Say “NO” to Communism in America on November 4th

For the last few decades, we have seen the decline of Communism in the world and the rise of capitalism in its place. Major Communist regimes like the USSR and China are now thriving in a capitalist economy, embracing free trade with other nations. “See, capitalism is working and Communism is dead,” we might say. In the United States of America, we have nothing to fear, since Communism is gone and no longer poses a threat. This is what we’ve been told or lead to believe. Is it really true?

As November 4^th approaches and we consider whom to vote for in the elections, this question of Communism is an important one. Communism, as envisioned by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, is not as simple as the government kindly taking care of the people of the nation; their vision included the harsh take-over and implementation of government control, despite what the voice of the people may desire. While claiming to be a system to end oppression of the working class (the Proletariat), the system really moves the source of oppression from big business to government.

This issue is important because, whether we realize it or not, elements of Communism are all around us and growing right here in the US! A few of the tenets of Marxist Communism include: the abolition of family, doing away with religion, the abolition of private property, and free government schools (see The Communist Manifesto). Additionally, for a government to take over our nation, it would be quite valuable to disarm the people and to justify the take-over. Each one of these is taking place gradually here in the US. One party seems to support all the causes that establish these Communist tenets; one side of the political spectrum dominates this territory. Although they never mention Communism, they do seem to publicly acknowledge socialism as ideal. Socialism is a forerunner to Communism. The evidence all around us suggests that once we are securely in their grasp, full-fledged Communism will be instituted.

Although most politicians probably (hopefully) don’t consciously intend to bring Communism into the United States, if they support these concepts, they are doing so anyway.

Let’s look at some of the Communist tenets manifested in America.

Abolition of Family

Over several decades or more, the legitimate, natural family has been smeared into a mess of self-interested sex relationships. We hear of “free love,” “reproductive rights,’ and so on. What we got were myriad anti-family options: abortion, living together without marriage, and sex between individuals who are not biologically compatible to produce life. Can anyone say what “family” is any more? Once families are no longer defined, government can make sure children are raised the way they want them to be, because no one but the state really has claim on them anymore.

There is only one type of natural family. When a man and a woman are united intimately, they produce children. This is the natural family, because it happens naturally. When the man and woman are married to each other, committing under God to each other for life or eternity, then we have the legitimate, natural family. The parents who produced these children generally have the highest interest in their well-being. For ages, societies have accepted proper substitutions within such a family. These proper substitutions include: adoption of children, a man replacing a man who has passed away, or a woman replacing a woman who has passed away. The legitimate, natural family is still preserved when any of these substitutions is done by the proper procedure (i.e. adoption process, marriage).

Doing away with Religion

No prayer in school? The Ten Commandments removed from public facilities? A growing view that evolution explains all we need to know about life, so there can’t be any God? Is freedom of religion really a revered U.S. Constitutional right anymore? There seems to be a growing disinterest in religion generally and many are hostile toward any mention of religion, especially in public or with any government connection. Need I say more on this?

Abolition of Private Property

This may be the hardest one to show, but we do see encroachments on private property, mainly through environmental claims and related legal actions. Let’s don’t forget the concept of “imminent domain,” either. Also, government bailouts of corporations put them in a position to more easily transfer the means of production to the government.

Free Government Schools

Well, we all are familiar with this one. We’ve all (or most of us) have been through the system. It seemed okay, right? We weren’t filled with loyalty-to-the-state propaganda. But schools are changing. When we see a national curriculum being forced on the states, it’s a red flag reminding us of the potential for centralized government control and indoctrination. And many schools currently support the “no religion” concept and increasingly support the blurring of the family definition. Children are taught about environmental issues as well (environmental stewardship is a good thing, but it has already been carried too far).

Disarming of the American People

For a government to take authoritarian control, the people must not have the means to fight back. Long-range weapons (as opposed to hand-to-hand fighting), such as guns, are a threat to anyone attempting a hostile take-over. For years now, debates have raged between gun control and gun rights. One by one, certain freedoms relating to guns have been reduced. Responsible gun ownership is imperative, but too often government officials attempt to vilify gun ownership and make “availability of guns” the culprit rather than attributing the problem to the people who misuse them or the culture that produced those people. It’s as if they strive to scare the American people into giving up their guns: “okay, okay, I guess we need more gun control laws!” Just a reminder: We need more people who value each other, regardless of who they are. That naturally leads to less desire to use a gun on them.

Justifying a Government Take-over

How could the government justify a take-over? Perhaps if we stir up divisions between the people, eventually they will be at each other’s throats to the point that the government “must step in” to fix the problem. If that happens, given all the above conditions, how likely is it that those who have a Socialist-Communist mindset will give up control without a fight? We mustn’t let that happen!

