It became fashionable to admire the Chinese government. Hezbollah was seen as a popular movement. When Iranian protesters were rioting in the streets of Tehran, Washington thought it best to keep quiet. Palestine, not Israel, was the wave of the future in the Middle East. Anyone who had a gun received automatic respect. As Doug Saunders of the Globe and Mail put it only last month, the Western world seemed to have completely forgotten about anything except the need to keep on good terms with whatever government was in power:
When we deal with Sudan or Libya or China today, it is to make deals or to guarantee military support, not to demand elections in exchange for any of that. The more important goal is not democracy but stability. And, by paying large sums to sustain the rule of Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan, Nouri al-Maliki in Iraq and Mahmoud Abbas in the West Bank, or by paying the regimes of Syria, Libya or even Sudan to help us, we are buying stability at the explicit price of democracy. After the huge effort and attention devoted to the 2005 and 2009 elections in Afghanistan, we virtually ignored this autumn’s parliamentary vote: Afghan stability now trumps democracy.
There had even been some relief that hard choices no longer had to be made. You dealt with the man on the throne and left judgments about right and wrong to them Bible clingers. Of course, things were never clear cut. Thomas Carothers, writing in Foreign Policy, notes that Washington has always been ambivalent towards spreading democracy even when it was openly espoused by George W. Bush:
The United States faces two contradictory imperatives: on the one hand, the fight against al Qaeda tempts Washington to put aside its democratic scruples and seek closer ties with autocracies throughout the Middle East and Asia. On the other hand, U.S. officials and policy experts have increasingly come to believe that it is precisely the lack of democracy in many of these countries that helps breed Islamic extremism.
Resolving this tension will be no easy task. So far, Bush and his foreign policy team have shown an incipient, albeit unsurprising, case of split personality: “Bush the realist” actively cultivates warm relations with “friendly tyrants” in many parts of the world, while “Bush the neo-Reaganite” makes ringing calls for a vigorous new democracy campaign in the Middle East.
After Bush was gone things promised to be so much simpler. But the world isn’t like that. Events in Tunisia are a reminder that there is a real reason why authoritarianism is bad. It leads to policies which ultimately engender unrest and ruination. Supporting such regimes may temporarily be necessary, but as rule they are bad in the long run. There is considerable irony in the fact that Tunisian street protests were inflamed by leaked State Department cables describing the shenanigans of Ben Ali’s family. Sooner or later the ends will not meet and the choice, when belated, is even more painful. These lessons should be borne in mind as the crisis in Lebanon unfolds. Hezbollah will not be dominant forever. Over the long term, freedom and prosperity win.
Don’t bet on the strongman forever. What doesn’t work cannot last indefinitely.
“No Way In” print edition at Amazon
Tip Jar or Subscribe for $5
While not Arab, Turkey has a fair facsimile of democracy, and a growing economy. And yet…
Ya, like someone in our current (or past) Democrat administration will get this… They where increasing the Aide for the “Status quo” now that the apple carts been turned over “0bama” will sure not let this crisis go to waste, he’ll quickly halt the Aide to Tunisia and send it to Hezbollah… (followed by a bowing session) With the coming employment, housing, _______ (fill in the blank) collapse and hyper inflation coupled with the worthless Dollar what chance does the budding freedom in Tunisia have? H3ll what chance does it have here!!!
I would really like to visit Tunisia and Algeria, and Lebanon. If they would just be reasonably peaceful I’m there in the next year or so. Nothing bigger than .30 cal anywhere within earshot please.It would be really nice and financially rewarding for all concerned nations if this could be accomplished.
Free people are naturally prosperous because they bring home the fruit of their own labor. An unnatural state of serfdom and poverty occurs when government (a small group of other people) forcefully robs and then “collectivizes” the fruit of other people’s labor – in violation of natural law (all men are created with an equal right to the fruit of their own labor in pursuit of happiness). The temptation to pig out on collectivized property and to use it for bribing people and buying votes is an irresistible force for most people in government. Orwell said it best:
“It had long been realized that the only secure basis for oligarchy is collectivism. Wealth and privilege are most easily defended when they are possessed jointly. The so-called “abolition of private property” [Communist Manifesto] meant in effect the concentration of property in far fewer hands than before… In the years following the Revolution it [The Socialist Party of Oceania] was able to step into this commanding position almost un-opposed because the whole process was represented as an act of collectivization… It had always been assumed that if the Capitalist Class were expropriated Socialism must follow; and unquestionably the Capitalists had been expropriated. Factories, mines, land, houses, transport, everything had been taken away from them; and since these things were no longer private property it followed that they must be public property. Ingsoc [Socialist Principles of Oceania], which grew out of the earlier Socialist movement and inherited its phraseology, has in fact carried out the main item in the Socialist program with the result; foreseen and intended beforehand, that economic inequality has been made permanent.” George Orwell – 1984
Serfdom and poverty are inevitable in a collectivist society because the people comprising collectivist (excessively taxing) government are greedy for property, and so is the so-called proletariat class – the lazy class which depends on collectivist government to rob the working class on their behalf.
Compare Marx to Adams and Jefferson:
“In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so; that is just what we intend… The proletariat [lazy, tax-eating, non-disabled poor] will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital [property] from the bourgeoisie [laboring, tax-paying middle class], to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state [Marxist Government]… Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property… and the abolition of this state of things is called by the bourgeois, abolition of individuality and freedom! And rightly so. The abolition of bourgeois [middle class] individuality, bourgeois independence, and bourgeois freedom is undoubtedly aimed at… We have seen above that the first step in the revolution by the [non] working class is to raise the proletariat [lazy class] to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy.” Karl Marx
“Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can.” Samuel Adams
“The true foundation of republican government is the equal right of every citizen in his person and property and in their management… To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father’s has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association–the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it… The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not… Take not from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.” Thomas Jefferson
Too bad the President didn’t publicly support the Iranian students and demonstrators as forthrightly as he has their Tunisian counterparts.
evan @ 1 said:
“While not Arab, Turkey has a fair facsimile of democracy, and a growing economy. And yet…”
For Tunisia, the other shoe hasn’t yet dropped. If they follow standard operating procedure, they’ll do something idiotic like adopt sharia, persecute their minorities and require their women to walk around in black bags with eye holes.
Forgotten Man @ 3 said:
“I would really like to visit Tunisia and Algeria, and Lebanon. If they would just be reasonably peaceful I’m there in the next year or so.”
