Okay, everyone. I’ve had enough. I’ve had enough of all the bailouts. I’ve had enough of zero accountability, among both Democrats and Republicans. I’ve had enough of all the presidential rhetoric. And I’ve come to the conclusion that we need an American Re-Revolution. That’s right. Our representatives have simply forgotten the principles and greatness upon which our nation was founded. We need to look back in history, look at our founding, and understand again what it took to not only make America, but what it took to make America Great.
And I believe this discussion must begin with a short primer on the differences between socialism, communism, and capitalism. One must have a crystal clear understanding of what these systems entail, why they work, and why they fail. What does this have to do with the Re-Revolution? Everything. Our founding fathers championed FREEDOM and SELF-DETERMINATION. Only one of the systems above allows for both of these. And many of our elected officials and electorate seem to have forgotten the importance of them as well.
I realize that many of us attended public school (including me), which accounts for our apparently abysmal understanding of history. So, let us all brush up.
What is the difference between communism, socialism, and capitalism? Here are a few short explanations.
Communism: A political system where a “higher state” exists, an ideal where there are no classes, and the State ceases to have any meaning or relevance. A society free from all forms of want and where humans are totally free to expand to higher areas of human development. Put forth by Karl Marx, a communistic (“Marxist”) society would have no private property, and rights and goods produced in it would be distributed among the citizens–“From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” It is, in short, the Mecca of human existence. Communism is an unattainable ideal; in order for it to succeed, every human being must adhere to its tenets at all times. Human nature is not conducive to communism, and history has shown its failure multiple times. Societies which have attempted it end up totalitariansistic, with small groups of individuals in total power. (the former USSR, China, and Cuba are fantastic examples of this.) And it is important to remember, people cannot be forced into communism for it to work.
Socialism: Often incorrectly used interchangeably with communism, it is not a political system; it is a way of distributing goods and services. It is described as the state between capitalism and communism. It nationalizes the “means of production” (banks, corporations–sound familiar?). It is seen as the necessary stepping stone from capitalism to communism.
Capitalism: An economic system that utilizes the power of individuals–especially entrepeneurs–to stimulate economic activity. It is based on the (accurate) human assumption that individuals operate based on self-interest. By doing so, the individual not only helps himself, but also propels others to economic success. Unlike communism, capitalism can work even if there are some who don’t want to pull their weight–they face the consequences of their action (or inaction.)
A key item in this discussion deals with incentive. Without incentive, there is no motivation, a key component to economic growth. To destroy incentive is to destroy innovation and motivation. This is what socialist policies do: they are an invitation to stagnation. Right now, our economy does not need stagnation. Socialism is arguably the antithesis of the freedom and self-determination upon which our great nation was founded. (Freedom from governmental tyranny, remember?)
The U.S. is now taking baby steps toward socialism. Recall that socialism is the intermediate step between capitalism and communism. Look at the countries that are run based on communistic principles. Would anyone in their right mind wish to live in China, Cuba, or North Korea?
Now, look at the many European countries that force socialist policies on their people. An obvious display of socialism’s open invitation to economic stagnation. “Socialism does not work because it is not consistent with fundamental principles of human behavior. The failure of socialism in countries around the world can be traced to one critical defect: it is a system that ignores incentives” (Perry, following article). Why socialism fails: http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=4014.
The author of the above link has this to say:
“The Marxist [professor the author spoke with] admitted that many ‘socialist’ countries around the world were failing. However, according to him, the reason for failure is not that socialism is deficient, but that the socialist economies are not practicing ‘pure’ socialism. The perfect version of socialism would work; it is just the imperfect socialism that doesn’t work. Marxists like to compare a theoretically perfect version of socialism with practical, imperfect capitalism which allows them to claim that socialism is superior to capitalism.If perfection really were an available option, the choice of economic and political systems would be irrelevant. In a world with perfect beings and infinite abundance, any economic or political system–socialism, capitalism, fascism, or communism–would work perfectly.
Now, look at Barack Obama. If you can claim, with a straight face, that the policies he proposes do not reek of socialism, then you, my friend, are living in a dream world. And remember, what he calls “fairness” is codespeak for policy that comes straight from the communist playbook. Income redistribution, for instance, is an example of Obama’s socialist view of fairness. In reality, to take from one to give to another is a form of tyranny; a form of tyranny from which our founding fathers were determined to separate.
