The American founding fathers viewed individual freedom as the cornerstone of the new American state. At the same time, they understood freedom within the framework of the relationship between a state and a man (by analogy with the fact that religion is the relationship between God and man). This human-state paradigm formed the basis of the new state (although the founding fathers did not use this term).
They correctly noticed that the higher the state’s role in a person’s life, the less individual freedom a person has, and vice versa: the smaller the state’s role in a person’s life, the higher the individual freedom. This postulate of the classical liberalism of the eighteenth century in the twenty-first century began to be called conservatism, and for some unimaginable reason, neo-Marxism began to be called liberalism even though it has nothing to do with liberalism.
By the 20th century, this idea was formalized, and the level of taxation became one of the tools in the assessment of the state system. This (formal) approach allows us to compare the state structures of even different eras. At the same time, we are talking about total taxes in all their manifestations (taxes, fines, administrative fees, “voluntary” donations, confiscations, bribes, racketeering, etc.) – that is, everything that is one way or another withdrawn from citizens by the state.
Countries with low taxes are countries with a small government apparatus and, as a result, with great individual freedom. These are right-wing countries to which most of the developed capitalist countries belonged at a certain stage of their development.
Countries with high taxes are countries with a low level of individual freedom – left-wing countries. These are countries with a vast and omnipotent state apparatus, which, unlike right-wing countries, have a strong predisposition toward totalitarianism and tyranny. Therefore, without exception, all countries that have chosen the left (socialist) path of development ultimately fall into one or another form of totalitarianism. Examples are the Third Reich (the nominal level of taxation exceeded 90%) and the USSR (the level of taxes is estimated at 90-95%).
Every rule has its exceptions. For example, Fascist Italy had a relatively low (for the leftist country) level of taxes, but Mussolini found another, equally effective mechanism of total state control: syndicalism (also known as Italian corporatism). The owners of enterprises, workers, and their trade unions of each separate industry forcibly united into syndicates, which became the main administrative unit of the state under the total control of the latter. Mussolini’s methods found their followers in America – the economic policy of Franklin Roosevelt (the National Recovery Administration was the American version of Italian corporatism) and Barack Obama’s attempts at leftist reforms (General Motors reorganization and implementation of Obamacare) were based on the syndicalist idea.
The idea of the superiority of individual freedom and individual good over the public good is the mechanism that led to the transformation of the backward colonies of North America into the mighty United States of America. At the same time, the dynamics of the development of political parties in our country is much more complicated, and the one-dimensional scale of the man-state does not sufficiently correspond to modern realities. However, if we take not one, but two variables into consideration – not only the level of taxes, but also the size of the federal government – then a two-dimensional political matrix of Washington will appear. This matrix consists of four cells:
In the upper left corner is the Democratic Party of the USA – the left-wing party, which advocates high taxes and a massive government (that is, a large state budget relative to the country’s economy). Their opposite (in the lower right corner) is conservatives, whose political position is based on low taxes and a small government.
Only these two ideologies of the four presented in the matrix are internally consistent. The internal logic of these ideologies is clear: a big government requires massive taxes (Democrats), and lower taxes are needed to maintain a small government (conservatives).
The other two ideologies carry internal contradictions that do not allow these ideologies to hope for any long-term existence. One of these parties – the party of high taxes and a small government – never came to power in America, and, as far as it is known, such a party never has come to power anywhere in the world. High taxes and a small government are incompatible with each other. Such a party does not even have a name (indicated by a question mark in the matrix). The party that comes to power on this platform will not be able to avoid the temptation and will necessarily move to the left (to the place now occupied by the Democratic Party).
Another party with contradictory ideology is the Republican Party. Its official ideology is also nonsense. The desire to set low taxes is incompatible with the desire of a large government. A big government needs a lot of money, so Republican ideology is made possible primarily by borrowing money from future generations of Americans.
In this, the Republican Party is in the same positions as the Democratic Party. As a result, over the past eight years (when the Republicans had a majority in the House of Representatives), the U.S. national debt increased by almost 8 trillion dollars. Of these, $6 trillion in debt was acquired under Obama and $2 trillion under Trump. In other words, $1 trillion dollars a year (that is, a little less than $2 million per minute) is the price of supporting the incoherent Republican ideology.