Me to! Ancient Carthage is located in Tunis. I’d love to tour the place. Some of the best Roman ruins in the world are in Libya. Lebanon has amazing Greek ruins. Damascus is supposed to be one of the Arab world’s most interesting cities (not as nasty as Cairo). I’ve previously “done” Egypt but I’d like to do Egypt again. Lots of interesting stuff to see in Egypt. Unfortunately Egypt is ***Very Dangerous*** with lots of Islamic fanatics who dream about killing Jews and Christians (they do their best to kill local Egyptian Christians). For the most part, the Egyptians are real nice people and it irritates me that the Egyptians can’t get this evil out of their system (I wish there was some way the Copts could end up back in control).
Authoritarian governments are always socialist, whether the iron socialism of communism or the softer socialism of Europe. But essentially they are all the same. The Left proclaims they care, they only want to help, they only want what’s fair for all. They never tell you the truth, that what they really want is to rule. Rule your life, rule your soul, rule your very being, your every breath. But socialism inevitably fails, and failure leads to hungry kids, and hungry kids leads to angry men, and angry men lead to democracy or totalitarianism. And you never know which it will be..
In failing lands where price of bread
Is far beyond a poor man’s pay
Where hungry kids lie in their bed
That man will look to find a way
To feed his kids and keep them well
When government has failed to keep
The promises that they did sell
That lulled the populace to sleep
The bubbles burst, they always do
The dreams of socialists soon die
As benefits flow to the few
And in their beds the hungry lie
Note to self; “Self, after the Obama collapse and civil war, and your takeover of America as the First Tyrant, DO NOT promote relatives into positions of power.”
Actually, America has done a pretty good job. In 1776, there was only one other ‘democracy’; Switzerland (Since 1310). Now there are over 100 with some form of consensual government.
I think the difference here is one of perspective. Philosophy if you will. Big Kill vs Gatherers. This is thousands of years old and still unresolved. Going from 1 to over 100 by a slow and steady advance goes unnoticed by the Big KIll crowd.
For those unfamiliar with the theories, let me take a bit ‘o Richards BW. Back in the day ( way back, as in caves, skins and pointy sticks), there were two important ways of feeding the tribe. First was hunting, second was gathering. The hunters soon learned that bigger animals had more meat ( duh! This was before the internet and google). So hunters hunted the big animals. This was easier. Small animals were harder to catch and had less meat. The problem was Big animals could hurt you if things went wrong. So the safest way to hunt big animals was by using fire to drive them over a cliff. At the bottom of the cliff, they became the 40,000 B.C. version of McDonalds. This was termed “the Big KIll” by anthropologists. Mainly because nobody knows what the cave men called it. Not McDonalds and NOT GIECO.
Meanwhile, about the same time some gatherers were gathering having killed off all the big animals in the area. THey noticed that the grasses they were gathering were extra tasty. So tasty that they decided to make camp next to a local stream. over time, that camp became a city. Then there was civilization, followed shortly there after by politicians.
So that is why were have one group of people that prefer slow steady gains leading to a common goal and one group of people that want it all RIGHT NOW. Big Kill vs Gatherers, or, if you prefer, Conservatives vs Liberals.
AS a conservative gatherer I think we are doing pretty good and in another century or so we will have a global government that is consensual in nature, which means the end of war. Remember, war is a government function. NO nations means no wars. Democracy is inevitable. Borg ‘em.
Then there is the Big Kill hunter in me that thinks by nuking Moscow and Beijing one fine night next week, we can get there by the end of the year.
W wrote: “there is a real reason why authoritarianism is bad. It leads to policies which ultimately engender unrest and ruination.”
Indeed. But look around — ‘democratic’ governments around the world are also actively pursuing policies which are unsustainable and will lead to ruin. (Think of the Anthropogenic Global Warming scam, for example).
Just having an election from time to time does not change anything. The Tunisian disturbances were apparently sparked when police impounded a street vendor’s cart – his only means of support — because he did not have the proper permit, and he burned himself to death in protest. How is that police action different from a judge in California shutting down water to agriculture (leaving thousands unemployed), or a bureaucrat in Washington shutting down drilling operations in the Gulf of Mexico (leaving more thousands unemployed)?
Elections are not a magic talisman. By the same token, lack of elections does not automatically mean cruel repression. There is something else at work here.
So glad the democracy project is tamping down Islamic fascism in Turkey, Gaza, Lebanon, Iraq, and Afghanistan. I was a fool. I supported war in Afghanistan and Iraq. I thought that 9/11 proved finally that America finally took the threat of Islam seriously, and would do whatever necessary to crush it wherever it raised it’s ugly head in threat against us. Instead we got nation building with f**king Sharia as the foundation in both Iraq and Afghanistan, enshrining the very essence of Islamic Jihad and assuring that these nations will never be friendly to us.
When Muslims are given the chance, 100% of the time they vote for Islam Uber Alles.
Most Arabs come from places with no oil or if from places with oil are far removed from the narrow clan base that profits from the oil. Most North Africans are only Arabs by definition, being speakers of a form of Arabic and descended from an amalgam of native Romanized Christians or Animist Berbers with Arab tribes that arrived comparatively recently, after the 8th century. When the Arabs jacked up the price of oil in 1973 the real losers were all the people in 3rd World places like Sub-Saharan Africa. The Green Revolution depended on cheap petroleum based fertilizer and insecticides. The Saudis did give the starving millions something to replace the food they no longer could grow, mosques. Now the love is coming back around as oil revenues are falling and food prices are rising even for the members of the Ummah.
Over the long term, freedom and prosperity win.
Francis Fukuyama’s “End of History” message, in essence. What I believe happened is that he mistimed “events, dear boy, events.”
I also suspect that the end game – where freedom and prosperity win – is still precariously balanced at an indeterminate 50-50 tipping point.
exsqueeze me, didn’t you just post yesterday on Lebanon and the failure five years later of their Orange Revolution?
I don’t know squat about Tunisia or whoever it is who just bugged out or even exactly why he bugged out, just because a bunch of twittering yutes gathered in front of his palace to be gassed and shot. What I’m subtly saying is I don’t know if his dictatorship was justified, given what I assume is an Islamic population, as in retrospect just perhaps the shah of Iran was justified, or even (hold your nose for this), saddam hussein. btw, I would never have said such a thing even five years ago, but now … I just don’t know anymore. Maybe Tunisia can get it right. For the first time in the world.
BUT, if it was a revolution of rising expectations in today’s global environment of failing systems and overcapacity, then I don’t know that it’s a good sign at all. And, the one thing that Islam always supports is a populist revolution against any centralized government, especially secular, as they assume will always be exploitational and corrupt. In which, they may very nearly be right, though they lose by being so dogmatic (if that’s the term) about it, they leave no room for anything at all.
On the matter of where the US sits on this officially or unofficially, I hope we’re on the side of the angels, as soon as we can figure out which side that is.
Let’s see. It’s hardly a secret thjat if democracy ever comes to Egypt, the result will be pretty much the same as the Gaza elections: the insane blooodthirsty theocrats will come out on top. Similar to the “popular revolution” in Iran in 1979; and Turkey is “democratically” bgecoming a Shariah state.
