Welcome, Comrades.

There are many reasons for where we find ourselves. We may disagree with the relative ranking of them on the list of destruction, and I do disagree with some – like Joe’s crusade against corporations . That by no means indicates that I disbelieve that there is a basis there in his writing, I just don’t see how the elimination of type of legal business structure changes much of anything. Our problems go far beyond the structural aspects of business and government, the are at the very soul of each individual who calls themselves an American.

The root of our problem is that we have become a nation willing to turn on our fellow Americans, look them in the eye and say:

  • You are too rich, you don’t deserve to be more comfortable than I am. I really can’t tell you what “too rich” is but whatever it is, you don’t deserve it because I don’t have it.
  • You are a doctor, a lawyer or an engineer with skills and smarts that society values, its not fair that you could be more successful than I am even though you are actually smarter and were willing to sacrifice more to get there,
  • You are too white, your skin color means that you didn’t come by your opportunities fairly.
  • If you are a successful minority, you got there by acting white; therefore, your efforts (Ben Carson, Walter Williams, Clarence Thomas, Condi Rice, Thomas Sowell, etc.) are to be ignored because they do not fit the narrative.
  • You are a Christian, so you are a hater because you believe in God’s moral laws that don’t allow us to do whatever we want to do. You actually believe in the concept of “sin” – how quaint. Besides, how dare you believe in a God that doesn’t exist?

I realize that there are many more elegant and effusive explanations for our condition but when a populace has been exposed to a century of class warfare where they are told that they can never achieve because there are just too many barriers set up by those who are successful, it is easy to convince them that they must have some entity to take from others to give them. When there has been a century of class envy where a people are told that no matter how hard a person works to achieve and no matter what they sacrificed to get there, their worth should be determined by a government, not the free market and the labor of a person with unique skills such as a doctor, a lawyer or an engineer is worth no more than the labor of a garbage collector.

There is a growing belief that everyone is equal in value to society because everyone should be guaranteed the same outcome – and worse, there is a growing percentage of the electorate who are willing to vote for people who will use the government as a tool to pursue that fallacious endpoint to the detriment of all – except themselves.

Folks, it is hard to look at this and not realize that we are in the early stages of a communist revolution. Just like the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia in the early 1900’s, there has been a concerted effort by political power brokers to divide individual from individual and group from group to set each against the other through whatever means necessary to create anger, spite, envy and distrust. There has been a concerted effort to attack the very founding values of our country as illegitimate, inadequate and antiquated. There are constant attacks against religion because religion presupposes a power higher than man, that we must be obedient to God before we offer obedience to the State.

These poor fools who support more government and this communist revolution ignore is that historically, the only class that benefits from a communist takeover is the politicians in power. They set themselves apart by putting the individual in chains and strengthening their hold over the populations. This has happened in every collectivist “revolution” in the history of the world…and that has been happening in America ever since the “progressives” initiated the idea that the government should be filled with elites who were “better equipped” to make decisions than the average American. This belief has allowed government power to grow and spread to every single aspect of your life to the point where there is nothing that you can do that is not regulated, taxed or overseen by some agency of a federal, state or local government.

I don’t know if it can be stopped. There seem to be a majority of Americans who are willing to accept the peanuts from a central government in exchange for not only their lives and liberty but for those of their fellow citizens as well…and it is impossible to argue that the policies of the Obama government, perhaps the most radical federal administration since FDR, are not making more people poor and placing them under the sway of the federal government. As Glenn Reynolds noted – they will make us all beggars because beggars are easier to please. It is hard form me to argue that if you have run out of options and must turn to the government to feed your family, that you shouldn’t do that…but it is equally hard to argue that this isn’t exactly why Obama has placed so little effort on letting the economy recover and has continued to pursue policies that do nothing but drag it down and block the development of new resources while enacting policies to increase government control and influence.

