Progressives use numerous and distinct strategies to drive their agenda into mainstream America. These strategies, spelled out and shown through recent examples, intend to fundamentally rework America, creating a European model socialist state.
Early progressives (i.e. statists), like fascists in the first half of the 1900s, saw great value in war. It wasn’t the fighting that they craved, but the singular focus on mobilizing the nation’s population towards a common state set goal. Peacetime obstacles like liberty and individual rights, eroded or evaporated under nationalistic fervors whipped up in time of war greatly simplifying state power expansion.
Example Of A WWII Poster Used To Mobilize American Support For The War Effort
America saw this in WWII where citizens willingly sacrificed giving up sugar, or butter to support the war effort. Children enthusiastically scoured their neighborhoods for as part of metal drives, and rubber drives. Consumer product factories were happily converted to supply the military with equipment, and Americans did with less, or did without. Slogans like Do with less-so theyl’l have enough were shown all over the country. Total war was responsible for total civil mobilization.
Progressives continued to crave this war state power, and modern progressives came up with a strategy to get it free from the ravages of war.
They invented global catastrophism (creating Mountains out of Mole Hills) as a rallying cry, to not only mobilize a nation, but all nations in common. Liberal Fascism states
“the left has looked to everything from environmentalism and global warming to public health and diversity as war equivalents to cajole the public into expert-driven unity.”
They were wildly successful in the effort! What remains to be seen is the lasting effect catastrophism has. Eventually, people will wise up when the prognostications of doom don’t materialize.
The left lionizes Margaret Sanger. She is so revered that Planned Parenthood gives out an award bearing her name, and it was won by Hillary Clinton in 2009. Hillary said of Sanger:
“I admire Margaret Sanger enormously her courage, her tenacity, her vision . . . And when I think about what she did all those years ago in Brooklyn, taking on archetypes, taking on attitudes and accusations flowing from all directions, I am really in awe of her.” Read more
Margaret Sanger is worthy of study, as she ironically gave birth to “birth control” in the United States, and its become a cornerstone of the progressive democratic agenda. Planned Parenthood, which Sanger founded, holds tremendous power within the Democrat Party, and as shown above, is idolized. But is Sanger worthy of such admiration, or is she worthy of condemnation?
What were her thoughts, teachings, deeds and who were her friends and close associates? Answering these questions should solve the Sanger riddle.
Founded Planned Parenthood and one of the Founding Foremothers of the Progressive Movement. 1
What did Sanger Teach?
“…woman has, through her reproductive ability, founded and perpetuated the tyrannies of the Earth.” 2
“War, famine, poverty and oppression of the workers…will cease only when she limits her reproductivity and human life is no longer a thing to be wasted.” 2
“THE MOST serious evil of our times is that of encouraging the bringing into the world of large families…prostitution, the oppression of labor, child labor, or war…The large family is the one thing necessary to the perpetuation of these and other evils and is therefore a greater evil than any one of them.” 2
“The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.” 2
“We want a world freer, happier, cleaner we want a race of thoroughbreds.” 3
“We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members” 4
“The effort toward racial progress that is being made to-day…is practically wasted…the fact that the ever increasing tide of the unfit is overwhelming all that these agencies are doing for society. They will continue to mark time until they get at the source of these destructive conditions and apply a fundamental remedy. That remedy is birth control.” 2
“Birth control itself, often denounced as a violation of natural law, is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defectives.” 2
“The main objects of the Population Congress would be to apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring[;] to give certain dysgenic groups in our population their choice of segregation or sterilization.” 5
“Prevent useless people from ever existing through “birth control”, controlling who gets the right to be born” 1
“Eugenics without birth control seems to us a house builded upon the sands. It is at the mercy of the rising stream of the unfit.” 6
“While I personally believe in the sterilization (Note: Sanger advocated for “forced sterilization”) of the feeble-minded, the insane and syphilitic, I have not been able to discover that these measures are more than superficial deterrents when applied to the constantly growing stream of the unfit. They are excellent means of meeting a certain phase of the situation, but I believe in regard to these, as in regard to other eugenic means, that they do not go to the bottom of the matter.” 6
“Under her leadership, the magazine (Birth Control Review) featured articles that embraced the eugenicist position. If Sanger were as anti-eugenics as Planned Parenthood says she was, she would not have printed as many articles sympathetic to eugenics as she did.”