Hitler was elected, remember?
FM Lieberman and his faction in the IDF will nuke Syria, Iran or someone else in the near future—
Hoping his little Rodina in the Sun fantasy/ regime will get Putins support
—no chance buddy–you are on your own
Putin says
– he is not stupid.
After that all the world will boycott all Israeli products–end of story.
End the of Rodina in the Sun–It is surprising that Russian emigrants, like FM Lieberman, still idolize Stalin and the horror–well never mind-it is what it is, and was
There are lots of sane Israelis–but they do not get any air time on this Titanic disaster of the Lieberman regime.
How does having democracy promote beneficial outcomes when there is significant ethnic differences within a region? And especially when these ethnic differences translate into actual gulfs in achievement, wealth, and opportunity?
It’s once been said that democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what is for dinner. Liberty is a lamb armed with a gun. What if it’s ten wolves and a lamb, and the wolves are armed as well? The lamb doesn’t stand a chance.
No, effective democracy is, I contend, an end state where the wolves have been tamed into dogs. You cannot use it as an instrument to bring peace and prosperity in so many places because the conditions simply are not suitable.
I point to Spain and Chile as examples where a fascist regime led to democracy where a democracy might have failed right away. For the ethnic problem, Southeast Asia is replete with examples. Certainly I can see it in Malaysia, just across the Causeway.
Democracy, diversity, prosperity. Pick any two.
Checking online, I see that there is a fractional Jewish minority in Tunisia, 1% of the overall population, mostly stuck on an island. This implies they have little share of the national economy, unlike the minority chinese in much of Southeast Asia.
This lack of a gulf, more than anything else, would protect them from overzealous majority Muslims when democracy arrives. So this could be a classic example – democracy, diversity (of a sort), but no prosperity.
FM Lieberman and his faction in the IDF will nuke Syria, Iran or someone else in the near future—
Hoping his little Rodina in the Sun fantasy/ regime will get Putins support
—no chance buddy–you are on your own
Putin says– he is not stupid.
After that all the world will boycott all Israeli products–end of story.
End of Rodina in the Sun–surprising that Russian emigrants, like FM Lieberman, still idolize Stalin and the horror–well never mind-it is what it is.
Wired notes that the fall of the Tunisian regime comes precisely at the time when the Obama administration began a massive escalation in foreign aid to that country.
Of course. Massive increase in foreign aid will usually destabilize a country. The question is, “Who controls the loot?”
In a kleptocracy, foreign aid undermines the local economy. While government officials and their thieving friends get rich pocketing foreign aid, ordinary people face higher prices for everything precisely because there is more money in the economy – money ordinary people rightly assume will never trickle down to them.
Even in the best scenario, foreign aid goes through the local government and gets distributed by the local government, enhancing the power of the local government.
We should watch Tunisia carefully. Is this really about democracy? Let’s wait and see.
Obama is more to blame than Wretchard lets on. See, oil and all commodities( that includes grains and other foodstuffs that can be sold on the world market) are rising because Helo Ben is devaluing the dollar through QE2. And Helo Ben believes he must do dat in part to cover Buraq’s enormous deficits. (The other part is to cover the thieving Big Bank’s back). Since America is the world’s breadbasket, our needed food exports are just getting started on their way to getting very expensive for those with weak currencies or are tied to the dollar like China, as Helo Ben has a lot more printing of money in store.
So I think a great bronx cheer is in order for the oh so compassionate Democrats, Helo Ben and our great Savior, Buraq Hussein Obama! They’re well on their way to starving millions around the globe. Such compassion.
Unsk, I think it is more stupidity then malice. None of them dudes are smart enough to pour piss out of a boot with the instructions written on the heel as we say down here.
Walt @7. Outstanding poem! Original? Wherever it came from it is an apt description of what is coming in this country if the politicians keep on screwing us over. I am 72, was in the military for 20 years, and am now ready to take “what ever means” are necessary to keep my children “free” in the truest sense of the word!
With the Obama Admin, as well as the Clinton one, I think the lack of support for democracy has less to do with a Realpolitik approach than it does embrace of the “We’re no better than anyone else and the philosophical underpinnings of our country are not superior to anyone else’s.”
After all, if you support democracy then you have to agree that some ideas and lifestyles are better than others, and that is the biggest Leftist no-no of all. Once there is a chink in that armor their whole sorry mess comes unzipped.
“Time to get on the right side”. And by “right side” they mean the side of democracy.”
Try telling that to Obama. He refused to help the protesters in Iran after their election, even though this was the best chance in 30 years to overthrow the regime there. Nope, when is everybody going to understand that this guy just doesn’t care what happens around the world. He is a European socialist who only cares about massive domestic government spending on huge social welfare programs. Everything else is, as he is so fond of saying, “a distraction.”
Eggplant, Evan
Tunisia was and probably still is a safe place for tourists, Tourism is the main revenue for Tunisia, so the police managed that the foreigners weren’t annoyed
This is just such a perfect storm of so many failed lefty policies it is hard to figure out where to start. The most glaring one is the large destablizing influx of Obamacash. I thought it was “imperialist” to do anything of the sort, or is that only when Republicans do it? Libs have long wanted gasoline to be $8 a gallon, to “reflect its true environmental cost”, so they do not exactly have the stomach to do much about rising oil prices no matter how many hospitals, public schools and homeless shelters are affected. The situation in the world is reminiscient of 1979, where Carter’s foreign policy based on “human rights” led to China invading Vietnam, Vietnam invading Cambodia, and the Soviet Union invading Afghanistan. Oh, and Castro had troops in Africa. Wonder where the “anti war” movement was then, after all, those were all lefty peacenik model regimes waging war on poor third worlders. (Its OK if you call it “agrarian reform”.) They sure weren’t marching on the White House like they were during Vietnam, or later Iraq, or posturing as human shields. I guess “peace” means the US sits on the sidelines in critical self reflection and mails out blood money while the rest of the world descends into hell.
Stormrider, your comments were great. I kept the entire comment in my “quote” file for propagation to the rest of us who need to understand more of the nature of our impending oppression. Thank you for your clear voice.
This idea that everything has to be ‘collectively or publicly’ owned and shared by everyone, brings to mind everyone sharing the same public toilet. Even if maintained, not quite the same as one’s own toilet.
I do so wish private bathrooms were back in vogue. Much nicer for all.
With all due disrespect, what does a Don Ricardito de Fernández y Podhòrertz know from Tunisia?
The _nuevoseñorito_ even sees this point itself, sorta, insofar as the poor but revolting Tounnies themselves quickly disappear into a quagmire of win’mills, an’ Freedumb Agendas, an’ miscellaneous assorted whatever that is all a little less off F&P’s usual beat.