The Democratic Party of the USA is also a full-fledged accomplice of the Republicans in withdrawing money from future generations of Americans. That is why there are rumors that these two parties, alternately coming to power in America, are actually factions of the same party – a Uniparty. This is not the case, but the above matrix shows on what grounds the rumors about the Uniparty are based.
If the Democratic Party is almost monolithic in its ideology (disagreements within the party can be based only on varying degrees of leftism – from moderate left to left radicals), then the Republican Party consists of several factions. One of them is the conservatives (represented by the Freedom Caucus). There are also other, less formal factions we know, such as the “moderate Republicans” faction and the “Republicans in name only” (RINO) faction. The last faction represents the left wing of the party, which is a source of major internal contradictions, since, by the above matrix, it is indistinguishable from the Democrats.
The 2018 midterm elections were held under the banner of “purge the moderates.” Both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party have practically gotten rid of them. The Democrats noticeably moved to the left, and the Republicans noticeably moved to the right. The process of the hijacking of the Democratic Party by neo-Marxists, which lasted more than 100 years, had been fully completed, but the parallel process of taking over its Republican Party host by conservatives has not yet reached its end point. The current level of political polarization does not allow us to hope for any compromises. The struggle for the country’s sovereignty (meaning the political confrontation over the wall on the border with Mexico) and the putsch of the American intelligence community against Trump are only the beginning episodes in the life of an “uncompromising” Washington.
If the history of the USSR, Fascist Italy, National Socialist Germany, Cuba, Venezuela, and other leftist countries teaches us anything, it is that these regimes are viable for just one or two, maximum three generations. We know that the Utopian left’s ideology, however attractive it may be, is a losing ideology.
The fact that Trump became president of the United States is part of the process of promoting conservatives for leadership within the Republican Party. Trump is the leading indicator of the creative destruction of the contradictory Republican political structure.
[Originally published at American Thinker]
Тема: «О штате Нелегалия и конфронтации президента Трампа и спикера Палаты Представителей Нэнси Пелоси»
Понедельник, 21 января, с 14:05 до 15:00 по Чикагскому времени (15:05 – 16:00 по Нью-Йорку).
Интернет-трансляция (аудио и видео) https://www.radionvc.com/
Телефон прямого эфира: +1-847-400-5200
Спасибо Нэнси Пелоси. Она, как оказалось, не только спикер Палаты Представителей, но и прекрасный специалист по продажам и рекламе. Благодаря ее непродуманной выходке реклама ежегодного послания президента США Конгрессу достигла небывалых высот.
Если раньше такие традиционные выступления были рутиной, и мало кого интересовали за пределами Вашингтона, то в этом году ситуация (благодаря Пелоси) существенно другая. Она 3-го января пригласила Трампа для выступления, а 16-го января «отменила» свое приглашение. Это – неслыханный скандал. Такого в истории Америки еще не было. Отказав президенту, Нэнси Пелоси пошла наперекор американской традиции, которая существует более 100 лет – с 1913 года. Причем формальным поводом для отмены послужил аргумент о «безопасности».
В своем письме президенту Трампу Пелоси нагло врет – она написала, что в связи с частичным закрытием федерального правительства агенты Секретной Службы якобы перестали получать зарплату и не могут исполнять свои обязанности. Секретная Служба – это охрана президента, членов правительства, и членов Конгресса США. Эта служба относится к тем 75% процентам федерального правительства, которое считается первоочередным и незаменимым, и на них закрытие правительства никак не влияет. Они, как и все остальные силовые ведомства, работают в прежнем режиме.
Закрытие правительства влияет только на 25% федеральных работников, которые считаются второстепенными. Сюда относятся музеи, национальные парки, инспекции мясных и молочных предприятий, инспекции дорог и т.д.
Почему же Нэнси Пелоси сделала попытку «отменить» выступление Трампа с помощью аргумента о «безопасности членов Конгресса»? Потому что она прекрасно знает, о чем будет говорить Трамп – о безопасности.
Но если Пелоси интересует вопрос о безопасности только членов Конгресса, то Трампа интересует вопрос о безопасности американских граждан.
Это противостояние является заведомо проигрышным для демократов. Они открыто позиционируют себя как партия, которая защищает нелегальных иммигрантов, в отличие от республиканцев, которые защищают американских граждан. Разумеется, Пелоси никак не хочется давать трибуну Трампу, чтобы он в очередной раз обратился к здравому смыслу американцев. Трамп будет выступать перед Конгрессом, но говорить он будет напрямую с американскими гражданами, а не через фильтр средств массовой дезинформации.
