What is Marxism?

I often go on and on about Marxism and what a detriment to society I believe it is.

People have asked me... "What exactly is Marxism, and why do you cast it in such a negative light".

I thought I would take this opprotunity to answer those questions.

What is Marxism?

This question alone is the catharsis behind encyclopedias of information that has been written over the decades. I don't think I will do adequate justice in a blurb in an blog post... but I will try to at least paint a broad picture. Forgive me if I over-simplify a few things.

Marxism comes in many shades, shapes, sizes, and titles... it is a catch-all term for all of the sub-genres that lie within; kind of like "Rock and Roll" encompasses rockabilly, doo-wop, surfer, hard rock , soft rock, pop rock, etc. The foundation of all those sub-genres are the same... a basis in the philosophies of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels... it encompasses the range from socialism to hard-core communism, and beyond, into other arenas; just as Rock and Roll has a basis in the blending of country, western, blues, jazz, and gospel... Like Rock and Roll though, Marxism has new things thrown into the mix.

With that in mind, consider this...

Marxism encompasses the following goals:
1. The destruction of the family... separating children from their parents for easier control.
2. The destruction of marriage... separating man from woman.
3. The abolition of religion... separating Man from God.
4. The abolition, or redefinition of, morality... separating Man from self-restraint.
5. The abolition of nationality and countries... separating Man from his community.
6. Nationalism, and a devotion to state (government) over individuality or liberty... separating Man from himself.
7. Compulsory state education... to further #1 through #6 above. To separate Man from the truth.
8. The abolition of private property... separating Man from the basis of human happiness, stability, prosperity, advancement, and freedom of contract. The foundation of a free society (see my "Treatise on Natural Order").
9. The abolition of weapons... separating Man from the means to defend himself and hold government to account.
10. The use of heavy taxes... further separating Man from his property, and depriving him of a means to improve his station.
11. A centralized, governmental banking system... a means to attain power and control the masses.
12. Governmental control of communication and transportation... separating Man from his freedom to associate.
13. Governmental control of business... separating Man from his ability to prosper and grow.
14. Redistribution of wealth... "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"... separating Man from his independence.
15. Governmental control of population and society... separating Man from his free will.
16. Positive Law Theory instead of Natural Law Theory... separating Man from his inalienable rights.

When you separate Man from his family, wife, God, self-restraint, community, individualism, liberty, property, ability to defend himself, ability to improve his station, freedom of association, truth, prosperity, growth, independence, free will, and inalienable rights, what has he become?

An automaton that is easily controlled and manipulated, with no will to fight... a slave among slaves.

The Marxism twist (outside of Karl Marx's Utopian philosophy)
Who has absolute power? The government.
Who controls the government? The elite.
Who's back do they ride upon? The people.
Who holds them to account? No one.

That is Marxism... that is why I portray it in a negative light.

I hope that cleared things up a bit.

Fascism

I have heard the term "fascism" come up quite a lot lately... and everyone seems to think that Fascism is the extreme leanings of Conservatism; with Communism being the extreme leanings of Liberalism. This is a very false, and to be honest, uninformed conjecture.

The reality of the matter is that Fascism can occur from the extreme of either political philosophy (Liberal or Conservative).

To put this in perspective, you have to understand the following:

1. Communism is an economic policy. It's opposite is Capitalism. Socialism is a stepping stone toward Communism ("Communism Lite").
2. Totalitarianism is the extreme form of Authoritarianism.
3. Anarchy is the extreme form of Libertarianism.
4. The opposite of Authoritarianism is Libertarianism.
5. The opposite of Totalitarianism is Anarchy (which is also "Pure Democracy").
6. The modern understanding of what Liberalism, and its opposite, Conservatism are has changed over the last 100 years or so (essentially swapping places, just as Democrats and Republicans have).
7. Neo-Conservatives are NOT conservatives... "Neo-Cons" stems from the Liberal/Big Government/Marxist philosophy with an adoption of some Conservative principles. You can essentially say that "Neo" Conservative means "Not Really" Conservative. You will see what I mean as we progress.
8. Liberals and Conservatives are opposites to each other. The basics of their philosophy display this.

Let's look at where each Philosophy stands on various issues. When looking at the chart below, keep in mind that there are always exceptions to the rule. I am showing the general rule. Furthermore, this is not a dissertation on Liberals vs Conservatives, and so I am using a great deal of simplicity here.



Now let's go over a couple that may cause some eyebrows to be raised.