Why, it doesn’t even much bash America’s Barry!
Meanwhile, anybooby who is in earnest about Native Management should address herself to a problem noticed by the New York Times Company account:
¡Happy days! (through affordable healthcare)
–JHM
Walt. If you haven’t already published those lines of poetry you should. They are the best lines I have read in many years. Congratulations and thank you for sharing them with us.
not too far OT, analysis by race of US education rankings:
http://www.vdare.com/sailer/101219_pisa.htm
in summary, for each racial group, US schools outperform the world – or at least come close, if you believe the mainland China results are really that high.
You can look up Tunisia on the chart, but a lot of Islamic nations didn’t even play.
4. Storm-Rider
Five stars …. “engrossing, trenchant,and accurate”
Habu Review and Saturday Coupon News…
Great job dude.
H
30. Josh
Thanks for the link. All I can say is “wow, just wow”. I’m bookmarking it so I can pass it on.
Maybe the “Starve thy Neighbor” meme will get a little more traction now as we turn cropland into production for fuels vs food. It’s very green you know. And that’s a key reason why the price of grains are at multiyear highs. And we haven’t even yet implemented the 15% ethanol standard, up from 10%. Just to remind that this isn’t just a liberal issue, there are lots of people in the corn belt getting rich off of this.
It’s time that this Greenhouse Gas fiasco gets rolled back so that we can use the resources that we were blessed with to fix the problems of not enough fuel and food.
This is what you get when there’s not enough bread for your Tunis sandwich.
Well, I personally don’t see this as a totally home grown revolt rising simply from inflationary prices. I see the inflationary price rises as an opportunity for foreign intrigue and the fomenting of unrest in a country that has a fairly diverse US business base.
I don’t see democracy (a republic yes) as anything but developing the traditional “tyranny of the majority” which is 98% Islamic and we all know what that means.
Further along it won’t be tenable for the US to be able to maintain either our corporate interests there or the important military forward-operating sites we have in place. This will become another tumultuous place of lawlessness and Islamic fundamentalism with the concomitant death spiral into total chaos and poverty, probably aided by the growing Chinese presents in Tunisia which they will exploit in the coming decade to move into the Med.
This was not home grown revolution but has all the earmarks of outside intervention.
“Oil at $100 a barrel reminds us that energy prices are the single biggest driver of food price volatility.”
The single biggest driver of the price (or volatility of the price) of any good is the balance between supply and demand. The barking dog in this case is a reduction in overall supply based on the impact of weather in South America and Australia. To make a finer point, it’s the anticipated reduction in supply reflected in the futures market, i.e. price is information.
Unsurprisingly, humans never miss an opportunity to miss and opportunity. So aside from weather their is the usual “unanticipated” confluence of Poor Government Policy.
Many non first world nations subsidize (control) the price of basic foodstuffs. At some point the burden becomes unsustainable and the government eliminates the subsidies and the result is food riots.
As the first world floods the market with cheap currency, financial institutions seek a higher return stampeding into “the next big thing” which today appears to be commodities.
Ethanol mandates play a role as well. Why should American farmers sell corn to feed lots when they can collect government production and tax benefits supplying Archers Daniel Midland and others? After all, the government has mandated that Americans use food as an oil substitute. The organized few collect their rent while the diffuse many pay the bill and endure the predictable but somehow “unintended” consequences.
@4 Storm-Rider, splendid. And Wretchard as always.
can’t tell the players without a program…
any body have a link to a good summary of the situation in Tunisia?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/country_profiles/791969.stm
A little BBC suplied background on Tunisia.
American Leftists are the Pigs of Animal Farm who see themselves as “more equal than others.” The Marxist Pigs are enthralled with the idea of government (themselves) owning the fruit of the laboring “little animals” where all the eggs, apples, corn, etc. is placed into a commune – a communal pot under their exclusive control. The Marxist Pigs control communal property – they are the commune-ists. The Marxist Pigs, after gorging themselves with a lion’s share of communal food, require all the “little animals” to approach their communal pot, tails wagging, in order to receive their leftover rations; and they must lick the hand that feeds them. Pig (Marxist) government encourages the lazy proletariat animals to relax in the barn while the others work in the fields; with this they can set up a perverted form of “democracy.” The Pigs control all the property in the communal pot, so they are in a position to in effect steal property from the laboring animals (“from each according to his abilities”) and give to the lazy (“to each according to his needs”) in return for votes. The lazy animals have unlimited needs, so the laboring animals may be taxed without limit. The Marxist Pigs are the managers of this struggle between the working and lazy classes, and through vote-purchasing (votes purchased with stolen property) set up a self-perpetuating perverted form of “democracy” which keeps them in power. The Marxist Pigs must not allow the “little animals” to write a Declaration or Constitution, but if they do it can be ignored or arbitrarily changed because they are “living documents.”
The Marxist Pigs of Animal Farm turn to Socialism/Communism because they get to be “more equal than others;” they get to be the not-to-be-equalized-equalizers of the “little animals” (serfs). Their “equality” of course is a massive Orwellian lie. Never mind that the Marxist Pigs end up as a new ruling class – superior (unequal) in property and superior (unequal) before law. Never mind that the equality between the lazy animals and the working animals finally ends up as equal poverty – because eventually the working animals become exhausted and there won’t be enough food – except of course for the Pigs who always raid the pot first. The lazy animals (proletariat class) turn to Socialism/Communism because they get to feast on the fruit of the laboring class – and flip them the bird as they swallow down.
The end game of Marxist “social justice” is anarchy followed by dictatorship, because with time more and more laboring animals become demoralized and exhausted and head for the barn – hands outstretched to the Marxist Pigs. Eventually there aren’t enough laboring animals in the fields to support the bloated Pigs plus the animals in the barn. Food production falls and hunger ensues. The “little animals” are desperate and resort to theft and if necessary to violence in order to obtain some food. At this point the Marxist Pigs “come to the rescue” with a “dictatorship of the proletariat” (code for dictatorship of the Marxist Pigs). Self-serving economic collapse is not a bug within Marxism; it is a cardinal feature.
“If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you… ” Samuel Adams
40. Storm-Rider
And who today are the global Marxists pigs?
Which nation is building a military much,much larger than is necessary for defense?
Which nation has openly declared it wants global hehemony?
#41
The same country that has used its global cultural power to spread cultural Marxism around the world: The USA.
42. coisty
Sad dude, very sad. Go back and hit the bong one more time.
Coitsy is right in the sense that our country has been infiltrated by both cultural and economic Marxism. I pray to God that “We the People” can eventually defeat the American Marxist counter-revolution.
