the temptation are limited for Satan is the tempter. In the case of Pence, reason three was definitely true. Many would see that the SBC tied itself to Trump. But that is not the fault of the SBC per se. But that is Pence’s fault for giving a campaign rally speech instead of a message. If Pence gave a theologically sound speech there should be little temptation to misconstrue the mission. The third reason is inevitable. Since the beginning, Christians witness has been undermined by the lies of Satan. The original Christians were thought to be cannibal and even atheists. We can’t always prevent these lies, but it would be good not to validate them which Pence did.

Now hurting the unity of the body of Christ is a weak point. Leeman’s fourth point is basically saying that Pence is too polarizing, because Trump is… Trump, on a National level to address a church. Pence is polarizing, but he was polarizing before Trump. The polarizing premise is true but, assuming Pence is indeed a follower off Christ, this would be the result of living a Christian life. Here’s another polarizing figure: Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cake Shop. Would polarity disqualify him from speaking? If we are to apply national likability to our church speakers, we’re going to end up with a lot of TV personalities who don’t comprehend dyophysitism.

Like Jack Philips, Pence has taken a lot of flak for being a devout Christian. Isn’t this the kind of person who may have a good message to the assembly? Seemingly so. Again Pence under-delivered. To be fair, Leeman clearly states he doesn’t blanket outlaw politicians from speaking.

I can envision a few circumstances where there is some measure of mission overlap that could justify it. Maybe a group of Christian college presidents asks the secretary of education to address them. Or a Christian conference on work asks a Christian congressman to talk about working as a Christian on the Hill, so that attendees can apply the principles to their own settings.

But while it’s not an outlaw, such an unwritten policy places constraints on the church that are not inherently necessary. Leeman supposes some similar justification was used when The Gospel Coalition had Ben Sasse speak. In 2017, Ben Sasse addressed The Gospel Coalition and gave a theological speech. He was noted for sounding more like a pastor than a politician.

To me only two things matter:

  1. Theological substance
  2. Correct theological substance

On these two requirements I think the body of Christ would remain unified with a clear picture of its mission.

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Video Double play: Busting the gun grabber’s musket myth.

Published

on

By

Gun confiscation bingo

Two videos that eviscerate the Liberty Grabbers ‘One shot’ musket myth.

It is a bedrock principle (if they have any) of the Liberty grabber Left that back during the ratification of the US Constitution the only weapons in existence were flintlock musket that took 5 minute to reload. Thus there wasn’t any school violence because it would have taken too long for the perpetrator to kill anyone.

As it typical of the lore of the national socialist Left, this is a lie of the first order. A previous video celebrated the “Assault Weapon” tricentennial, which was bit of the tongue in cheek variety since there were other repeating “Military Style” weapons in existence before this time period. These will be detailed in future articles. Meanwhile we present two videos that also bust the ‘Musket Myth’, one a short presentation from the Royal Armouries on the Jover and Belton “Flintlock breech-loading superimposed military musket”

Royal Armouries
Published on Aug 30, 2017
Curator of Firearms, Jonathan Ferguson, gives us a peek at the Flintlock breech-loading superimposed military musket, by Jover and Belton (1786)

This is a very relevant piece since the inventor Joseph Belton corresponded with the Continental Congress in 1777:

May it Please your Honours,
I would just informe this Honourable Assembly, that I have discover’d an improvement, in the use of Small Armes, wherein a common small arm, may be maid to discharge eight balls one after another, in eight, five or three seconds of time, & each one to do execution five & twenty, or thirty yards, and after so discharg’d, to be loaded and fire’d with cartridge as usual.

“It was demonstrated before noted scientists and military officers (including well known scientist David Rittenhouse and General Horatio Gates)”

This destroys the mythology that the founders had no knowledge of this type of repeating firearm technology that existed already.

The second is a humours dissertation on the subject from video raconteur Steven Crowder https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/

from a few years ago that also eviscerates this bit of Leftist mythology.

Published on Feb 10, 2015
People have been telling us for years that the 2nd amendment was written in a time of Muskets, and that it doesn’t apply to the evolved weapons of today. Is it true?

So why is this important?

Two primary reasons. One that these factual examples demonstrate that the founding fathers knew of these technological advances. Therefore, they destroy any Leftist pretences that the 2nd amendment be confined to muskets. Second that, school violence is something other than an issue of guns.

Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily

Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.