Другая причина «отмены» приглашения Пелоси – воспоминания о выступлении Трампа перед Конгрессом в прошлом году. Тогда демократы никак не могли дождаться, чтобы эта пытка поскорее закончилась. Напомню, что в прошлом году Трамп обнародовал убийственные данные о безработице в стране, которая упала до 60-летнего минимума, а безработица среди черных и латинос упала до самого низкого уровня за всю историю Соединенных Штатов. Все помнят Нэнси Пелоси, которая сидела с каменным лицом и делала языком массаж собственных десен на национальном телевидении.
В математике есть один интересный способ доказательства – доказательство от обратного. Давайте зададимся вопросом – отменила бы Пелоси свое приглашение, если бы речь Трампа негативно повлияла бы на его рейтинг? Ни в коем случае. Пелоси прекрасно знает, что речь Трампа только добавит ему популярности, и негативные последствия если и будут, то только у демократов. Другими словами, действия демократов – совершенно непродуманные – дали возможность Трампу практически без боя выиграть этот раунд политической борьбы.
Каковы варианты действий у Трампа? Их много, и все они несут негативные последствия для демократов. Если Пелоси действительно откажет Трампу от дома, то Трамп может напомнить ей, что, по Конституции, президент США имеет право созвать сессию обеих палат Конгресса в любое время. Что же – Конгресс соберется, и Нэнси Пелоси начнет вырывать микрофон у президента? Даже такие одиозные телеканалы, как CNN и MSNBC, будут показывать эту картинку вновь и вновь, потому что это – скандал, а там, где скандал – там и рейтинги.
После того, как демократы покончили со столетней традицией, Трамп получил возможность тоже поступить нетрадиционно. Например, Трамп может выступить перед сессией Сената (в котором, напомню, большинство республиканцев), или на площадке на границе с Мексикой, и пригласить на эту сессию членов Палаты Представителей. Конгрессмены-демократы, конечно, не придут, но их места могут занять приглашенные.
Состав этих приглашенных – это основная головная боль демократов. Представьте себе зал, на ¼ заполненный родителями тех американских детей, которые были убиты нелегальными иммигрантами. Причем убиты либо непосредственно, либо с помощью наркотиков, которые тоннами перевозятся через границу с Мексикой. Кроме того, в качестве гостей будут приглашены 15-летние девочки из Южной Америки, которых работорговцы тайно привезли через южную границу для многочисленных подпольных борделей. И президент Трамп всем им поочередно даст слово.
Трамп также даст слово американским врачам, которые расскажут, с какими болезнями им приходится сталкиваться из-за нелегальной иммиграции. Многие из этих болезней были полностью ликвидированы в Америке вскорости после Второй Мировой войны – корь, скарлатина, вши, туберкулез, сифилис. Но эти болезни возвращаются в Америку, и возвращаются они через границу с Мексикой.
Наконец, будут приглашены на трибуну и американские пограничники. Они принесут с собой несколько ковриков, который мусульмане используют для молитвы. В последнее время пограничники находят в приграничных зонах южных штатов все больше и больше таких ковриков. Зачем представителям «мирной религии» проникать в Америку нелегально? Зачем прибегать к инфильтрации? И почему демократы так сильно поддерживают нелегальную иммиграцию?
Теперь поговорим о деньгах. По разным оценкам, на содержание нелегальных иммигрантов американские налогоплательщики расходуют от 100 до 250 миллиардов долларов в год. Такой разброс оценок связан с тем, как именно считать, и кто считает. Но, вне зависимости от того, кто и как считает, все расчеты едины в одном – баланс негативен. То есть нелегальные иммигранты получают от американского общества больше, чем отдают, как минимум на 100 миллиардов долларов в год.
Если кому-то не нравятся оценочные данные, давайте рассмотрим абсолютно точные данные. Например, только в штате Калифорния проживает 1.2 миллиона детей, рожденных в результате «туризма» беременных нелегалок. Это – официальные данные родильных домов и госпиталей. Для сравнения – население штата Вайоминг составляет около 600 тысяч человек.
То есть внутри штата Калифорния находится еще один штат – штат Нелегалия – население которого в два раза больше штата Вайоминг.