From the “culture war” to congressional debates between Democrats and Republicans, conflict between rich and poor, gangs and deadly neighborhoods, school shootings, on and on and on… Are we divided enough yet? Perhaps not yet, since there hasn’t been a take-over. But it isn’t getting any better and the government often takes actions that continue to stir up the divisions.

Consider it. What better explanation is there? Even if it’s not intentional, once the right person realizes the opportunity he or she has, it will come if we don’t stop it first. Do your own research and you might be surprised to find even more than what I’ve uncovered here.

Don’t let stealth and crafty arguments fool you! We mustn’t let those who promote Communist tenets govern our nation. STOP THEM BEFORE THEY STOP US! VOTE November Fourth!

P.S. Spread the word! (Share this post.) And remember, it’s no longer enough to vote and complain how our nation is doing. Get more involved somewhere, somehow.

More on Free Markets vs. Central Distribution

Okay, here's another comment I posted for my economics class in reply to an article by Walter Williams (a professor of economics) that can be found at:
http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/politics/markets-governments-and-the-common-good/

 My Response:

This economics professor obviously is very biased toward the free market system. His description of the two systems is skewed in favor of free markets. Either system--individuals trading individually in a free market or individuals contributing to and receiving from a centralized (government) distribution system--requires a solid moral foundation to best function for the benefit of the people in the system. Absent a foundation of concern for the well-being of others, commitment to integrity and honesty in all dealings, and so on, either system will run the gamut of evils.

Let's say high achiever Joe and struggling Bob work each day and produce some essential goods in a centralized economy. Joe produces 50 chickens in a month and Bob only manages to produce 5 chickens. These 55 chickens are placed into the central distribution system. Since it is well known that every family needs 10 chickens a month to survive, Bob is given 10 chickens to take home. This leaves 45 chickens. Since Joe contributed much more to the system, let's say he is given a double dose of chickens: 20 chickens, more than his family needs to survive. There are still 25 chickens to be distributed to other struggling producers in the system.

In this system the moral prerequisites include: 1) the distribution managers care about the well-being of those receiving goods, 2) these managers have sufficient training and understanding of the system to operate effectively, 3) each producer (Joe, Bob) honestly gives his best effort to produce.

Now let's move high achiever Joe and struggling Bob to a free market economy. Joe still produces his 50 chickens and Bob produces his 5. Bob has a dilemma here. Can he trade his 5 chickens for 10 of Joe's? That doesn't seem fair. Bob could ask Joe for 5 chickens to supplement what he produced, but Joe might say "no." If everyone Bob asks says "no," Bob and his family eventually starve and die.

Now, in this scenario, which system is more moral?
In my scenario, I wrote it in favor of the first system. Both my scenario and the one in the article are of course very simplified to highlight the concepts. In the second scenario Bob could perhaps offer to work for Joe in exchange for 5 chickens. But assuming Joe's and Bob's labor to raise chickens were equal numbers of hours, then Bob ends up working more hours just to have barely enough for his family.

The moral prerequisites of the second system include: 1) each individual must care enough for other individuals not to rip them off in exchanges, 2) individuals must be willing to help those not as fortunate (especially those at the bottom of ability and capacity).

My point is that the question isn't really whether free markets are better than some other system, but rather "can we ensure our people are morally upright enough to handle the free market?"

Free Market or Communism?

It has been a while since I've posted here because I am in school full-time, which is taking just about all my time. I'm nearly finished with my bachelor degree in business. I just finished writing a response to an article for my international economics class. I felt that it was perfect to post here too.

The article that I was to read and respond to is found here (among other places):
http://www.theadvertiser.com/story/opinion/2014/07/02/economic-freedom-key-prosperity/12119417/

My response:

This article seems pretty one-sided. The author makes some good points in support of economic freedom, but at the same time he seems to blur distinctions between free-market causes and other causes for our prosperity.

I understand Mr. Williams' desire to counter President Obama's statement: "'The market will take care of everything,' they tell us. ... But here's the problem: It doesn't work. It has never worked. ... I mean, understand, it's not as if we haven't tried this theory."

The president apparently attempts to justify socialism (or communism?) by refuting free-markets. The problem here is that we have also tried the Marxist-Communist theory and it didn't work either. The US and free-market West countries have been more successful than Communist nations because they were able to more effectively correct defects in the free-market system. The Communists didn't correct their system defects as effectively, partly because they were probably too set in following the Marxist theory to the letter, and partly because they had fewer minds to draw on (for the most part the people couldn't give much input).

