We aren’t communist?
When the obvious is obvious, why is it that there are those who can’t seem to see the obvious? Strange metaphor is it not? That we in this nation have those who can’t see this obvious scenario that this nation is as communist as any that has ever been, or will ever be!
Perhaps it’s our identification of what we use as the yard stick to measure what is a communist government?
When we look at the definition of communism, it is obvious that it had never existed, will not ever exist, and cannot exist as it is defined. Communism is a revolutionary socialist movement to create a classless, moneyless and stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production as well as a social, political and economic ideology that aims at establishing this order.
Is it not interesting that the failure of communism is defined in the very first identification of this ideology? Why is the word ‘revolutionary’ so prominent?
The answer is simple really—for in fact communism is based on the oldest of human actions—theft. This is the why it must be a revolution of taking that from a society that has productive capacity—as communism is not the ideology of the beginning…for it produces nothing…as the literate history of mankind has proven.
There is no more one need to know of communism. The basis of this dementia and the results are all based in this simple reality.
One thing about communism is that reality is never part of the evaluation. Take a moment to think of this; movement to create a classless, moneyless and stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production as well as a social, political and economic ideology that aims at establishing this order.
We read this presentation using the word classless. What does that mean? Or is it to make some social distinction to create the very ‘revolutionary’ ‘theft’ from those who have produced? What is the difference between the simple philosophical identification of our ‘Declaration of Independence’ where we state ‘All men are created equal!’ Does this not make all men in the same class—are we not all created by our creator with the same foundations of physical structure? Do we not all have a brain, some intellect, and the capacity to observe and make independent decisions? Is not this the whole concept of Christianity—that we have free will—and as such have by our choice the desire to do what we wish?
You see, the philosophy of Christianity, that all men are created equal, and that we are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights—makes simple fact; it identifies man’s very existence.
Does one not have to have a ‘willing suspension of disbelief’ to even think of this statement, and not find one’s self in complete confusion of what it could possibly mean? Think of this and engage your reasoning. Communism is a moneyless and stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production as well as a social, political and economic ideology that aims at establishing this order.
In the world of critical theorist, they take a statement, then correlate it with something completely illogically different, put the two together and say; see doesn’t this make sense. Is this not one of those sentences, and can’t you identify this obvious illogical and irrational reasoning in the very presentation.
Think of this; the term moneyless—and then the term economic ideology—is there a problem with this? If we are to have an economic ideology, how do we do it without some measurement of activity? For if there is not measurement, how do we know that whatever we are doing is for good or bad, right or wrong, productive or wasteful? Is there not another question that should also be asked? How do we determine who is to be the most educated…for we need certain skills in our society…from all others? If we require more effort from some—as becoming trained as doctors—then in this classless society; why would anyone work hard and become accomplished, what is the motivation? What altruism of magical proportion exists to have some work hard, while the true communist, sits back and receives the theft from others? Do we not ensure that if it is not there to steal, we will ensure that none ever achieve, and we will not have what is required in the future?
Yet the coup de grace is the wonder of the ‘stateless’ social order! Is it not interesting that in the communist societies, all is dictated by the god little (g) of government controlling all things? How is this ideology so stateless when it is the power of the state that dictates all in society and everything that is done? And is it not interesting that the objective is to create an ideology aiming at ‘establishing order?’
So now we have the identification of just what communism proposes. Shall we hold it up to the mirror of the current American experience and see the obvious?
First of all; let’s look at the idea of a moneyless society. We use money in this nation as a measurement—but the value of that money is dictated by whom? Our nation in design was very careful with the power of giving the state control of the ‘value’ of money. The reason was simple, we had the experience. In both Britain and in this nation—when the state can make money out of thin air—or with just ink and paper—it makes money not representative value, but the whim of the state. Is this not the perfect example of a moneyless society; replaced with currency of state dictate?
This is the most interesting term of all communist identifies to me; common ownership of the means of production. Now many believe this only applies to the workers taking over the means of production; but what about corporations? Is not a corporation an entity that allows those who wish to participate in this common ownership of the means of production the same thing? Except there is one interesting difference; in the ‘fallacy’ of communism, the wealth is stole by whom? Is it the people, or the state? In the fiction it is the people, but in reality is it not the state?
Let’s take it one more step; who pays the majority of taxes that supports the state? Is it not the corporations? If the corporation is the procurer of wealth for the state—the means of production used to finance the state—then are not they also an extension of the state? If they are, are they not also then controlled by the state? If corporations are controlled by the state, and spend their time procuring legislative actions for…political actions in the legislative halls of the state—for the state controls them…is this not communism? Is this not the means of production are controlled by the state? If not, who can possibly show or explain that the very entity of corporations, which are based on legislative fiat of the state’s creation, are not as communist as direct interference in the production of the state—as in communism?
The true identification of communism is as old as time—or the literacy of mankind. It is the clash between the ‘liberty’ of man and the totalitarian sovereignty of the state. When the state has all of the power—as occurs in this nation today—then the society is but vassals of the state’s design. This is communism.
Think of how different that concept as our first tyrant explained, a society of the people, by the people, and most importantly for the people—not the state—has perished from the earth!