Economics: Conservatives believe in a free market, free trade, and low taxes. Liberals believe in governmental controls, high taxes, and redistribution of wealth. Conservatives believe in helping the poor through charity and incentives to make their own way. Liberals believe in helping the poor through government welfare.

Religion: Conservatives tend to be more religious, and tend to approach things from that perspective. Liberals tend to be more humanistic in their approach. Liberals lean more toward an atheistic view, and conservatives lean toward a theistic view.

Class Base: Liberals tend to appeal to, and make their case to, the poor... sighting government as a better way to care for their needs. Conservatives tend to appeal to the middle and upper class with the philosophy that we can each take care of ourselves better than government.

Power Base: Liberals believe that most people need someone to govern them... that someone being a strong government. Conservatives believe that people can govern themselves and that the government should answer to them.

World Affairs: Conservatives believe in being neutral in world affairs, entanglements with none-- trade for all. Liberals believe in using the government to "help" solve the problems of other countries.

With all of this in perspective, lets look at what it means.

Liberals tend to want government to do everything... therefore they are of an Authoritarian mindset.
Conservatives tend to want government out of everything... therefore they are of a Libertarian mindset.

Okay, Okay, I know what you are thinking right now... "...but, Conservatives are against "xyz" and Liberals are for it." The opposite is true as well. It is the manner in which they go about handling their opinions on "xyz" that things differ. Generally, Liberals want government to intervene in their cause.

Let's look at a few things here:
Liberals want government to force people to hire based on race and gender (quotas); Conservatives want to hire who they want when they want.
Liberals want thoughts and speech to be criminal (hate crimes); Conservatives want to punish for the crime, not the motive.
Liberals want to force acceptance of lifestyles and immorality on the public through legislation; Conservatives want to keep tradition-- HOWEVER some Conservatives want to force morality on the public through legislation... but then they are not following the concepts of Conservatism or Natural Law.
Liberals want government to take your money and give it to others; Conservatives want to keep their money.

...and the list goes on and on.

With all of this in mind, let's get to the point:

Fascism is best defined as (American Heritage Dictionary): "A philosophy or system of government that is marked by stringent social and economic control, a strong, centralized government usually headed by a dictator, and often a policy of belligerent nationalism."

For the most part... who wants to control social and economic issues with government? Liberals.

By the way... Hitler, whose name is synonymous with "Fascism", was a SOCIALIST who appealed to the proletariat via extreme Nationalism, with the Elite ruling them, utilizing Positive Law to enforce progressive social reform, compulsory education, the destruction of religion, etc.; while practicing hedonism and Intervening in the affairs of other Nations as he did his blitzkrieg across Europe. Oh, and he was a vegetarian too!

Okay, Okay... I am having fun picking on Liberals, but to be fair, Anarchy (Pure Democracy) can be Fascist as well... when going purely off majority rule, anything can be forced down the minority's throat; and when Conservatives try and enforce morality via legislation they are practicing Fascism as well.

So, the next time someone reserves the term "Fascist" solely for a "Conservative", remind them that Hitler was a LIBERAL S.O.B.

Is Iran Committing an Act of War?

ABC News is reporting that Iran is supplying arms to the Taliban... (http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/06/document_iran_c.html)

Okay, IF it turns out to be true that the Iranian Government sponsored or otherwise sanctioned this to happen then by all means it IS an act of War. However, we have to be sure this is NOT a blackmarket, underground, or otherwise "backroom" deal outside the sanctions of the Iranian Government.

From the news story (emphasis mine):
"Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stopped short earlier this week of blaming Iran, saying the U.S. did not have evidence "of the involvement of the Iranian government in support of the Taliban.""

IF this changes, then so does our justification to go to war. Without the proof, we currently do not have a justification to go to war with Iran. A Nation simply spouting off at the mouth or having WMD's is NOT, in and of itself, a justification for war.

In a forum I belong to I stated the following in regard to the Sovereignty of Nations, Iran getting a Nuke, etc. (January 2007)

"Every sovereign nation has a right to build weapons... even WMD's. North Korea fires off a test, everyone freaks. India does it 3 days later, no one says anything. We are extremely concerned that NK, Russia, China, or Iran will give nukes to others; yet we openly do it and were even contemplating giving them to the Japanese as recently as a few months ago.

I understand the argument... Iran is crazy, NK is crazy, etc. HOWEVER, in the last 50-some-odd years NK hasn't attacked anyone. Iran took over our embassy in 1979, but Carter failed to deal with it. Otherwise, Iran and Iraq fought a war... which I believe Iraq started!

