Connect with us

Culture and Religion

This is EXACTLY what socialism is: Part 2 of 2



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).

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, 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
1 Comment

1 Comment

  1. Pingback: Scrap Socialism, Part II – #Logic Wins

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Culture and Religion

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 Takeaway

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?



Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

An open letter to Sen. Lamar Alexander, US Senate on the nomination of Chai Feldblum



The Honorable Lamar Alexander

Chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions committee

United States Senate

CC United States Senators

March 17, 2018


Dear Senator Alexander,

It has come to my attention that President Trump has re-nominated Chai Feldblum to her position as commissioner of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). This news has brought me grave concern.

On behalf of the American people, it is up to you and the rest of the Senate to remedy this unfortunate situation.

As you are aware, the EEOC deals with cases of workplace discrimination; having the power to enforce federal laws, investigate discrimination complaints, regulate and pursue legal charges against private businesses, and influence public opinion. It is imperative that any federal agency entrusted with such powers be steered by the conscientious counsel of unbiased leadership.

A former college basketball coach once said, “Offense is not equal opportunity.” However, since her appointment by former President Obama in 2010, Ms. Feldblum has exploited her position at the EEOC to offensively further her own fanatical advocacy goals at the expense of religiously-oriented American citizens, the Bill of Rights be damned.

Religious liberty, inviolable and protected from governmental infringement by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, is richly ingrained in our country’s values, having been secured by the blood of our ancestors. In fact, religious liberty, often referred to by the Founders as freedom of conscience, was considered by early Americans to be so precious that, even in the midst of America’s fight for independence, conscience objections were considered sacrosanct.

Consider the words of America’s first President, George Washington, in a letter to Benedict Arnold during America’s Revolutionary War:

“While we are contending for our own liberty, we should be very cautious not to violate the conscience of others, ever considering that God alone is the judge of the hearts of men, and to Him only in this case are they answerable.”

For Chai Feldblum, however, religious freedom must be subjugated with the full force of the government’s ugly fist.

She is, in a word, tyrannical.

Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary defines tyranny as “a rigorous [strict] condition imposed by some outside agency or force,” as imposed by a tyrant.

A tyrant is defined as “one resembling an oppressive ruler in the harsh use of authority or power.”

Ms. Feldblum has made several deeply troubling statements that betray her tyrannical intentions, wholly at odds with America’s founding principles:

  • “I’m having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win… Sexual liberty should win in most cases. There can be a conflict between religious liberty and sexual liberty, but in almost all cases the sexual liberty should win because that’s the only way that the dignity of gay people can be affirmed in any realistic manner (emphasis mine).”
  • “I believe granting liberty to gay people advances a compelling government interest, that such an interest cannot be adequately advanced if ‘pockets of resistance’ to a societal statement of equality are permitted to flourish, and hence that a law that permits no individual exceptions based on religious beliefs will be the least restrictive means of achieving the goal of liberty for gay people (emphasis mine).”

Ms. Feldblum’s seditious statements are in dramatic contrast to what Benjamin Franklin wrote in 1774, in Emblematic Representations:

“The ordaining of laws in favor of one part of the nation, to the prejudice and oppression of another, is certainly the most erroneous and mistaken policy. An equal dispensation of protection, rights, privileges, and advantages, is what every part is entitled to, and ought to enjoy (emphasis mine)”

In addition, Ms. Feldblum’s thesis on the proper role of government is unequivocally incompatible with the words spoken by President Thomas Jefferson during his first inaugural address, 1801:

“A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned – this is the sum of good government.”

Chai Feldblum’s offensive advocacy through the EEOC is so extreme and outside of Constitutional bounds that, in 2012, the usually divided Supreme Court of the United States ruled unanimously against Feldblum’s EEOC attempt to void the “Ministerial Exemption,” which allows leeway for religious organizations to carry out routine, religiously-related matters of hiring and terminating employees.

While Ms. Feldblum claims to represent the LGBTQ+ community, she speaks only for a small, yet loud portion of the demographic; one comprised almost entirely of radical LGBTQ+ activists.

In truth, Ms. Feldblum’s fanatical, extremist, ideologically-driven agenda only serves to marginalize a significant portion of sexual minorities, in addition to women and countless Americans of religious orthodoxy.

Ignoring the conservative, sexual minorities who disapprove of the forced subjugation of religious Americans, Ms. Feldblum propagates stereotypes of the various people she claims to represent, and actively encourages neighbors to go to war with neighbors.

Feldblum insists on a “zero-sum” game, where religious Americans and members of the LGBTQ+ community are incapable of living peaceably side-by-side. As the architect of former President Obama’s Transgender executive order, Feldblum further victimizes traumatized women and children, insisting they must tolerate an unsafe existence, as grown men are ushered into their locker rooms and bathrooms in the name of “progress.” Feldblum insists on subjugating religious, yet same-sex attracted business owners in the private market, drastically hindering their pursuit of happiness through economic independence. Feldblum insists that all LGBTQ+ Americans think as she does.

Ms. Feldblum is a tyrant; wholly unworthy of another five years at the helm of the EEOC.

Speaking on the sacredness of religious liberty in America, Samuel Adams stated, August 1, 1776:

“Driven from every other corner of the earth freedom of thought and the right of private judgment in matters of conscience direct their course to this happy country as their last asylum.”

The responsibility, Senator Alexander, now rests with you and the Senate to protect religious liberty as vigorously and as confidently as our Founding Fathers.

If you fail to perform this duty, this great test of your legacy as one of the leaders of the free world, may the words of Samuel Adams haunt you for the remainder of your days:

“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”


Most sincerely,


Paige Rogers, Tennessee

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Video: The Racist roots of Liberty control – Who doesn’t like certain people getting rights?




In honour of #NationalWalkoutDay let’s look at those who really don’t like certain people getting rights – specifically the common sense human right of self-preservation.

This is NationalWalkoutDay [Who would have thought that kids would want to skip school?] With one of the most important human rights in the spotlight, it would be a good idea to examine the reasons why this has been suppressed in the past. To begin, consider Hillary Clinton’s statement smearing most of the country:

So I won the places that are optimistic, diverse, dynamic, moving forward, and his whole campaign, Make America Great Again, was looking backwards. “You don’t like black people getting rights, you don’t like women getting jobs, you don’t want to see that Indian-American succeeding more than you are, whatever your problem is, I’m going to solve it.”

So who really is opposed to the certain people getting their common sense human rights? The following video from Colion Noir details that Liberty (gun) control has it’s roots in racism:

Gun Control’s Racist History

Interestingly enough, the same people who claim to care about ‘the children’ but whole heartily support Planned Parenthood are the same folks who want to deprive the people of their basic human rights. Who would have thought that was the case?


Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily






Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.