“The statistics indicate at any rate a surprisingly low rate of intelligence among the classes in which large families and uncontrolled procreation predominate. Those of the lowest grade in intelligence are born of unskilled laborers (with the highest birth rate in the community); the next high among the skilled laborers, and so on to the families of professional people” 7
Was Margaret Sanger a racist?
“Spoke at women’s branch of Ku Klux Klan rally in 1926 in Silver Lake, N.J., getting numerous invitations to speak at other smaller groups” 8
“society at large is breeding an ever-increasing army of under-sized, stunted and dehumanized slaves” 7
“By education, by persuasion, by appeals to racial ethics and religious motives, the ardent Eugenist hopes to increase the fertility of the “fit.”…These stocks, he says, are to be found chiefly among the skilled artisan class, the intelligent working class.” 7
“Birth Control which has been criticized as negative and destructive, is really the greatest and most truly eugenic method” 7
“Throughout its 284 pages (reference to Sanger’s 1922 book The Pivot Of Civilization), Margaret unashamedly called for the elimination of “human weeds,” for the cessation of charity, for the segregation of “morons, misfits, and the maladjusted” and for the sterilization of “genetically inferior races.” 9
Margaret Sanger’s Racist Friends and Associates: you are known by the company that you keep! Here are a few:
Hans Harmsen– “Hans Harmsen, a German physician, was an important scientific and academic supporter of Nazi policies in the 1930s and 1940s, such as the inhumane 1933 sterilization law that mandated coercion.”
“Harmsen became the president of Pro Familia,the German affiliate of Sangers’ International Planned Parenthood Federation, in 1952.”
Harry Laughlin –“The logical conclusion is that the differences in institutional rations, by races and nativity groups represents real differences in social values, which represent, in turn, real differences in the inborn values of the family stocks from which the particular inmates have sprung. These degeneracies and hereditary handicaps are inherent in the blood.”
“He promoted Nazism during the 1930s, approving of its racist laws.”
Lothrop Stoddard – “A famous racist whom Margaret Sanger actively engaged to work with her organizations.”
Clarence Gamble – “Gamble was a racist and ardent eugenicist. He was actively involved in the eugenic sterilization group, Birthright (later the Human Betterment Association), and opened more than twenty eugenic sterilization clinics in the Midwest and the South.”
Guy Irving Burch – “…he wrote that he had worked to prevent sound American stock from being replaced by alien or negro stock, whether it be by immigration or by overly high birth rates among others in this country.”
Margaret Sangers’ legacy of Eugenics and “purifying the American gene pool”.
“79 percentof Planned Parenthood’s surgical abortion facilities are located within walking distance of black or Hispanic communities.”
“Between 2007 and 2010, nearly 36 percent of all abortions in the United States were performed on black children, even though black Americans make up only 13 percent of our population. A further 21 percent of abortions were performed on Hispanics, and 7 percent more on other minority groups, for a total of 64 percent of U.S. abortions tragically performed on minority groups” 10
What Sanger promoted in “Birth Control” and what we think of “Birth Control” today are different things. She did promote contraception, and abortions, but she also advocated for forced sterilizations and eugenics, both of which would be considered heinous acts today, even crimes against humanity.
If Margaret Sanger did not fully believe in and support eugenics, then why did she print so many articles about it in her magazine The Birth Control Review, and associate with so many others who tried to institutionalize it?
Answering the question about Margaret Sanger creates an ever bigger question, why is she so loved by the Democrat Party?
Denmark, along with other Nordics, Sweden, Norway and Finland, runs a current account surplus, and its public finances are in good shape. It is often cited as a good example of democratic socialism, a combination of socialism with a multiparty democracy. Even President Obama is feeling the Nordic burn.
Here are the top 5 reasons why Sanders et. al. are wrong to tout these countries as models for America.
1. Each of these nations have small populations compared to the United States. The table below ranks US state populations vs. Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Norway. Sweden, by far the most populous Nordic Nation, would only rank as the 10th most populous state. The rest would rank 22nd or higher. Applying socialist policies from such small nations at a national level in the US, which is over 30 times bigger, is a dubious proposition at best.