Here are some links to Cultural Marxism:
http://www.academia.org/the-origins-of-political-correctness/
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8630135369495797236&hl=en#
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COFxTEo31Y8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkwgbQ_VarA
H @ 43: I dunno dude, maybe #42 has a point. Don’t we have a potus who believes from each according to his ability, to each according to his need? Isn’t Baywatch violently imposed on the trembling populations of nations that can only dream of the wonders of lycra, and don’t we try to scare them into submission by also causing the broadcast of Knight Rider? Much less burdening the planet’s ecosystem with the carbon footprint needed to inundate us all with high frequency radio waves just so people worldwide can use twitter and facebook to bring down legitimate governments? The world is in the grasp of that hideous strength, and that hideous strength is us.
/don’t bogart that salvia my friend
A fine example of this is Cuba, once a ‘Democracy’. Before the communist regime (Government) “took over their lives”, Cuba was prosperous, clean, shining. It’s people were ‘proud’ of ‘their’ Cuba. How sadly things have changed. Now Cubans and their Government run “lifestyle” is ‘hidden’ from the tourist who of course, have only the ‘best’ of everything. And native Cubans are banned from participating.
Listen good, people in America, especially those who ‘think’ they are in poverty, should really take a look at what a ‘Government run’ ‘everything’ does to its people. Because….
…Now in Cuba, there is tons and tons of poverty (Real and dirty poverty) the Communist/Socialist Government of Cuba ‘rations’ how much food they can purchase (ration coupons/cards), Food and staples are scarce. The ‘Government’ tells them what they can and can’t ‘talk about’, what can be imported, what radio and TV shows the listening and viewing public can watch. How religions are run. The Cuban Government health care system for “Cubans” is horrible, vastly different from hospitals who service ‘visitors’ (tourists).
People like Carter and ‘others’, will beg to differ because he/they see only what the Cuban Government wants them to see. And that is not a lie. Many of the pictures found at the following website were smuggled out of Cuba at great risk to the individuals who want the truth be told.
SEE: http://www.therealcuba.com/ for what we can be headed for..
The sad and ‘scary’ thing about those in the United States who beg for the ‘Redistribution of Wealth’ (a softer catch phrase then ‘socialism’, which is yet another ‘softer’ catch phrase for ‘communism’ ), and a Government Control of Health care, is that once the Government gets their ‘tentacles’ around Healthcare, they have their ‘tentacles’ around ‘us’ (you). There will be no stopping the Government from overreaching into every individuals lives. If they haven’t gone far enough now, I don’t want to give them a reason to continue.
Why? Because if we don’t fight back against government ‘control’ over and ‘in’ our lives, one day people will ask the same question and the answer will be – Because the Government ‘can’, because we ‘let’ them. The ‘Government’ can ‘giveth’ and the Government can ‘taketh’ away. And, ” that’s” no Lie!
I can’t believe Wretchard could be so wrong. The lack of democracy in the Middle East has nothing to do with Arabs and everything to do with Islam. The exceptions prove the rule: Israel isn’t Muslim, and democracy emerged in Turkey from a military dictatorship that specifically banned Islamic parties. Since this ban has been lifted, democracy in Turkey is rapidly disappearing. Tunisia has kicked out a dictator, whoop-di-doo. Unless the military seizes control (creating a “democracy”) along the lines of Egypt, we will have the dictatorship of Sharia which smothers freedom in ways that Tunisia’s departed dictator would never have dreamed.
45. Josh
What the hell kind of delerium has infected your deepest fissures? Lycra,Baywatch, Knightrider, carbon footprint and all this from the heinous, lurid, USA exporting Marxism.
Can you be any more lame?
Tell you what. No one has any business seriously discussing the virtues of having Tunisia become a democracy until they have read and UNDERSTAND the Ferderalist #10, THE most cogent explaination of it’s numerous shortfalls ever written. I am under no illusion that even 5% here will read it …to busy grinding out chloroform text.
Further I’m not rising to any more rancid bait in an effort to counter what some contributors think is a valid and logical argument. A pure waste of my time.
Damn Habu did you get up on the wrong side of the bed?
So what’s it to ‘ya?
Hey dude just ask’n , don’t get postal and all..chill.
h @ 48: Can you be any more lame?
Well, that was my best effort, though what import that has for the world is another matter.
regrading the ferderalist #10, Madison never met Nancy Pelosi and didn’t have to deal with an Islamic element. in any case I miss your intent – are you saying that a democratic republic must be proof against what we fear will prevent it, various Islamic centripalities, or that these will indeed prevent it?
In the days before Obama and the other Presidents that APPEASED the ruling dictators,you could stop all aid to country’s that terrorised their people and it would help. NOW they send millions abroad to different countries and get or ask for nothing in return.It has become normal to just hand out money to nations no matter what they do.
How about a bit of common sense and force democracy onto nations by denying them any help.It would not take long before they would help themselves to a better future.Look at the PLO, or West Bank. America sends Millions,and I mean Millions of taxpayers dollars to them to keep the peace.They are a hairs breadth away from revolting against Hamas.If money were held back then I think the PLO problem would solve itself.But America MUST not help by way of money.Wait until you see the inside of those houses.You would not believe the luxury they live in whilst crying poor.The ruling class in the West Bank mostly live in Syria,with large houses and large bank accounts.Their wages in the Gov of the West Bank are higher than the US.Because it’s American and European money.They are really taking the world for a ride.Some of the Aid money goes directly to Iran,and that’s why they prefer money to food for aid. If they get too much food,then they sell it on the black market.Just ask any soldier that has returned from Iraq or Afghanistan, what the black market is like for aid products?
Look at Haiti,There was enough money sent to pay each person $2000. Where did the money go?, to the organisers in Haiti and America.People MUST be downtrodden enough to force a change of Gov themselves.
Why not give it a go,and save the taxpayers money for America.
re: (benevolent) dictatorships taming the wolves, creating a necessary, but not sufficient environment for democracy.
Is there a third (less bloody) alternative? Colonialism, or perhaps some form of receivership / a twist of salvage law of the sea? Auction off the disaster case? Win-win perhaps? Commercial exploitation for the colonist, stability for the colony, with economic followed by political freedom for the colony. Weigh costs in dollars and lives from each approach. We know what Allende had planned before Pinochet (use Cuba as a proxy for the analysis, but Chile would have been much more bloody – the sovs were much more sophisticated and ruthless a decade after Castro’s revolution).
Granted, the collectivists have reached the Left’s equality of income goals (save for their elites, but by definition they are angels, deserving of all their perqs). Hmm. Occurs to me I’d much rather have large scale income inequality that’s visible and criticized (as a goad to improve the worth of the least of us) than a government that refused to share the wealth.
Haiti and the Maghreb, Araby and the rest are uncorrectable societies.