It is hard to stop communism when it is sold as “fairness” in a populist wrapper, especially when you can redefine the concept of “fairness” to exclude the sin of envy. I believe that every one of these petit-communists believe that wealth confiscation will make them rich, not that it really means that every citizen has to stand stand in bread lines. Socialism, Marxism and/or communism has never made a national population richer, only capitalism has done that in the history of the world…and yet people can be (and are being) taught to ignore that fact of history.

There is no form of coerced collectivism that has ever made everybody in it rich, it is only a mechanism to share the misery for the benefit of the ruling class. Of course, the same danger exists in a representative republic when the basic principles of liberty and freedom are ignored but at least in our situation, we are still free enough to change.

28 thoughts on “Welcome, Comrades.

  1. It is a man made confusion that equality under the law is the same as observable equality…we are not the same, but are to be treated the same under the law….that is all it means

  2. Utah, there are several factual untruths with your post:
    1. “This has happened in every collectivist “revolution” in the history of the world”. In fact, there have been exactly ZERO such cases of that kind of gradual process in world history. All those you name collectivist revolutions have been just violent coups (Russia, Cuba) or upheavals (China’s civil war), or imposed by external powers (by Soviets on Eastern Europe).
    2. “Just like the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia in the early 1900′s, there has been a concerted effort by political power brokers to divide individual from individual”. Uh, no, not at all. There was no ‘political power’ doing such thing in Russia, let alone “concerted’. There was a small Bolshevik Party which seized power thru a coup (a task made much more easier by the general conditions associated with WWI), after having advocated violence all along, and that was it.
    3. “historically, the only class that benefits from a communist takeover is the politicians in power..” Historically there have been exactly ZERO cases of such benefits. In every single case of Communist revolutions the existing politicians were all thrown in jail, executed or exiled. If you mean the only beneficiaries were the new revolutionary politicians coming to power, this would be true, but then your statement would need to be expressed more clearly.
    Your facts need some refurbishing.

    • And Zalo, my poor misguided friend, are either totally ignorant or simply wilfully blind to the truth. It isn’t my facts that need “refurbishing”, you need to observe a little history because that will show you how wrong you are.

      You Utopian socialism has never, and will never, exist. You do a lovely job of parsing, though. Something that I have pointed out several times is that if something has the same effect as what the collectivists intend, yet does not meet the exact textbook definition word for word, they calim that the refutations are illegitimate.

      You convieniently ignore the dachas of the ruling Soviets when the people were waiting in line for bread and the relative opulence that the “servants of the people” in China, Russia, North Korea and Cuba lived of currently live in. The politicians I spoke of were the leaders of the “revolution” like Lenin and Stalin who took over dictatorial powers soon after the “people’s revolution” was “won”. Of course the prior ruling class was imprisioned or executed, that’s what communists have to do to maintain power – eliminate any opposition.

      We don’t do that in a representative republic, power transitions peacefully and the former government isn’t taken out and summaarily executed.

      I gave you a choce earlier, I was wrong to do so, you are simply ignorant.

      So if none of these were collectivist in the purest sense, what evidence is there that collectivism actually works?

      • it is funny how you are blind to the mansions of your “representatives.” Most Russians had dachas.,They are not something nice, usually a one or two room cabin. You are also blind to the poverty of your people. If a soviet man waits in line for bread it is the governments fault, yet in america the homeless have to wait in line for soup. Who gets blamed for poverty in america, not the government, but the homeless.

        • I’m not blind to it, I’ve recognized it and I also recognize the possibility to remove them in an election, something that has not proven possible in any socialist state so far in history.