US State Populations vs Nordic Nations
2. Instead of looking to Europe for answers, we should look across the United States for them. The Tenth Amendment:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, not prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
America’s 50 states, not to mention its territories, serve as policy laboratories, for experimentation, study, and replication when effective.
Texas, for example, is a great state to model other state economic policies after. It produces a disproportionate share of America’s recent economic growth and outlook. Where appropriate, national policies should be put in place to improve the economic climate for states and their people to prosper. Why weren’t Apple, Microsoft, Walmart, Facebook, GPS, Exxon Mobil, GE, HP, etc. created in Sweden?
California used to be America’s breadbasket, and model economy. But like Sweden, progressives and socialists are slaying the goose (capitalism) that laid the golden egg (wealth generation), and Americans are leaving California. Government by its nature is corrupt, our founders knew this. The larger the government, the greater the risk of corruption.
3. Unfortunately, like most socialist utopian goals, the truth of progressive policies are typically masked in fallacies, or the outright misrepresentation of history. “Nordic-philes” insinuate that socialist economies and welfare programs brought them wealth. This is incorrect.
Take Sweden for instance, Swedish economist Johan Norberg exposed the problems with Bernie’s adulation in this YouTube video.
Stefan Molynux goes into greater detail and pulls in the other Nordic States in his YouTube video “The Myth of Scandinavian Socialism.”
– The bottom line is that Sweden made its wealth as a free trade, open capitalist economy. The socialist welfare system came recently, and is drowning the world’s former #4 economy. Sweden is now retreating on its welfare promises, at the same time Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton are promising massive expansions of government programs in the United States.
4. Instead of looking at these Nordic States, which are slowly taxing themselves out of wealth, you should study Venezuela, as the most recent country to succumb to socialist dogma. In 19 short years, Hugo Chavez took Venezuela from a prosperous, oil-exporting nation, to a near failed nation state as a direct result instituting socialism.
5. Marxist, progressive, and liberal politicians constantly search for the utopian application of the most destructive economic model in world history.
“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples’ money.” British PM Margaret Thatcher
There is never enough wealth transfer: ex. Switzerland’s welfare programs aren’t enough for many of its people, and it could be the first country to enact a national basic income when the Swiss vote this June 5th. Such a measure will swamp Switzerland’s economy.
BOTTOM LINE: The answers to prosperity and freedom are within America’s borders. If you want socialism, move to Venezuela. If you want prosperity, stick with what made America the greatest economy in the world. Shrink the federal government’s power, and let Americans drive the economy.
I never thought that I’d see an American President see communism, socialism and capitalism on the same moral level. Mr. President, Communism doesn’t work anywhere! Unfortunately, Obama isn’t alone in the Democrat Party.
Some Other Disappointing Democrat Party Marxist Data Points:
Friday’s organized protest and counter rally at a Donald Trump Campaign rally in Chicago thankfully ended with minimal violence. Political analysis, including comments from GOP Presidential contenders Marco Rubio, John Kasich, and Ted Cruz are pointing to Trump’s tone as the reason for the protests.
Cruz: “When the candidate urges supporters to engage in physical violence, to punch people in the face, the predictable consequence of that is that it escalates.”
According to Fox News, Kasich said in a statement that the seeds of division his campaign had planted finally bore fruit, and it was ugly.
Seeking political advantage while camouflaging the purveyors of anarchy only serves to increase the chances of violence the next time, and there will be a next time, whether Trump is involved or not.
There is great danger in mis-diagnosing the cause of this protest, and the cause has nothing to do with Trump.
Some of the protesters chanted Bernie! Bernie! and carried Sanders campaign signs. Some called themselves Chicago community activists, likely in the Saul Alinsky/Barack Obama model.
MoveOn.org executive director Ilya Sheyman stated that his organization was responsible for organizing the violence. Since MoveOn.org endorsed Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton, will Bernie be asked to condemn them?
America is increasingly witnessing massive, confrontational and at times violent demonstrations. From Ferguson, MO to Baltimore, MD huge crowds formed, long before Trump came on the scene as a presidential candidate on 16 June, 2016. Many other people and organizations were, however, on the scene and playing pivotal roles in these uprisings.