Но штат Нелегалия не одинок. В штате Иллинойс таких детей-нелегалов 174 тысячи. Для сравнения – в популярном среди легальных русскоязычных иммигрантов районе Чикаго North Shore живет в два раза меньше жителей – 86 тысяч. В штате Нью-Йорк таких детей 224 тысячи. Для сравнения – на Brighton Beach живут только 36 тысяч человек.
Пелоси известила Трампа об отказе письмом 16-го января. А на следующий же день, 17 января, Трамп ответил. Он решил классически – как он это умеет – троллить Нэнси Пелоси. Троллить по-президентски. Он направил ей письмо, в котором использовал те же аргументы Пелоси по поводу безопасности, и объявил, что Нэнси Пелоси не сможет участвовать в запланированной зарубежной поездке в Брюссель, Египет, и Афганистан. Объяснение было дано практически слово в слово точно такое же, какое представила Пелоси в своем письме Трампу.
Это была первая официальная конфронтация между Трампом и Пелоси после того, как она вновь стала спикером Палаты Представителей с перевесом всего в 2 голоса. Счет стал 1-0 в пользу Трампа.
The leftists did not have to persuade the Jews that they were victims. Anti-Semitism for about two millennia played a cruel joke with the Jews – they eagerly joined the first political movement that openly recognized the Jews as victims. Many Jews (to be more exact, those who consider themselves to be victims) are still committed to leftist dogma and refuse to recognize the obvious fact that the status of victims makes them cannon fodder for high-ranking left ideologists. However, those Jews who do not consider themselves victims have long adhered to the right conservative views.
If during the Bush presidency more than 90% of American Jews were on the side of leftists, his successor Obama had in his pocket about 80% of Jews (a fall of 10% was due to the openly anti-Israeli policy of Obama). With the advent of Trump, the number of leftist Jews dropped to 70% (another 10% drop is due to Trump’s openly pro-Israeli policy).
This dynamic is also present in Israel. In 1948, socialists came to power in the newly-re-established Israel, and the opponents of socialism – the supporters of Vladimir Zhabotinsky – were out of work. However, like in America, the leftists in Israel got successfully outmaneuvered by the conservatives.
This situation resembles the case of the black population in America. Those who decided to escape from the leftist political plantation have gained real freedom, and with it, ideological preferences of a conservative kind. The number of such people increased significantly under Trump. Obviously, it is the result of the lowest level of black unemployment in the history of America.
However, in being declared “victims,” many people forget the reverse side of this coin. If the leftists assign the status of a victim to you, then you must remain a victim until the very end. If someone decides that you are a victim, the decision is made, and you have no right to change or even challenge it. Do not try to escape from the plantation – you will not only be found but also severely punished.
It is worth mentioning that women did not take part in political life before the end of the 19th century. That’s why they, like the Jews, from the leftists’ point of view, are practically a ready-to-go class of victims. Leftists throughout the 20th-century successfully used women for political purposes. It should be no revelation that feminism (in contrast to the suffragist movement) is a purely left movement. In fact, one of its founders was the racist Margaret Sanger.
The modern reincarnation of the status of women as victims is the infamous “War on Women,” invented in the bowels of the DNC. As in the case of deceived Jews, deceived women, who were brainwashed to the fact that they are victims, took to the streets dressing up in humiliating vagina costumes.
It has long been noted that the leftist movement had transformed into a kind of religious cult – the Cult of victim seekers.
Like any other cult, the leftists have their dogmas, their worldview, their taboos, and their idols. The list of “victims” of this cult is impressive. Well-known recent “victims” are nature (destroyed by evil capitalists), domestic animals (evil capitalists mock them), climate (the temperature of the air is warmed up by all the same evil capitalists), and sexual minorities.
It is not surprising, therefore, that the numerous left-wing “green” parties in all countries are often compared to watermelons: they are green outside, red inside, and their seeds have brown uniforms.
The noblest occupation for leftists is the search (or artificial creation) of another, previously unknown class of victims. It would seem that they have already tried everything that is possible, but the worldview of the victim seekers is so comprehensive that it manifests itself in the most unexpected places. For example, the loss of the elections in 2016 and the victory of Trump was taken by leftists as another proof that they are victims. This time, they turn out to be victims of the “collusion between Trump and Putin.”
Leftist are always in search for victims. Once found, the victims will be assigned an appropriate -ism. Of course, it will be another form of charlatanism.