Examples of defects resulting from too-free markets, that we eventually corrected:
- Excessive work hours, even for children
- Monopolistic entrepreneurism
- Minimal value seen in employees--they were paid low wages, and were replaced if they were not happy with employment conditions.
- Slavery

The author says, "The key features of a free market system are private property rights and private ownership of the means of production. In addition, there's a large measure of peaceable voluntary exchange."

Voluntary exchange isn't present because the free-market created it. It allowed it, but individuals with a moral sense of helping others created those exchanges. (I'm thinking here that we are talking about volunteerism.)

Mr. Williams goes on to give some evidence of our economic advantage.

"People who live in countries closer to the free market end of the economic spectrum not only have far greater income than people who live in countries toward the communist end but also enjoy far greater human rights protections."

"In the freest nations, the average income of the poorest 10 percent of their populations was $11,382. In the least free nations, it was $1,209."

"Life expectancy is 79.5 years in the freest nations and 61.6 years in the least free. Political and civil liberties are considerably greater in the economically free nations than in un-free nations."

We do have greater incomes, but he doesn't say anything about the cost of living among the various countries. Most lower-income countries also have a lower cost of living than we do.

As for civil liberties, that's not a result of free-markets. That is a sociopolitical result. For the U.S. it started with our Constitution and the bill of rights. Socially and morally conscientious people worked to further expand our civil liberties since then.

As for life expectancy, perhaps there are some significant contributions due to the free market. There could be some health benefit from the free market system for some people (especially the most successful). Also, the free market surely encouraged medical research and development that has lead to better healthcare (and high prices).

Mr. Williams continues, "The average poor American has more living space than the typical non-poor person in Sweden, France and the U.K."

Could it be that we have larger living spaces because we have a lot more land to build on? The countries mentioned are geographically small. Could it also be that because our nation is younger, we were able to build from a different mindset than those much older nations that are building amidst hundreds of years of construction and population history? Our lifestyles and our level of individualism are also different, leading to different desires in our residences.

He also says, "Our having a free market and limited government more than anything else explains our wealth. Most of our major problems are a result of government. We Americans should recognize that unfettered government and crony capitalism, not unfettered markets, are the cause of our current economic problems and why the U.S. has sunk to the rank of 17th in the 2013 "Economic Freedom of the World" report."

While surely it is true that much of our economic trouble right now may be a result of inappropriate government actions, it is also likely that the current size of government partly resulted from unfettered markets. Much of the growth of government came as a result of problems created by industry and free markets. (FTC, EPA, and OSHA are obvious examples.)

Free market and limited government surely made the conditions possible to build our wealth, but where did that wealth come from? To a large extent it came from other nations, in various ways. Through our trade with other countries, we were able to accumulate financial rewards from them, trading US resources for financial wealth. This suggests that another reason we became wealthy is because we had vast natural resources to trade.

Also, from other nations we received large numbers of emigrants. Of course that means more manpower, more ingenuity, and so on. They contributed to our wealth (and now we can't stand the thought of "those Mexican immigrants.")

So free trade, along with other various conditions, made us wealthy, to some degree at the expense of other nations. Now since a free market is so great, let's say all the nations of the world started participating in a single free market. Over time, the lower-income nations would start to increase their wealth, their income, their standard of living. That sounds great. But are we prepared for the effects that this will necessarily bring to the wealthier nations such as the U.S.? As incomes rise in the less-well-off nations, cheap labor in those nations will disappear, leading to higher labor costs for our products and higher prices. Our standard of living will likely decrease as the world equalizes to a common standard of living. For some nations this will be a benefit, for some it may be a loss.

If wealth and economic prosperity are the only measure we use to determine the merit of a system, then free markets likely win the prize. But what are some of the associated non-economic costs of the free market?

- To start off, many nations are hostile toward the U.S. for various reasons, largely because of our business operations that we pursue for our economic welfare as well as government actions that get noticed because of our economic status. Because of our economic strength, we have the power to bully other countries for our further economic benefit. It sort of reminds me of Wal-Mart, a very prosperous company that everyone complains about.
- We are losing our faith in God, who created us, because we now believe we understand so much that we don't need him. Partly, it's a consequence of pride associated with our prosperity. As this happens, expect some blessings of our nation to be lost.
- The moral standards of our people decline as the masses follow after the latest decadence in entertainment and pursue the gluttony and disregard that marketers encourage, which are results of free markets.

Others surely could be named.

A free-market republic or a communist nation? Is one really better than the other? They both have advantages and disadvantages. They each have problems because of the nature of people. Either form of government/economy could be pleasant, but only when benevolence is widespread throughout the nation.

As the founding fathers understood, we must be a sufficiently moral people for our free system to function properly.

Rather than economic prosperity, I believe the highest success is to achieve the most good in the world while causing the least harm.