      • Utah, please note my post dealt with your factual errors only, it was not meant to assert any ideological positions at all. And as usual, you don’t even bother to respond to what I had to say, but resort to name-calling. As you are considering me a promoter of Utopian socialism, I have to clarify that I am not at all of that obedience. I know, from personal experience, mind you, not just by studying Ayn Rand, that Collectivism doesn’t work, as a matter of fact you can parse all my posts on TRNL and not once will you see any hints that it may. What my position is and has been all along, is that there is absolutely no similarity between US current situation and “the early stages of a Communist revolution”, Soviet type collectivist system etc. The debate here is, and rightly so, about the DEGREE of government’s intervention in a free market economy. Now if one side of this debate, namely those who argue for no intervention at all, demonize the other side (free marketeers as well, mind you) by calling them all kinds of names: Communist, Soviet, Hitler, etc, then they lose all credibility.
        And this brings me to a 4th factual error on your post: “only capitalism has done that [making people richer] in the history of the world…and yet people can be (and are being) taught to ignore that fact of history”. This totally wrong again, because pure capitalism has only made a minority rich (England of Victorian Era), and created social strife, whereas capitalism mixed with some degree of government intervention, has created the most wealth for the most large numbers (Germany, Netherlands, Scandinavian countries).
        Now about the dachas: I said if you meant the new politicians coming to power thru the coups, yes, you are absolutely right, just the wording of your post allowed it to be understood as a collectivist system being the result of some power brokering between politicians actually in power as a means to further their own interests.

          • Not, not one, except for those I enumerated. And you are asking to be believed without confronting facts, just because you say so. Like the well known preacher who once said to his audience: “Are you going to believe me or your lying eyes?

            • Please provide me with evidence to counter my assertion. Please name a collectivist revolution that 1) enriched a national population and 2) did not enrich their leadership. Rather than parsing by saying that I got the Bolshevik Revolution wrong, your point would have more credence if you could but instruct me as to the regimes that made collectivism work. Until them, my statements stand as factual.

              • Even the american revolution enriched its backers, most continental soldiers got paid in land, because the value of the currency hadn’t been established. Plus, not having to pay taxes to the British crown certainly enriched Jefferson and Washington. It is silly to ask for a revolution that enriched everyone except its backers. The industrialization of China and the Soviet Union certainly help developed these nations.

                • Why is it “silly”? Because there hasn’t been one? But isn’t that what collectivism is supposed to do? Or is it only to share misery?

                  If if can’t uplift a population, then what is the point?

                  The industrialization of the Soviet Union and China had nothing to do with collectivism, it was a modernization of two economies in transition from agrarian to industrialized, something that America did 100 years before either of them. I might also point out that the USSR’s industrial output was in response to WWII and China’s was in response to the capitalism of other countries that were both teachers to China and consumers of their cheaper goods.

                  Jefferson and Washington were both wealthy men before the war and they did not undertake the Revolutionary War to make a profit – they did it so that all men could have the opportunities to achieve and be whatever their desires, drive and abilities would allow. That cannot be said of any of the collectivist “leaders”, their promise was of forced order by preventing one from being more successful than the other without government permission – supposedly for the benefit of all – funny how it never has worked out that way. Only America has delivered on what was promised – until we started believing that the way of the collectivist was better against all historical evidence.

                  • “Why is it “silly”? Because there hasn’t been one? But isn’t that what collectivism is supposed to do?”

                    No, the bourgeoisie certainly won’t be enriched by the revolution.

                • Karl, you don’t know history very well. Thomas Jefferson wanted to make slavery illegal so that he could free his own slaves. The reason he couldn’t just free them by his own decision was that he was deeply in debt and his debts were secured by his property, which included his slaves. He was not a wealthy man and actually died owing his creditors quite a lot.

                  George Washington paid for some of the expenses of the Continental Army with his own money. Although I don’t believe he died in debt, he certainly didn’t gain a huge fortune for being a general. They didn’t even pay him.