The search for victims who will lead the leftists to political power has become its own means to an end. Many leftists have entirely forgotten their Marxist roots. A good illustration of this was the genuine indignation of former Vice President Joe Biden when a journalist asked him whether he was a socialist.
As a result, modern Globalists in general (and the Democratic Party of the USA in particular) are not a monolithic movement but represent the interests of various incoherent and often competing and warring classes of “victims,” artificially united under the same roof by the Cult of victim seekers.
How can Jews live under the same roof with the openly anti-Semitic Democratic Party of the USA or Labour Party of the UK? How can there be the coexistence of sexual minorities and millions of Muslim illegal immigrants who occupied Europe? How can feminists and Sharia supporters coexist if Sharia law denies that women are human beings and reduces them to the level of men’s property?
The number of “victims” discovered by Globalists is growing, but their quality and willingness to serve as cannon fodder for socialist transformations are falling. Of course, these internal contradictions will sooner or later blow up the leftist movement of Globalists. It will happen when victimhood stops paying political dividends.
Last year the Globalists widely celebrated the 200th anniversary of Karl Marx birth, but there is every reason to believe that the Cult of victim seekers he founded is unlikely to live to his 200th anniversary.
In conclusion, let’s recall the old political proverb: “The right-wingers worry their political program will not be properly understood, and the left-wingers worry their political program is fully recognized.”
The Globalists continuously try to remind us that “true socialism” has never been tried.
Even though socialism has led to the collapse of society in all countries where it has been tried without exception, the Globalists are somewhat right here. We are talking about those terrible versions of socialism in some countries of the past, but they are talking about their ultimate goal – an immaterialized version of the global leftist dictatorship which they have been tirelessly working for the last 100 years.
Today’s Globalists are unlike many other social movements that brought calamities to humanity. Globalists of the 20th and 21st centuries are no longer an underground group of conspirators like their ideological predecessors at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries. To the contrary, they do their best to publicize their ideas to achieve maximum dissemination. They try to do everything openly and, if possible, legally. President Obama did not lie when he said that his administration “will be the most transparent in the history of America.” He simply thought of “transparency” and “openness” in his own, Globalist vein, in sharp contrast to what is commonly understood.
Anyone interested in how Globalists use the democratic gains of capitalism for their purposes should visit the websites of the Socialist International, the Communist Party of the United States, and the Democratic Socialist Party of America, which young Barack Obama joined after moving to Chicago. If the political programs of these parties remind you of the Democratic Party of the USA, do not be surprised. You’re not the first to notice.
One variant of Globalism is Muslim socialism, which on the surface looks like ordinary expansionism, whereby Muslims play the role of the victims. Indeed, they suffered from their own Islamic dogmas. There are striking similarities between leftists and jihadists – if something is won (obtained, stolen, taken away, etc.), then it is immediately considered sacred, inviolable and belonging to them forever.
The well-known Brezhnev doctrine of the defense of socialist countries is from the same series. This doctrine says that the USSR had the right to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries because in these countries socialism had either already been built, or a desire was expressed in building it. Practical application of this doctrine allowed the USSR to aggressively interfere in the domestic policy of a significant number of countries in Europe, Asia, Africa, and South America.
Another feature that traditionally unites the jihad and all the branches of Marxism is animalistic hatred for like-minded people from a neighboring clan. Shi’ite Muslims and Sunni Muslims slaughter each other with much greater frenzy than Jews, Christians, and other infidels. Statistics implicitly show that the number of Muslims who were killed in intra-Muslim wars far exceeds the number of Muslims who died at the hands of non-Muslims. In Russia, the Stalinist-Leninists (later called Communists) destroyed not only the Trotskyists but also the Mensheviks. However, this did not stop the Communists and Social Democrats in 1930s Germany from temporarily uniting and engaging in bloody street fights with National Socialists.
The modern terrorist organization Antifa, created by the Globalists, declares, like their predecessors of the early 1930s in Germany, that they are anti-fascists. However, this does not make them radically different from the fascists. Their street battles are mostly feuds between different clans of the same left ideology. Modern Antifa is a bizarre mixture of close but not ideologically identical militants. On the one hand, Antifa’s clothes simulate the “blackshirts” of Mussolini, and on the other hand, their behavior is reminiscent of the Sturmabteilung (SA) of the Nazis, the “brownshirts.”
Slave-like dependence on government handouts gives rise to another type of “victim.”