Iran says it wants to destroy Israel, they want to bring down America, blah-blah-blah... talk is cheap. Leaders of countries can screech all they want to... its all hot air.

HOWEVER...

If Iran, NK, or anyone else ACTS or attempts to act, then it would be open season. If we were (for example) to be attacked by Iran, I would have no problem with the following:

1. Wipe them off the face of the map.
2. Walk away.

Its kind of like this...

If your next door neighbor keeps yelling at you and telling you he's gonna punch you in the face for whatever reason, you can be cautious... you can make plans for it... but there is really nothing you can (reasonably) do about it until he acts (or tries to act). The second he marches onto your lawn ready to duke it out, you hospitalize him and walk away. You don't do his housework for him. You don't pay his medical bills. You don't teach his kids how to read.

If your neighbor buys a shotgun, you have no right to demand he not buy shells! You have no right to park your car in front of his driveway as some kind of embargo, punishing him for having weapons you don't want him to have. You have no right to break into his house, kill his dog, imprison his kids, and destroy his shotgun. He has the same right to own a shotgun that you do. EVEN IF HE'S A JERK!

ONCE again, IF he comes to your yard with his shotgun looking for trouble, you kill him, bill his kids for the shell, walk away."

(from another post also January 2007, and extension of the discussion above)
I agree that the West shares some blame for what is occurring over in the Middle East... the problem is that even if the Muslims were 100 percent, absolutely right in their cause, their methods, single-minded barbarity, overwhelming intolerance, and complete disregard for Human life, destroys any sympathy I can have for them.

Herein lies the problem: most (not all) of these legions of drones that are willing to give their lives for Islam can never be saved from their brainwashing. Unlike the Russians, North Koreans, etc. they can never be reasoned with.

To further complicate things, the Islamic states go out of their way to indoctrinate and brainwash the population from day one. Their school curriculum is filled with this mindset. When a child's parents, society, schools, government, media, and culture completely immerse him in this world until the roots of hatred and single-minded barbarism are deeply locked in, how can he ever be saved? How can we ever reason with him? The answer is... you don't.

We have limited choices when it comes to dealing with most (but not all) of the Middle East. Regardless of the reasons why, the people of the Middle East are the ones that contribute most to the limitations.

If we choose to stay out of the Middle East (which must include Israel as well), then we have to be VERY non-PC and we have to profile, and constantly look over our shoulder, and be ever studious from this day forward; and the moment they act, or attempt to act, we wipe them off the face of the Earth and walk away.

-OR-

We can choose to fight this open-ended War on Terror... but not the way we have been doing it. Instead, we tell every single nation the following:

1. If you choose to indoctrinate, train, harbor, aid and abet, house, trade with, negotiate with, supply, or ally yourself with Al Queda (and other such groups) you will be wiped off the face of the Earth.

2. This includes France, Russia, Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, etc. and if you don't like it we will stop funding the UN, close our bases in your countries, stop sending you financial aid, stop buying your products, and stop taking immigrants from your country.

3. You have 72 hours to decide... then see rule number 1.

My preference would be to practice what we should have been practicing all along, and what George Washington wisely advocated... armed Neutrality. We don't jack with you, you don't jack with us... but if you do jack with us we will wipe you off the face of the Earth and walk away. "

(I then went on in another post to clarify "wipe them off the face of the Earth" and a few other things...)
"The reality is, the term "Wipe them off the face of the map" is a simplistic exaggeration to make a point. Not knowing me, I can understand you wanting clarification.

To clarify:
If a country attacked or attempted to attack us, I believe we should attack them in such a manner as to devastate them and make them, and any others who may wish to do the same, reel at the thought of ever doing it again. I would not pay to restore them. I would not help them back up. I would not defend them against their preying neighbors.

You may think that is cold... but it is not; it is practical. Think about it. If the actions of your government causes you to have your way of life disrupted, your utilities to cease functioning, your roads to be impassible, your defenses to be destroyed, and so on... you would then think twice about who you support. You would then be more apt to hold your government accountable.

...and try not to fall into the trap of "the people have no choice... they are oppressed". The people are free to make choices. We, as Americans, made a choice in 1776 and 1861. The citizens of every country, everywhere in the world make a choice. Iranians made a choice in 1979."
Like I've said:

"My preference would be to practice what we should have been practicing all along, and what George Washington wisely advocated... armed Neutrality. We don't jack with you, you don't jack with us... but if you do jack with us we will wipe you off the face of the Earth and walk away."

Now we know we are being jacked with, we just have to discover who is actually behind it...