              • Utah, now you are changing the terms of the initial argument: I never said collectivist revs work, they don’t, they never have, they all became monstrous regimes for the respective populaces, and beneficiary only for the thugs-in-chief, I agree with all of this, how many more times you want me to repeat it, it is not what I’m contending here, please read my post. As a reminder, here are my contentions again from my previous reply:
                1. “This has happened in every collectivist “revolution” in the history of the world”. In fact, there have been exactly ZERO such cases of that kind of gradual process in world history. All those you name collectivist revolutions have been just violent coups (Russia, Cuba) or upheavals (China’s civil war), or imposed by external powers (by Soviets on Eastern Europe). So here I’m calling you on your implication that these were “gradual processes”, and that’s what I’m showing has never been the case, that’s it, nothing more.
                2. “Just like the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia in the early 1900′s, there has been a concerted effort by political power brokers to divide individual from individual”. Uh, no, not at all. There was no ‘political power’ doing such thing in Russia, let alone “concerted’. Here again you imply the Bolsh Rev was something “concerted by political power brokers” and this is your factual (big) error. It was not at all like that, unless you want to bestow an unheard of honor on the thuggish band of Bolsh leaders by calling them “political power brokers”, which I assume is not your intention.
                I totally agreed that the collect revs have never worked so no need to rehash that line again. On the other hand, I’m afraid all these implications you make about collectivist systems being somehow a result of gradual processes, stem from your basic conviction that Obama and his acolytes are Communists, and this is what I’m contending, as it’s not based on any facts. If they (Obama and Dems) were such, it would be the very first time in world history of communists usurping power gradually, so any of your previous historical references would be, by definition, moot.

                • I’m sorry that my comments were misunderstood but 1) the Bolshevik Revolution did not just fully form spontaneously from the dust. Stalin, Lenin and their cohorts had been moving politically to take over the government since as early as 1913, 4 years before the “revolution”. To say that it wasn’t initiated by power brokers is to ignore the roles of Lenin, Stalin and Trotsky who were every bit the power brokers in the Marxist camps.

                  As for it being a violent coup, Wikipedia summarizes several credible sources that indicate the “violence” was nothing but communist propaganda:

                  On 23 October [O.S. 10 October] 1917, the Bolsheviks’ Central Committee voted 10-2 for a resolution saying that “an armed uprising is inevitable, and that the time for it is fully ripe”.[6]

                  On 5 November [O.S. 23 October] 1917, Bolshevik leader Jaan Anvelt led his leftist revolutionaries in an uprising in Tallinn, the capital of the Autonomous Governorate of Estonia.[citation needed] Two days later, Bolsheviks led their forces in the uprising in Petrograd (modern day Saint Petersburg), the capital of Russia, against the Kerensky Provisional Government. For the most part, the revolt in Petrograd was bloodless, with the Red Guards led by Bolsheviks taking over major government facilities with little opposition before finally launching an assault on the poorly defended Winter Palace.[7]
                  The official Soviet version of events follows: An assault led by Vladimir Lenin was launched at 9:45 p.m. signaled by a blank shot from the cruiser Aurora. (The Aurora was placed in Petrograd and still stands there now.) The Winter Palace was guarded by Cossacks, cadets (military students), and a Women’s Battalion. It was taken at about 2 a.m. The earlier date was made the official date of the Revolution, when all offices except the Winter Palace had been taken. More contemporary research with access to government archives significantly corrects accepted Soviet edited and embellished history. The archival version shows that parties of Bolshevik operatives sent out from the Smolny by Lenin took over all critical centers of power in Petrograd in the early hours of the night without a shot being fired. In fact the effectively unoccupied Winter Palace also was taken bloodlessly by a small group which broke in, got lost in the cavernous interior, and accidentally happened upon the remnants of Kerensky’s provisional government in the imperial family’s breakfast room. The illiterate revolutionaries then compelled those arrested to write up their own arrest papers. The stories of the “defense of the Winter Palace” and the heroic “Storming of the Winter Palace” came later as the creative propaganda product of Bolshevik publicists. Grandiose paintings depicting the “Women’s Battalion” and photo stills taken from Sergei Eisenstein’s staged film depicting the “politically correct” version of the October events in Petrograd came to be taken as truth.[8]
                  Later official accounts of the revolution from the Soviet Union would depict the events in October as being far more dramatic than they actually had been.[9] (See firsthand account by British General Knox.) This was helped by the historical reenactment, entitled The Storming of the Winter Palace, which was staged in 1920. This reenactment, watched by 100,000 spectators, provided the model for official films made much later, which showed a huge storming of the Winter Palace and fierce fighting (See Sergei Eisenstein’s October: Ten Days That Shook the World).[citation needed] In reality the Bolshevik insurgents faced little or no opposition.[7] The insurrection was timed and organized to hand state power to the Second All-Russian Congress of Soviets of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies, which began on 25 October. After a single day of revolution eighteen people had been arrested and two had been killed.