Undoubtedly, this was the most outstanding achievement of the leftists – instead of trying to find victims, they at some point decided to create them artificially. The pioneer of this trend in socialism was Adolf Hitler.
Hitler artificially created the “oppressed Aryan race.” In America and Europe, the victim class materialized in the form of individual and corporate welfare, state-provided medical services and massive illegal immigration (called in politically correct newspeak, “undocumented democrats”). The “Palestinians” were artificially created in 1967 by KGB right after the Six Day War.
“Oppressed minorities” and “unprivileged class” in America account for just shy of 50% of the population. The share of illegal immigrants who receive government benefits is about 40%. It was the American leftists who carried out a grandiose operation to cleverly separate Americans into two artificial classes – those who work and pay taxes, and those who live off these taxes.
The modern leftists are fighting so fiercely for “the rights of illegal immigrants” not because the fate of immigrants worries them in any way, but because Globalists see the illegal immigrants as the main “engine of the revolution,” which must bring about socialist transformations and catapult them to power. Therefore, the more “engines” there are in the country, the better for the Globalist party elite. Hence, their irrational and contrarian sense calls for opening the borders of the United States, the dissolution of the border patrol service, and the admission of non-citizens to participate in elections.
The position of Globalists on this issue is very uncompromising because illegal immigration for them is not a legal issue, but a political one.
For them, this is not a matter of violating the sovereignty of the country, but a question of political survival. From their point of view, illegal immigration represents precisely that army of those who are stupefied by the propaganda of the masses, who will have to stand on the barricades and win political power over the entire planet for office philosophers. Basically, the idea could be described like this: “If our citizens are not going to vote for us, we will import people who will.”
Wealthy businessmen are another class of “victims” (recall that the victim’s condition is often not only subjective but, as in this case, artificial). The current economic system of America and other developed countries only remotely resembles classical free capitalism. Even extensively wealthy people are aware of their vulnerability and almost complete dependence on the bureaucrats, lobbyists, and politicians of Washington.
That, by the way, is what burned Carly Fiorina. She was hired to the position of Hewlett-Packard CEO. However, instead of doing what the executives of all successful companies in the US have to do – spending the lion’s share of their time in Washington to lobby for the company’s interests, Carly Fiorina engaged in improving the quality of products and expanding their business. However, something entirely different was expected of her – the intensification of lobbying. After all, the economic impact of lobbying in America (especially tax lobbying) far exceeds all other methods of increasing the company’s profitability.
Also, Fiorina violated some unspoken taboos, known to all significant American entrepreneurs:
In America, it has long been the norm – under no circumstances, do not anger the leftist media-industrial complex, which owns the majority of the mass disinformation media.
In addition to Carly Fiorina, one more person did just that – Donald Trump.
(to be continued)
The fundamental crisis of Marxism at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries was because, contrary to orthodox Marxism, the proletariat – the primary “victim of capitalism” – never became the driving force of the communist revolution. Also, because of the rise in the culture and quality of life, the proletariat began to lose the main signs of a class of victims. In other words, the proletariat has lost its attractiveness to Marxism as the main representative of the “oppressed class.”
The crisis of Marxism led it to a new stage of revisionism and modifications, based on the search for a suitable class of victims.
Many branches of Marxism came to existence, differing only in the chosen class of victims. Consequently, all branches of both neo-Marxism and Marxism, without exception, are united in their ultimate goal. This goal is a classless society, the inherent definition of “Communism.” There are even contradictions by clans of leftists within the party, who may be united in their choice of one particular class of victims, but unclear on how to use them in the struggle for political power.
The classic Marxists had chosen the primary victim of capitalism (i.e., the main driving force of the revolution) the “oppressed proletariat.” Lenin had chosen colonies as such victims, “oppressed” by the metropolitan power states. One chosen colony, Russia, although formally an Empire, was on the economic and financial periphery. She was in fact, a raw material and agricultural appendage of European metropolitan power countries.
Chairman Mao Tse-tung had chosen the peasantry as a victim, but with the proviso that the proletariat (which, ironically, was practically absent back then in China) is still the leader of the peasantry. It should be noted that Mao Tse-tung understood socialism very differently from how European or American socialists understood it. He recognized it as a form – transitional to communism – when both the capitalist and the communist economy coexist simultaneously (which we are witnessing in China at present).
The Italian fascists had chosen its victim, a nation-state (agrarian Italy was “oppressed” by the more powerful industrial countries of Europe). The German fascists had chosen their victim to be the non-existent Aryan race (“oppressed” by the victorious countries in World War I).