The following article is required reading, class. It is a list of Obama’s socialist policies. Freedom lovers, be afraid. Be very afraid. Freedom and self-determination will not only be seriously undermined, they will be wiped out completely by an Obama presidency. http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=307665441951152
And now, as if that all weren’t enough by itself, I will emphasize again the alliance between Barack Obama and William Ayers. The media and the Obama campaign should be terrified of this alliance being pursued and brought to light, because it is DAMNING.
Read the following article: http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=308271974461547 Obama’s Real Problem with Ayers
What the heck, I’ll just copy it right here:
“At an education forum in Venezuela, Bill Ayers showed the real issue is not his terrorist past. It’s the socialist revolutionary agenda that he and Barack Obama want to impose on the nation’s schools.
Still more evidence of how the media are in the tank for Obama was evident in Tom Brokaw’s description of Ayers on Sunday’s “Meet The Press.”
“School reformer” is how Brokaw identified the co-founder of the Weather Underground, the radical organization that, among other activities, bombed government buildings, banks, police departments and military bases in the early 1970s.
Yeah, right: Ayers is a school reformer in the same sense, as City Journal’s Sol Stern put it, as Joe Stalin was an agricultural reformer.
An idea of what Ayers has in mind for America’s schools was provided in his own words not 40 years ago when Obama was eight years old, but less than two years ago in November 2006 at the World Education Forum in Caracas hosted by dictator Hugo Chavez.
With Chavez at his side, Ayers voiced his support for “the political educational reforms under way here in Venezuela under the leadership of President Chavez. We share the belief that education is the motor-force of revolution. . . . I look forward to seeing how . . . all of you continue to overcome the failures of capitalist education as you seek to create something truly new and deeply humane.”
Ayers told the great humanitarian Chavez: “Teaching invites transformations, it urges revolutions large and small. La educacion es revolucion.” It is that form of socialist revolution that Ayers, and Obama, have worked to bring to America.
Ayers, now a tenured Distinguished Professor of Education at the University of Illinois, Chicago, works to educate teachers in socialist revolutionary ideology, urging that it be passed on to impressionable students.
As Stern points out, “Ayers and his education school comrades are explicit about the need to indoctrinate public school children in the belief that America is a racist, militarist country and that the capitalist system is inherently unfair and oppressive.”
If Ayers was just another nutty professor, we’d be lucky. But he wields great influence in academic circles and has had Obama’s ear. He’s the author or editor of 15 books. Chicago’s current mayor, Richard M. Daley, has employed Ayers as a teacher trainer for Chicago’s public schools and consulted him on the city’s education-reform plans.
Just last month, Ayers was elected vice-president for curriculum for the 25,000-member American Educational Research Association. AERA is the nation’s largest organization of education-school professors and researchers.
In a recent interview on Fox News’ “The O’Reilly Factor,” Obama upgraded Ayers’ status from “a guy who lives in my neighborhood” to “somebody who worked on education issues in Chicago that I know.”
Actually, Obama knew him quite well, having worked together on a school “reform” project called the Chicago Annenberg Challenge.
In the 1990s, Ayers was instrumental in starting the Annenberg Challenge, securing a $50 million grant to reform the Chicago Public Schools, part of a national initiative funded by the late Ambassador Walter Annenberg.
Obama was given the Annenberg board chairmanship only months before his first run for office. He ran the fiscal arm that distributed grants to schools and raised matching funds.
Ayers participated in a second entity known as the Chicago School Reform Collaborative, the operational arm that worked with grant recipients.
During Obama’s tenure as Annenberg board chairman, Ayers’ own education projects received substantial funding.
One of Ayers’ descriptions for a course called “Improving Learning Environments” says a prospective K-12 teacher needs to “be aware of the social and moral universe we inhabit and . . . be a teacher capable of hope and struggle, outrage and action, teaching for social justice and liberation.”
John McCain needs to repeatedly point out the stealth socialism of Ayers’ education agenda and Obama’s complicity in it. Otherwise, we may one day see Ayers as Obama’s secretary of education.”
Educational indoctrination of young children. The “Obama Youth movement.” Consorting with terrorists and people who hate America and desire to re-create it according to communist principles. It’s all terribly disturbing.
I don’t consider myself an expert on anything, except, perhaps, changing diapers or breastfeeding babies. But there once was a time in the United States where freedom and self-determination were revered and championed above all, and I consider them great things, worth upholding. There once was a time in the United States when, in the simplest terms, one at least thought, “Communism, bad. Democracy, good.” I’m not so sure that this is the case anymore, if we elect Barack Obama as the next POTUS. I fear that an Obama presidency will be the end of the United States as we know it.