                  As for Obama, I am not singling him or his cronies as communists. What I am proposing is that “progressives” are actually a collection of every leftist/collectivist belief from socialist to communist and that they have been working since Wilson to fundamentally change the US. Obama is a product of that system, he has just been more brash in his assessment that this change is ripe to happen now. It is factually impossible that the US has not become more collectivist over the past 150 years thought the influence of these “progressives”, who are really nothing more than communists with better PR firms.

                  150 years is pretty gradual.

                  • Man, Utah, so many words for almost nothing! My point was not how many were killed during Bolsh Rev, my point was that it was not gradual. Per your criteria if thugs threaten to kill you unless you give them your house, and you comply to save your life, then nothing violent has happened, as long as nobody was killed, right?
                    The Bolsh Rev was illegal, coercive, like all other revolutions by the way, the American one included, that’s what revolutions are by definition. So, ok, no graduality, I hope we agree on this point.
                    As for what you say about Obama, that is a quite different line of argument. Your point basically is that liberal policies are harmful to America, and this is a legitimate argument, which can be had without equating liberalism with communism as you do, because, again, there are ZERO examples in history where the end point of gradual liberal policies has been a Communist regime. On the other hand, there have been plenty of success stories of liberal policies softening the hardness of pure capitalism and creating the largest wealth for the largest numbers as in America under Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Clinton, as there have been successes of conservative policies as under Reagan, with none of them deserving the adjective ‘Communist”. Western Europe offers more successful examples of the same liberal policies. And you know what? When countries get to the bottom of big government policies, as was the case of Sweden, they turn around and inject conservative, small government policies without nobody there calling the other side Communist, like it’s so common here.

                    • You must have missed the point where I noted that the 1917 revolution was 4 years in the making. You also gloss over the point that historians now recognize the “violent coup” as something that was communist propaganda.

                      You also avoid the point of the US being changed by socialist/collectivist policies over the past 150 years, so you choose to parse and distort that I implied body count is a measure for a “violent coup”, when in reality the “violent coup” we were all taught about in school was something more akin to the hostile takeover of a company.

                    • Utah, I’m not sure why you consistently choose to argue about secondary and tertiary things, while completely ignoring my main points that I have repeatedly put forth. And on top of that, your timeline of history is totally confused, I’m not sure what your sources are but let me explain.
                      You say the 1917 revolution was 4 years in the making. This is totally irrelevant to the main discussion points because it doesn’t automatically bestow any “graduality” to the Bolshevik coup. Any single coup in history needs some preparation, it doesn’t qualify it as a ‘gradual’ event though. Heck, even if I go and rob a bank I need some preparation, but this doesn’t mean I robbed the bank gradually. Besides, historically I’m not sure why you say 4 years, what is the basis for such calculation? Why not 14 years, since the Communist Party of Russia was founded in 1903? That’s why I say your history sources are suspicious. And in any case, I don’t really see why you are so hung up on the ‘graduality’ thing. Is it because it would be the only way to equate Obama & liberalism with communism? If this is the reason, it’s a pity, as it would border on manipulation of history, something all dictatorships have been very fond of.
                      And then, if the “violent coup” was only result of Communist propaganda this doesn’t change my point at all. I gave you an example of a thug threatening violence, but you again ignored it. So please do not attempt to present communist revolutions, coups or takeovers anywhere in the world as ‘gradual’ processes, they never were such, they always included coercion, violence (or threatening of such) and total dismissal of any legality. And I don’t see why calling them ‘hostile takeovers’ would change anything to my argument or to yours. They were all hostile, this is a FACT.
                      As for Obama, you again are not clear about your historical sources. You talk in the same sentence about Wilson and 150 years, when Wilson was president only 90 years ago? So why is it 150 years? Does it mean liberalism in America started just after the Civil War? This would be for sure an interesting idea to explore. But then to talk about a communist gradual takeover? Come on, man!
                      Ad finally, you completely chose to ignore my main points, namely: -that there is a legitimate debate to be had about the DEGREE of government intervention, -that nobody in that debate is a Communist or a Fascist, -that nobody should call their opponents demonizing names as Communist, Fascist, Hitler, Stalin, comrade, etc because it only debases the level of discussion, -that there have been plenty examples of successful liberal policies in Western economies, -that when democratic Western countries reach the limits of ‘big gov’ policies they don’t become “Communist/Collectivist/Stalinist” countries, but just turn around and apply ‘small gov’ policies without demonizing their opponents, just like civilized and Christian people should behave.