During which time, Hitler “borrowed” the term “National Socialism” (“Nazism”) from Mussolini fascists, who in fact built the true national socialism in Italy. In the Third Reich, if we would use the traditional leftist terminology, not national socialism, but rather racial (more precisely, Aryan) socialism was built.
Generally, leftists traditionally like to “borrow” other people’s terms and use them either as a smokescreen or as their own. Recall the various ways the leftists call themselves – Marxists, Progressive, Social Democrats, Social Revolutionaries, Democrats, Liberal Democrats, Fascists, National Socialists, Communists, Bolsheviks, Mensheviks, Globalists…
This list is quite long, but the leftists in America prefer to call themselves “liberals,” and, using the methods of politically correct dictatorship, force all others to call themselves so. They borrowed this term from the Founding Fathers of the United States, who were students of the liberal philosophy, and who were true classical liberals of the 18th century (now, in the 21st century, called conservatives).
Another example of borrowing or substituting of terms is the appropriation of red color to Republicans (partially right-wingers), and blue color to Democrats (mostly leftists). Even though the parties of the left, not the right, throughout the history of mankind, were designated red (remember the flags of the Third Reich and the USSR), it was keenly reversed.
Let me remind you that before 1917, Marxism was just a theory. No one, not even Marx himself, knew how to make a transition from capitalism to communism in practice. For decades the leftists fought a ruthless dispute among themselves, on how best to do it. Long before the communist coup in Russia in 1917, two main camps were formed: the Mensheviks (the term means “members of the minority”) who were supporters of the evolutionary transition, and the Bolsheviks (“members of the majority”), supporters of the revolutionary transition.
The Mensheviks (the irony here is that “the minority” was, in fact, the majority) were clustered around the ideas of the Fabian society. They argued that the transition must be carried out smoothly and gradually, with the help of democratic institutions. Otherwise, the revolutionary confiscation and redistribution of the property will turn into a bloody feud.
After the coup of 1917 and the terrible civil war in Russia, the leftist thinking faced a new challenge – how to retain power in a socialist country surrounded by capitalist countries. Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks have split again. So, the main competing leftist ideologies subsequently became four. For their designations we will use terms that have been established to date, which do not necessarily coincide with the historical names of these ideologies:
- Stalinist-Leninists (“Bolsheviks”) argued that terror could hold socialist power in a single country for a period sufficient enough to build communism. History confirmed the fallacy of this approach.
- The Trotskyists (“Bolsheviks”) argued that power in one socialist country in a capitalist encirclement would not be retained by any terror, and it would be necessary to simultaneously make socialist revolutions/coups in all countries without exception. History confirmed that Trotsky was right that the power cannot be held.
- The Fascists (“Mensheviks”) argued that the bloody revolutionary redistribution of the wealth would only deter the people from socialist ideas. They proposed a more “humane” method – instead of forcibly taking away private property, establish totalitarian state control over both it and its owners. History confirmed that this approach does not work either.
- The Globalists (“Mensheviks”) argued that the victory of socialism could be achieved only by practically simultaneous implementation in all countries and in a peaceful, democratic way. As the primary method of socialist transformation, they chose the plan proposed by the Italian Communist Antonio Gramsci – “Cultural Marxism.” That is, the path to socialism was supposed to begin with the transformation of education, culture, literature, journalism, cinema, etc.
Three branches of the leftists from this list have practically disappeared by the beginning of the 21st century (except for such countries as Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea). In most countries, the Stalinists, the Trotskyists, and Fascists, if they exist, are in the form of marginal groups, which often do not even remember (or maybe do not want to recall) their past. For example, many modern National Socialists have entirely forgotten their socialist, fascist roots, and are concentrated only on one point (out of 25) of the Nazi party program – racism.
However, the fourth branch of neo-Marxism – Globalism – continues its disastrous spread across the planet. The difference between the 21st-century Globalism and all other leftists is that Globalists are politically omnivorous, that is, they accept all classes of “victims” in their ranks.
It’s easy to understand why Antonio Gramsci, so revered by Globalists, wrote about the 1917 communist coup in Russia, that this revolution was “a revolution against Marxism,” and why “the Bolsheviks rejected Karl Marx.”
Globalism is not only the most cynical but also the highest phase of Marxist revisionism.
(to be continued)