Increasingly militant organizations like Black Lives Matter and the New Black Panthers are present, and radicals like terroristBill Ayers promote these protests. Funding comes from people like democrat and Marxistbillionaire George Soros through sponsored organizations like Move On.Org.
“You never want to let a serious crisis go to waste”, words spoken by Rahm Emanuel, Obamas former Chief of Staff, underscores the thinking. If you can’t have an organic crisis, create it. Use the ensuing unrest and violence to push your agenda forward.
Blaming Donald Trump for this is like blaming someone for getting robbed in their own home. We must assign the blame where it belongs, or there will be ever more protests with ever more violent results.
Blame the protest organizers. Blame those that fund the protests. Blame those that pay to bus in protesters. Blame the ones that attack constitutional rights of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. Blame the ones in the administration who bread a climate of extremism and excuse those that rise to commit violence. Don’t provide a scapegoat!
The GOP isplaying with fire. Blaming Trump, in order to score tactical election points, excuses the destructive leftist strategy at play. Allowing it escape scrutiny will only cause larger, and likely more aggressive attempts to shut down political rallies, and perhaps even the GOP Convention. This in turn is a dagger at the heart of American Democracy; for without freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, we have no America!
In 1966 Cloward and Piven wrote a now infamous Nation piece titled “The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty”. Many have discussed the meaning and intent of the piece, but what was it really, and would it have achieved their intended goals?
The strategy was well designed, and in fact quite consistent with U.S. Military Doctrine complete with “Ends”, “Ways” and “Means”.
In order to simplify and expose Cloward and Piven’s strategy, its been framed under the above three categories, using their own words (shown in italics) from the “Nation” article.
First, Cloward and Piven’s “Ends” or their Objective:
Using legislation, A federal program of income redistribution has become necessary to elevate the poor en masse from poverty.
The ultimate objective of this strategy: to wipe out poverty by establishing a guaranteed annual income…by the outright redistribution of income.
The income must meet two criteria:
First, adequate levels of income must be assured.
Second, the right to income must be guaranteed.
A federal income program would not only redeem local governments from the immediate crisis but would permanently relieve them of the financially and politically onerous burdens of public welfare
Legislative measures to provide direct income to the poor would permit national Democratic leaders to cultivate ghetto constituencies.
Next, the Cloward and Piven Strategy’s Ways, or “How” It Would Be Achieved:
It is our purpose to advance a strategy which affords the basis for a convergence of civil rights organizations, militant anti-poverty groups and the poor.
The strategy we propose, is a massive drive to recruit the poor onto the welfare rollsby precipitating a profound financial and political crisisand to impel action on a new federal program to distribute income.
A national Democratic administration would advance a federal solution to poverty that would override local welfare failures, local class and racial conflicts and local revenue dilemmas.
By the internal disruption of local bureaucratic practices
And by the collapse of current financing arrangements.
In order to generate a crisis, the poor must obtain benefits, which they have forfeited.
Crisis can occur spontaneously (e.g., riots) or as the intended result of tactics of demonstration and protest
Massive educational campaign Brochures describing benefits in simple, clear language, and urging people to seek their full entitlements, should be distributed door to door in tenements and public housing projects, and deposited in stores, schools, churches and civic centers. Advertisements should be placed in newspapers; sport announcements should be made on radio. Leaders of social, religious, fraternal and political groups in the slums should also be enlisted to recruit the eligible to the rolls.
Advocacy must be supplemented by organized demonstrations to create a climate of militancy.
Last, the Cloward and Piven Strategy’s Means, or the “Power or Resources Available”
These are the conditions, then, for an effective crisis strategy.
Hearings and court actions will require lawyers most cases will not require an expert knowledge of law, but only of welfare regulations. To aid workers in these centers, handbooks should be prepared describing welfare rights and the tactics to employ in claiming them.
Mass media should be used to advance arguments.
Cadres of aggressive organizers would have to come from the civil rights movement and the churches, from militant low-income organizations like those formed by the Industrial Areas Foundation (that is, by Saul Alinsky), and from other groups on the Left.
Public resources have always been the fuel for low-income urban political organization. If organizers can deliver millions of dollars in cash benefits to the ghetto masses, it seems reasonable to expect that the masses will deliver their loyalties to their benefactors.