                    • First of all, we disagree on the term “gradual”. To you “gradual” means anything that doesn’t fit your point. 4 years isn’t gradual, 150 years isn’t gradual, etc. Secondly, liberal policies in Europe mean something different than they do in the US. Liberal’s in Europe are anti-socialist, in the US, they are pro-socialist.

                      “Big government”, by definition implies a large percentage of involvement in society and the economy. How does it get there – by socialist/collectivist policies. So, yes, “big government” does imply socialism and collectivism.

                      My information on the Bolshevik Revolution came from reading history, a recounting of which was in much more depth than was taught in my high school and college courses.

                      What is clear is that it isn’t me that is making a different argument, you apparently want to re-frame the premise and redefine terms to fit your position.

                    • To me gradual means a process performed within the existing legitimate power structures and with legal means, in total absence of coercion. Simple as that. Provide a single example of a communist/collectivist regime having come to power thru such means, and I will eat crow. Just a single example would do.
                      Now, what you say next, namely “Big government”, by definition implies a large percentage of involvement in society and the economy” is exactly the crux of the matter for all the promoters of the so called ‘big gov’ – ‘small gov’ strife. It’s the crux of the matter because, after so many words and gallons of ink during all these years, NOBODY has come up with an exact definition: what is ‘ big gov’? How can you guys fight AGAINST something nobody has a precise definition of? How small is ‘small gov’? How can you fight FOR something nobody has a precise definition of? So everything is muddled. And it’s a known fact that such absence of clarity, such muddling of concepts & notions, have always been most favorable breeding soils for all kinds of demagoguery and manipulation.

                    • Provide a single example of a communist/collectivist regime having come to power thru such means, and I will eat crow.

                      Given that the American Progressives are admittedly the spawn of the Fabian Socialists, the same group that gave birth to Lenin, I think you need to start eating a big old fat helping of crow.

                      You see, the difference between the Progressives and Communists is just in how they aim to achieve their goals: 1 by revolution, the other by the subversion of the existing culture.

                      OH! And the way the progressives have done things IS coercion. You need to learn more history, dude.

                      Now, about that crow pie 😉

                    • Joe, you are still changing meaning of terms here, not providing any historical proofs. You are basically saying America is communist, which would be great news for all political scientist all over the world. And so that you know, Marx and Lenin fought tooth & nail against the Fabians, calling them ‘mere tools of the bourgeoisie’.
                      No crow yet. Sorry!

  3. Do you really think Joe Wants to eliminate the Corporation or just control them as a man made legal entity?

  4. Utah: Corporations have their place. But a person they are not. The very fact that their original use was to amass the capital necessary for large projects necessitates that their actions be controlled. Money is power, and the maxim that states, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely certainly applies not only to corporate officers but to politicians.

    • And once again, you are incorrect, the actual quote indicates that it is the love of money that is the root of all evil. I am about to get on a plane but I’ll rebut this whole mess when I stop moving. To single out a business entity that gets taxed like an individual, has legal standing to be sued like an individual and is regulated in ways an individual can’t even imagine being and then not to allow it to have some protections accorded to an individual is simply unfair.

      Corporate ownership benefits the economy and individuals greatly.

      You all aren’t talking about all corporations, only big ones. There is little evidence that simply being big equals being bad. To imply such sounds a lot like OWS to me.

  5. Pingback: The Rio Norte Line

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.