One cannot be half pregnant, you are or you ain’t. There are no degrees of pregnancy, however, there are degrees of Socialism, in one’s belief and actions. So let’s examine what it is. We are all living in an era under enacted laws that are socialistic, plus so much debate about whether or not President Obama is or is not a Socialist.
If one dons a cowboy hat, rides a horse and ropes a calf, is he a cowboy? Maybe not, but during that event acts like one. If a person robs a convenience store, is he a thief? For sure. If a person writes about politics, or makes a speech about politics, is he a politician? Not necessarily. If a person works in the movies and plays the role of a queen, are they royalty? No. The list could go on and on, of hypotheticals.
I’m reluctant to use the timeworn phrase – “If it looks like a duck, has webbed feet and quacks,” you know what we call it.
So how do we define “Socialism?” Dictionary describes it as: “Public collective ownership or control of the basic means of production, distribution and exchange, with the avowed aim of operating for use, rather than profit, and assuring to each member an equitable share of goods, services and etc. The doctrines of those advocating this system.”
In this connection, right off the bat, we can see it’s a contradiction in theory by definition, and cannot be applied equitably in reality. There’s no such thing as an equitable share of goods and services in collective control of production, distribution and exchange. For example, how does Section Eight government housing, i.e., the government collecting money from some, to pay rent for others who do not pay, become equitable distribution? Or equitable collection, inasmuch as some pay into the collection and others do not? Just one of thousands of such actions of government socialism. Acts of immorality perpetrated on those who produce to give to non-producers.
I say immoral, because it’s a system of thievery, taking from some by a gun or threat of a gun to re-distribute to another. Taking from the owner [his money] in violation of the will of the owner. Hence stealing.
There are two main systems of Socialism: Communism and Fascism. In the Fascist system, the means of productivity remain in private hands in name only, and are controlled by a centralized government, whereas Communism owns, lock, stock and barrel, via name and control of all means of production and distribution. For example, under Hitler’s system of Fascism, private business was allowed to remain in name under the owner, but was controlled by the central government.
Whether it’s a political government of Fascism, Communism, Democracy or Republic, it all boils down to ownership. And in order to understand, brings us to the definition of ownership. Specifically and literally, it means that which one controls, has a boundary, and can be destroyed, if one chooses, without permission from any non-owner.
In my 500-plus posted articles, several described”ownership” in detail. In this connection, there are various labels of government, but in actuality there are only two kinds, political and self-government. And they always involve ownership of property. Accordingly, ownership is a total concept. In the absence of totality of control, one is a non-owner or a sharecropper.
An example I have used before is one’s home, bought and paid for. Usually the person refers to him- or herself as the owner. However, one is required to pay government via taxes, and require permission from some government agency, to do anything to the property they believe they own. Requirements vary, depending upon where you live. Things like permission for a new roof, addition of another room, adding a deck, cutting down a tree and etc. Having to get permission from some other, who never paid a dime on the property, defines one layer of socialism. As opposed to Capitalism. The latter being a system of voluntary exchange of goods and services with a Right to Ownership.
In the Communist manifesto by Karl Marx and Engels, the Socialist view of property is quite clear, and that is private property ownership must be abolished, and any and everything of any importance must be collectively owned and centrally controlled, which includes human labor.
At this point, stop and ask yourself, what is it you have that you think you own? Keep in mind possession is not necessarily ownership. You may posses that home you think you own, or that vehicle you drive.
Lenin, in his 1920 “Left-Wing Communism,” explained the one thing needed to accomplish takeover via Communism is the necessity of flexibility in tactics. The steps are laid out in the Communist manifesto, and the tactics of propagandi are an important part of the strategy, to convert a country to Communism. When Lenin laid out his steps for taking over Europe and Asia, he said, “The United States we shall not have to attack, it will fall into our hands like overripe fruit.” In other words, the game plan has never been for those in positions of political power to come out and announce they are Socialist and their agenda is to dismantle the Capitalistic Free-enterprise system and replace with the system of Socialism, but rather by using tactics of deception, disguising one’s agenda, until the mission is accomplished.
Which brings us to all this interest and discussions as to whether or not President Obama is a Socialist. In the news more and more are calling him Socialist and Marxist. I personally do not know what he is, only what he does and says, and does not say.
The very essence and core of the foundation of this country was built upon individual freedom and Free-enterprise. During the many months of campaigning, I never heard Obama mention Freedom, nor talk about Capitalism, but he did mention “re-distribution” and spoke frequently about “Transforming America,” but never elucidated on precisely what he meant. He never said what he was transforming from, to transforming to. However, it’s only been two years, after being elected President, he hit the deck running, and implementing programs of socialism, from the millions in stimulous to Obamacare. Actions which fit the definition of Socialism, I mentioned at the beginning of this article. A definition which states: “The doctrines of those advocating this system.”
Now, in this year of 2011, after the last November election, when there was an uprising of protest by the American people, his tactics changed, and now much to-do about government and intervention into “helping” in areas of the capitalistic system, to promote job growth, and what he refers to as competition. However, his speeches about competition refer mostly to competition between countries and creation of jobs by shipping goods and services to other countries. Spending a great deal of time doing PR, by highly publicized appearances in businesses already in operation, with a lot of photo opps of his appearances across the country.
With this change in appearance tactics, his popularity has risen in the polls lately. With many still trying to define who he really is. According to news reports, from his background growing up in Indonesia, his father a Marxist and mother an atheist. His schooling, his work as a community organizer, and those he associated with during that period, his writings in his published books, his 20-year attendance in the church of Reverand Wright, his many many speeches, and his agenda of programs since becoming President, tell us a great deal about who he is and what his plans for transforming America mean. Yet he has never defined.
My question is, why did he want to transform America? The facts supporting our history reveal we have lived in the greatest nation on earth. Working and living in a country that advanced the greatest good for the greatest number, a record never before accomplished by any other country in the history of mankind. And along comes a very charismatic politician who wants to transform that greatness of a country of the free-enterprising system. Why? He has never said what it is he wants to transform to. And despite many many speeches and many many interviews by the American press, I have never heard anyone ask him, what it is he wants to transform America to. Transformation of America was the main thrust of his political platform, but I for one have never heard him articulate precisely what he meant.
As I recall when President John F. Kennedy announced his plans for this country to go to the moon, many asked him how he planned on accomplishing that. But strangely no one asked President Obama what he meant and what his plans were for transforming America. Because the “free press” has failed to ask the question, here we are two years into his presidency, with so many still wondering who he is. And trying to answer by saying, “He doesn’t get it.”
This is the same logic as the joke about the man who went to the doctor, and whatever his ailment was, the doctor asked, “Have you had this before,” and when the patient answered in the affirmative, the doctor replied,”Well you got it again,” and sent him home. Left to his own devices to figure it out.
Accordingly, left to their own devices to figure out what Transformation of America meant, many now labeling the President a Socialist met with an outcry of denial. And criticism of those applying the label. A circular saw-type merry-go-round of rhetoric, falling into the category of double-think, double-talk. Trying to figure out this “ditch” we are in. How are we going to get out if we don’t understand how we got there?
As I stated in the beginning, Socialism is not like pregnancy, a condition where one is or ain’t, but a slippery slope involving tactics of manipulation of truth, using language of deception and corruption. A strategy that has brought us to where we are today, and nothing is happening to change the direction. Whether slowing down or speeding up, the direction does not change.
I usually end articles with a famous quotation, but in conclusion, the only thing ringing in my ears is: “The Truth will set us Free.”
LET FREEDOM RING
JUST ME AC