In that introduction Piven stated that Glenn Beck and others got it wrong. She and Cloward weren’t trying to bring down American capitalism, with the piece “The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty”that was far too ambitious a goal.
She stated in the strategy that cities like NY are too financially strained to provide the welfare income that they call for.
In New York City, where the Mayor is now facing desperate revenue shortages, welfare expenditures are already second only to those for public education. An increase in the rolls of a mere 20 per cent would cost an already over burdened municipality some $100 million.
According to the CBO, in 1966, when their article was first published, the Federal Governments total national debt was only $263.7 Billion. How things have changed! It is now 72 times larger at over $19 Trillion, with America’s unfunded liabilities over $100 Trillion, and both are rapidly climbing. America’s credit rating under President Obama was downgraded by the S&P in 2011, for the first time in history dropping below AAA.
The national debt owes its origins to the very War on Poverty programs that Cloward and Piven strategized to expand, eclipsing $22 Trillion in payments so far.
Whether intentional or not, the Cloward and Piven Strategy’s impact is the same. Maximizing welfare recipients, and instituting an unconditional right to a perpetual salary would bankrupt the country all the same. America’s current debt path, according to the CBO, is unsustainable. Adding welfare costs instead of growing opportunity and rolling it back only accelerates America’s financial collapse.
DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz attacked Governor Nikki Haley during a conference call ahead of President Obamas SOTU Address. According to Debbie Wasserman Schultz Haley was only chosen to deliver the GOP Response because the GOP has a diversity problem and Haley is an Indian American woman. Whether you agree with the content of the Governors response or not, Wasserman Schultz was clearly alone in her charges, as most of the Minion Media praised her attacks on Donald Trump and GOP Presidential Contenders, so why did she do it? What was the rational behind making such a disgusting charge, and why did the liberal media praise Governor Haley?
The answers lie in the Democrat machines adoption of and adherence to the radical teachings of Saul Alinsky. Alinsky teaches that it’s essential to fight as dirty as possible
in a fight almost anything goes. It almost reaches the point where you stop to apologize if a chance blow lands above the belt.”
Alinsky also describes his 13 rules of power politics. Number 13:
Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” In the case of Debbie Wasserman Schultz and her assault on Governor Haley, the DNC chair was merely following Alinskys direction. In this case the enemy that Wasserman Schultz was attacking is the GOP. She can in no way allow or say anything positive about the Republican Party or she would be in violation of Alinsky’s tactics. So why did the minion media instead praise Governor Haley if they follow the same Alinskian tactics?
The answer is that they were following the teachings of Saul Alinsky, but they were focused upon a different Target. The Minion Media was focused on the GOPs Presidential Contenders; in particular Donald Trump and Ted Cruz. The tactics were the same but the targets were different. Praising Governor Haley allowed a news cycle focused on attacking the Candidates.
The important lesson here is that the Democrat party is wedded to the destructive teachings of Saul Alinsky and his radical extremist views on America. Whether it’s Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Debbie Wasserman Schultz or any other Democrat politician the adherence to Alinsky is the same, whether they are formally steeped in it like Obama and Hillary, or just follow along with the progressive crowd. In order to unite this country under a common love of freedom and future of prosperity the Democrat Party and its politicians must be defeated. Nothing short of eliminating their destructive grip on our nation will allow the healing and successful future of America.
Karl Marx – German Philosopher and Father of Marxism
This primer summarizes the key points in Karl Marx (18 May 1818 – 14 March 1883) and Friedrich Engels’ (28 November 1820 – 5 August 1895) infamous 1848 work, and the resulting political movement that slaughtered 100 million, and as many as 200 million, people across the planet. It is also the ideological predecessor of the teachings of Saul Alinsky, the father of America’s radical progressive movement.
Despite the fall of the Soviet Union, Communism, Marxism and Socialism are alive and growing internationally, including growing in strength within the United States. Before looking into the Communist Manifesto, it’s critical to show what Marx wanted.