My Nephew is down in SA in the heart of HIV/AIDs…
It’s all that he can do to get them to change ANYTHING…
Like stopping projective coughing!
The ‘hygiene’ of the locals simply can’t be posted here. It’s too shockingly bad. Really, beyond belief.
Sending in food aid just makes the tragedy worse. They’re hitting the wall, Easter Island style, and there’s nothing you can do about it. Permitting immigration from such sources is to shift the tragedy home.
———
Our national economic advantages are being neutered by the Resident as fast as he can go. That’s a core philosophical belief for the Zero. America is too….. Whatever… And he’s here to stop her.
I note that former South Africans can’t visit Disney World — when they’re white. Talk about in your face racism!
Meanwhile, every manner of wahhabist scum is permitted to rage against America from blood pulpits without the slightest tremors from ‘homeland security.’ What a joke.
Let’s be clear. Those countries that have implemented Democracy without the the supremacy of the protections of our god given unalienable rights and liberties, have or will fail over time. Far too many fling around the word Democracy without that context.
Islam is not compatible with our concept of liberty. Period.
Those Islamic countries that try democracy without neutering Islam first, will fail. Also, those western democracies, including America, that grant equal religious rights to Islam without specifically forbidding those Islamic practices and those parts of Sharia law incompatible with our fundamental rights will succumb eventually to the ravages of Jihad.
As for the economic sphere, protection of property rights are key to the success of any market based economy whether it be Egypt, Tunisia, Turkey or California. Our current depression is as much a result of a failure to protect our citizens’ property rights from the ravages of the far left fascist/marxist/ stalinists, as anything else.
53. Unsk
Nicely put.
My skepticism over any lasting Islamic country installing “democracy” is predicated on what you pointed out. Islam and democracy or even a democratic republic is an oxymoron due entirely to their Islamic philosophy.
Those who buy into this Tunisian situation changing the Islamic world are in for a mind cratering let down when they reflect on just how democracy and Islam mix. You can call something anything you want, ie. The PRC or the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) but it doesn’t make it so, and to suggest that the USA exports Marxism more than Marxist based countries are is risible lunacy.
Absolute proof or American decadence that we no longer even give lip service to the idea of democracy, which, as you say, is the inborn desire of every man and the only road to freedom and prosperity. Always enjoy your pieces and their very original and passionate thinking.
The Elite Marxist Pigs that control all property/food and dole it out to the hand kissing laborers AFTER giving the lion’s share of the leftovers to their lazy supporters(Marxist voters with their unlimited needs) had best look out.
Look out for what?
The rusty bayonettes that will become familiar with their intestinal tracts.
“Gangrene and a Marxist pig makes for an entertaining sight”, said the laborers, and their was no shortage of laborers in the fields, after implementation of a simple law, “You work you eat, you don’t work, you don’t eat”.
Ari Tai @51
It’s not even islam that could be the trigger. Any form of difference in culture, language etc could be the basis for the failure of democracy.
My personal preferred solution is the one chosen by Japan – homogeneous societies tend to deal better with income inequalities.
Habu,
If China does colonise Tunisia and suppresses the indigenous muslim population for its own demographic needs, would you be in favor or against?
I tend to take the view that the Chinese state capitalist/authoritarian system is a far sight better than any islamic alternative on offer.
Go Carthaginians!
Best of luck to you, You will need it. Somewhere in your Armed Forces lurks a man or men. Are he/they the equivalent of George Washington or Santa Ana?
Is there a bearded Turban somewhere calling the shots? Do it right O’ Children of Hannibal and become something special or do it the usual half-assed way and stay as you are changing only the faces and names at Government House. Dr. halit
.57 Wobbly Guy
Any particular reason that China should want to take over Tunisia when a decaying Russia in a demographic death spiral is next door with all kinds of natural resources and space?
They can walk to the Russian Far East.
Of course, BOTH those countries face a demographic crash, but China will have a huge surplus of military age guys with no gal friends for a few decades before they crash.
It doesn’t appear that Tunisian oil reserves are enough for China to get into a bother over.
President Obama has a knack for choosing the wrong side. He has been sending aid to Tunisia to help support the dictator. Recall when the people revolted in Honduras in 2009, Obama was also on the side of the dictator. Now he is supporting Castro by loosening restrictions on travel. He won’t support the only democracy in the Middle East, and he does little to prevent Iran from getting WMD to destroy that democracy, Israel. Russia is bringing WMD into Venezuela and, as usual, he does nothing. He returned Churchill’s bust to the UK, he crams unwanted legislation down our throats, and basically acts like a wannabe Castro or Chavez. No wonder he always supports the wrong side … that’s the side he is on.
Pavan #60:
Maybe someone should give Obama a bust of Neville Chamberlain? Might be more to his liking.
RWE – Might that not be doing him too much honour?
Neville Chamberlain wasn’t perfect, but he did a good job of rearming Britain. In particular, the Spitfire went into full production in mid-1938. Has the Obama Administration done anything equivalent?
Storm-rider (Comment #4)
There is an important error in your comment: the proletariat, as Marx used the word, is not the lazy, tax-eating, non-disabled poor as you put it but rather those who do (industrial) manual labor or work for wages. The proletariat class does not contain farmers or shopkeepers or anything else: they are, essentially, the industrial workers. As such, they are not inherently lazy, as you suggest.
I don’t say this to defend Marx or Marxism, both of which I loathe, but just so that all concerned understand the ideology proposed by Marx and his followers. Lenin, for instance, saw a huge distinction between the new and rather small proletariat of Czarist Russia – Russia was very late in beginning its industrialization compared to Germany and England – and the ancient and immense serf class that made up 90% of Russia in those days. Lenin feared the serfs for their darkness, ignorance, and superstitions but made strenous efforts to win over the proletariat: after all, Marx described the Communist Party as the Vanguard of the Proletariat. The literate proletariat was supposed to rise to the top of the social structure with the aid of the Communist Party, those intellectuals who had figured out that collectivism was the solution to society’s ills.
Henry Reardon, 63
I believe Karl Marx was a liar. Marx knew full well that the proletariat class was not the working class – they were and are the lazy class. The working class reflects our higher human nature – our innate desire to labor and to reap the fruit of labor in pursuit of happiness – property honestly earned leading to self-esteem through creativity. The Proletariat class reflects our lower human nature – our greedy desire for leisure at the expense of someone else’s labor – property not honestly earned leading to self loathing through lack of creativity. If Marx had been a defender of the working man he would not have advocated destruction of the laboring “middle class owner of property” along with their individuality, independence and freedom.
“The proletariat (lazy, tax-eating, non-disabled poor) will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital (property) from the bourgeoisie (laboring, tax-paying middle class), to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state (lazy, tax-eating Marxist Government)… Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property. You must, therefore, confess that by “individual” you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property. This person must, indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible… And the abolition of this state of things is called by the bourgeois, abolition of individuality and freedom! And rightly so. The abolition of bourgeois individuality, bourgeois independence, and bourgeois freedom is undoubtedly aimed at.” Karl Marx
If Karl Marx had been a defender of the working man he would not have wished to destroy the working man’s family by confiscating the working man’s private gain.
“Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists. On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain… The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.” Karl Marx
Karl Marx hated the ordinary working man. His desire was to create a “new man” which would be a militant, nameless, faceless, non-individual – a cog in the Marxist State Mechanism. Karl Marx wished to establish the Borg – with the Marxist ruling class (Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Mao, Castro, Che Guevara, Pol Pot…) as Borg Masters. Karl Marx hated the individual – especially the boring, laboring, “bourgeois” middle class man who, due to being made in the image of God, had an innate desire for life, liberty and fruit of labor in the creative pursuit of happiness. Karl Marx was an evil genius.
“Society does not consist of individuals but expresses the sum of interrelations, the relations within which these individuals stand.” Karl Marx
“And still, you personified mankind; I may take you by the power of my mighty hands and crush with fierce force. In the meantime, as the abyss gapes before me and you in the darkness, You will fall in it and I’ll follow you, Laughing and whispering into your ear: “Come down with me, friend! Karl Marx
http://www.forerunner.com/predvestnik/X0013_Karl_Marx.html
As followers of Karl Marx, Lenin and Stalin, had they been defenders of the working man, would not have murdered over 20 million of them – the hated Kulaks – who worked for a living – and who had the audacity to desire the fruit of their own labor.
http://www.myspace.com/video/vid/33350184
The Soviet dissidents were under no illusions about the evil nature of Karl Marx and his followers.
“We have arrived at this view of [Marxist] socialism in attempting to account for the contradictions evident in the phenomenon at first glance. And now, looking back, we feel confident that our approach indeed accounts for many of socialism’s peculiarities. Understanding socialism as one of the manifestations of the allure of death explains its hostility toward individuality, its desire to destroy those forces which support and strengthen human personality: religion, culture, family, individual property. It is consistent with the tendency to reduce man to the level of a cog in the state mechanism…” Igor Shafarevich
“World socialism as a whole, and all the figures associated with it, are shrouded in legend; its contradictions are forgotten or concealed; it does not respond to arguments but continually ignores them–all this stems from the mist of irrationality that surrounds socialism and from its instinctive aversion to scientific analysis…. The doctrines of socialism seethe with contradictions, its theories are at constant odds with its practice, yet due to a powerful instinct–also laid bare by Shafarevich–these contradictions do not in the least hinder the unending propaganda of socialism. Indeed, no precise, distinct socialism even exists; instead there is only a vague, rosy notion of something noble and good, of equality, communal ownership, and justice: the advent of these things will bring instant euphoria and a social order beyond reproach…. The author also convincingly demonstrates the diametrical opposition between the concepts of man held by religion and by socialism. Socialism seeks to reduce human personality to its most primitive levels and to extinguish the highest, most complex, and “God-like” aspects of human individuality. And even equality itself, that powerful appeal and great promise of socialists throughout the ages, turns out to signify not equality of rights, of opportunities, and of external conditions, but equality qua identity, equality seen as the movement of variety toward uniformity…. It could probably be said that the majority of states in the history of mankind have been “socialist.” But it is also true that these were in no sense periods or places of human happiness or creativity.” Alexander Solzhenitsyn
http://www.robertlstephens.com/essays/shafarevich/001SocialistPhenomenon.html
Let me repeat that I have no affection whatever for Marx, his toxic ideology, or his followers. Also, I have the deepest respect for Solznhenitsyn and his good friend Shafarevich, who both personally suffered in the Gulag. I’ve read The Gulag Archipelago several times now and have never been so moved by any other book.
My only objection to your remarks is to characterize the proletariat as the “lazy, tax-eating, non-disabled poor”, as you did in COmment #4. In Marx’s theories the proletariat was far more narrowly defined as skilled industrial workers and no one else. Marx saw these individuals – and NOT the peasants/serfs let alone the people who worked in shops – as being the seed for his revolution. But he felt that they couldn’t do it alone and fancied him and his followers the (self-styled) intellectuals as being essential to “guide” the proletariat in the process of creating a revolutionary situation that could be exploited to overthrow capitalism.
Inevitably, practice departed from theory rather dramatically when Lenin tried to follow Marx’s teachings but Lenin held to Marx’s notion that the proletariat was the industrial workers alone. Lenin quickly resorted to armed force to force the serfs to follow his will. He actually tried to work with the proletariat but soon found that most of it was unsuitable to his needs. He formed temporary alliances with the skilled technocrats – like the engineers that operated the Moscow sewer system – for as long as it took for them to train replacements, then disposed of them too. Make no mistake about it, Lenin was a vicious bloodthirsty brute whose only saving grace was that he died young, helped along by an assasin’s bullet that didn’t kill him but is thought to have contributed to the strokes that *did* kill him. Unfortunately, his successor Stalin was equally ruthless but lived a lot longer.
So again, I am NOT defending Marx, or Marxism or any follower of Marxism; I am just disputing your definition of the term proletariat as it appears in Marxist theory. Marxism has been one of the biggest blights on humanity ever to occur.
You say, “democracy”, as if it’s a GOOD thing.
It’s not. America is not a democracy, and you should be thankful it’s not.
Read the Founding Fathers – they loathed and FEARED democracy.
That’s why thy established a REPUBLIC.
The difference is vast and profound.
“I am just disputing your definition of the term proletariat as it appears in Marxist theory.”
Marx was late to the table when it came to addressing the injustice of Medieval Feudalism. He had to invent a new form of “class struggle” which, despite the popular notion that it represented serfs vs. Lords, actually represented the injustice of taking “from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father’s has acquired too much” and giving “to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill…” Marx desired to rob the laboring middle class in order to give to the lazy or less industrious as a means to destroy free enterprise, classic liberalism and the family. The end point of Marxist class struggle is when both the lazy and laboring classes are finally equalized in serfdom (back to square one), loomed over by a superior class of not-to-be-equalized equalizers.
“As Orwell himself recognized, even slavery could be sold if labeled “freedom.” In this vein, who could ever conscientiously oppose the pursuit of “social justice,” — i.e., a just society? To understand “social justice,” we must contrast it with the earlier view of justice against which it was conceived — one that arose as a revolt against political absolutism. With a government (e.g., a monarchy) that is granted absolute power, it is impossible to speak of any injustice on its part. If it can do anything, it can’t do anything “wrong.” Justice as a political/legal term can begin only when limitations are placed upon the sovereign, i.e., when men define what is unjust for government to do. The historical realization traces from the Roman senate to Magna Carta to the U.S. Constitution to the 19th century. It was now a matter of “justice” that government not arrest citizens arbitrarily, sanction their bondage by others, persecute them for their religion or speech, seize their property, or prevent their travel. This culmination of centuries of ideas and struggles became known as liberalism. And it was precisely in opposition to this liberalism — not feudalism or theocracy or the ancien régime, much less 20th century fascism — that Karl Marx formed and detailed the popular concept of “social justice,” … “The history of all existing society,” he and Engels declared, “is the history of class struggles. Freeman and slave, patrician and plebian, lord and serf … oppressor and oppressed, stood in sharp opposition to each other.” They were quite right to note the political castes and resulting clashes of the pre-liberal era. The expositors of liberalism (Spencer, Maine) saw their ethic, by establishing the political equality of all (e.g., the abolition of slavery, serfdom, and inequality of rights), as moving mankind from a “society of status” to a “society of contract.” Alas, Marx the Prophet could not accept that the classless millenium had arrived before he did. Thus, he revealed to a benighted humanity that liberalism was in fact merely another stage of History’s class struggle — “capitalism” — with its own combatants: the “proletariat” and the “bourgeoisie.” The former were manual laborers, the latter professionals and business owners. Marx’s “classes” were not political castes but occupations.” Barry Loberfeld
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/guides/Z-Social%20Justice-Code%20for%20Communism.htm
“To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father’s has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association–the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.” Thomas Jefferson
Karl Marx believed and taught that a Democracy can be conquered at the ballot box. Marx believed that Communism can “win the battle of democracy” through Marxist class struggle where the tax-eating, labor-challenged (lazy) proletariat class, with the aid of an effete tax-eating Marxist ruling class of intellectuals, can expropriate the property of the laboring tax-paying middle class. The end of Marxist class struggle is a homogenized and economically equalized class of serfs – the proletariat class plus the newly impoverished former middle class. The two non-laboring classes (Proletariat and Marxist leadership) can legally vote themselves the property of the laboring class in a pure democracy. Marx didn’t mention a Constitutional Republic in the Manifesto – I believe he knew that a middle class majority could not be defeated if they were empowered to limit taxation through an amendment process – which would be the death of Marxism. BTW – the amendment will have to originate from State Legislatures – too many Federal Senators and Congressmen from both political parties would prefer to leave things as they are – they have in effect become our Marxist Ruling Class.
“The proletariat [non-disabled poor] will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital [property] from the bourgeoisie [middle class], to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state [Marxist Government]… Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property… In short, the Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things. In all these movements, they bring to the front, as the leading question in each, the property question, no matter what its degree of development at the time… We have seen above that the first step in the revolution by the [non] working class is to raise the proletariat [another lie] to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy.” Karl Marx
http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html
Karl Marx understood that a Democracy can be perverted into totalitarian government. This occurs when enough of a population goes over to the Proletariat Class – with outstretched hands – voting for the Party which will rob the laboring Middle class on their behalf. Eventually under Marxism the Middle class is worn down – exhausted and demoralized by what amounts to slave labor. When the Middle class finally succumbs there will be a dramatic fall off in production of food and other goods and services – anarchy ensues – and who “comes to the rescue” but the Marxist leadership class (the Pigs of Animal Farm) who robbed the workers to buy the votes of the lazy in the first place. Envision a cruise ship where more and more passengers run over to the left side looking for “free stuff” from government – of course the “free stuff” is the fruit of other men’s labor – the laboring men still slogging it out on the right side. Eventually there will not be enough laborers and entrepreneurs on the right side of the ship to prevent it from capsizing. Voila: Social Justice ends in Dictatorship – not a “dictatorship of the proletariat” – that is another of Marx’s lies – it will be a Dictatorship of the Marxist Ruling Class.
Marxism is the road to both serfdom and tyranny; serfdom because the work ethic is destroyed in the middle class as they become exhausted through excessive taxation of their labor while the proletariat class remains in serfdom because there is no need for them to labor – they can live off the labor of others; tyranny because the whole Marxist system is based on inequality before law (unequal tax law) and destruction of the individual’s God-given rights to liberty and property.
“Now, in the United States bourgeois society is still far too immature for the class struggle to be made perceptible and comprehensible…” Karl Marx
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/letters/52_03_05.htm
Karl Marx wrote his thoughts about the United States in 1852, but it is now 2011, and the American Marxists have decided that the United States is ready for Marxist class struggle – you are in it – do not underestimate the power of Marxist class struggle. Marxism can only be defeated by limiting Federal taxation to around 10% so that Federal government does not get more than God – so that Federal government does not become a Marxist god (State/local government should also be limited to around 10% taxation). We must amend our Constitution to that effect, along with a balanced budget. Starve the American Marxists by keeping your own property – the property for which you labored.
RE: democracy vs republic theme.
Democracy is both a concept and a set of physical institutions designed for the purpose of governing.
As a concept, democracy represents freedom and equality among individuals, in direct opposition to the various forms of totalitarianism, of which Marxism has been the most effective and challenging to defeat. It is perfectly appropriate to frame political debate in terms of democracy vs totalitarianism (which is nearly synonymous with Marxism in terms of political viability.)
As a set of governing institutions, democracy is a one-man one-vote architecture, which is very different from the distributed power structure of the republic we have in USA.
“…the “proletariat” and the “bourgeoisie.” The former were manual laborers, the latter professionals and business owners.” Barry Loberfeld
It doesn’t take long for the proletariat class to become the lazy class once they become fully or partially supported by the fruit of middle class labor. Just look at the perverted way our legal system addresses disability. Far too many people are now legally classified as disabled when they really are not – this is especially true in the field of psychological “disability.” These people receive Social Security and Medicare benefits – property redistribution from the laboring middle class to the lazy proletariat class. Criminals, drug dealers and drug users are supported on the backs of the middle class. The United States is in the process of manufacturing a barn-riding proletariat class – hands outstretched to a neo-Marxist government (the Pigs of Animal Farm) which controls their will via property.
“In the general course of human nature, a power over man’s substance amounts to a power over his will.” Alexander Hamilton
“There are those who still think they are holding the pass against a revolution that may be coming up the road. But they are gazing in the wrong direction. The revolution is behind them. It went by in the Night of Depression, singing songs to freedom. So it was that a revolution took place within the form. Like the hagfish, the New Deal entered the old form and devoured its meaning from within. The revolutionaries were inside; the defenders were outside. A government that had been supported by the people and so controlled by the people became one that supported the people and so controlled them.” Garet Garrett
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/garrett1.html
The neo-Proletariat class will vote for the neo-Marxist Party (do I have to tell you which one that is?) to confiscate property from the laboring middle class on their behalf.