His goal was to radically change the world. His perverse vision is exposed in this passage from W. Cleon Skousen’s analysis: “The Naked Communist: Exposing Communism and Restoring Freedom”
“It is a terrible and awesome thing when a man sets out to create all other men in his own image. Such became the goal and all-consuming ambition of Karl Marx. Not that he would have made each man equal to himself; in fact, it was quite the contrary. The image he hoped to construct was a great human colossus with Karl Marx as the brain and builder and all other men serving him as the ears and eyes, feet and hands, mouth and gullet. In other words, Marx surveyed the world and dreamed of the day when the whole body of humanity could be forced into a gigantic social image which conformed completely to Marx’s dream of a perfect society.
To achieve his goal, Marx required two things:
First, the total annihilation of all opposition, the downfall of all existing governments, all economies and all societies. Then, he wrote, I shall stride through the wreckage a creator!
The second thing he needed was a new kind of human being.
He visualized a regimented breed of Pavlovian men whose minds could be triggered into immediate action by signals from their masters. He wanted a race of men who would no longer depend upon free will, ethics, morals or conscience for guidance. Perhaps, without quite realizing it, Marx was setting out to create a race of human beings conditioned to think like criminals.“
Now that we know see Marx’s strategic goal, let’s visit his and Engels’ Manifesto.
1. The Communist Manifesto was written by Communists of “various nationalities” with the intent of:
“Openly, in the face of the whole world, publish their views, aims, …tendencies”
“In short, the Communists everywhere support revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things.”
“They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions”
2. “General Intent Across All Countries”
Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
*A heavy and progressive or graduated income tax.
Abolition of all right of inheritance. (Death Tax in the U.S.)
Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. (ex. Nearly all student loans are now owned by the Federal Government).
Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State.
Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of the population over the country. (President Obama’s efforts to distribute populations across the U.S. through immigration and HUD policies)
*Free education for all children in public schools. Destroy home education by socializing education.
*Fully or Partially instituted within the U.S.
3. Communist Foundational Premise:
World History is the history of class struggles, oppressors vs oppressed, in constant opposition to one another. The oppressors hoarded civilizations wealth, while the oppressed toiled under the oppressors for meager cash payment.
Named modern oppressors the “Bourgeois”.
Named modern oppressed the “Proletariat”.
4. The Bourgeois is responsible for all of humanity’s ills, including:
Stripping every occupation (including professionals) into paid wage laborers, reducing them to slaves.
Craftsmen were reduced to unskilled machine operators.
Reduction of the family relation to a mere money relation.
“Compels all nations to adopt the Bourgeois mode of production…” creating a world after “…its own image”.
Massive global productive expansion that created an “…epidemis of over-production”.
The strength advantage of male laborers over women was eliminated by modern industrial machinery.
“…not only has the Bourgeois forged the weapons that bring death to itself; it has also called into existence the men who are to wield those weapons-the modern working class-the proletarians.”
5. Every class struggle is a political struggle.
The struggle between Bourgeois and Proletariat grows from localized struggles, into trade unions with national struggles, and eventually global revolution, where the Proletariat inevitably overthrows the Bourgeois.
“The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to other working-class parties”.
Communists ally themselves with numerous parties who oppose the bourgeoisies in “…whatever country they are in”.
6. Communists believe themselves above the working-class parties of every country:
They are the “…most-advanced and resolute understand the line of march the conditions and results of the proletarian movement”.
7. The Stated Theory of Communism: “The abolition of private property.”
Capital is a collective product only by the united action of all members of society, can it be set in motion. Bares eerie resemblance to President Obama’s comment “If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”
“Capital is a social power and should be converted into common property.”
“The average price of wage-labour is the minimum wage”. Described as requisite in bare existence as a laborer.
Freedom under bourgeois means “…free trade, free selling and buying”. Communists intend to do away with buying and selling, and property. Disagrees with the argument that once private property is abolished, that all work will cease, and universal laziness will take hold.
8. Communists intend to abolish the family, believing bourgeois poisoned the family’s foundation. Disgusted with the “…hallowed co-relation of parent and child.” Does Hillary Clinton’s book, It Takes a Village, have it’s root philosophy in this Marxist concept?
Look at marriage with disdain, as it is also corrupted by the bourgeois. Want to create an openly legalized community of women.
9. Intend to abolish countries and nationality. Is this what Obama is doing by subverting U.S. sovereignty to international actors? Is the leftist UN global government intent a manifestation of this?
10. Communism abolishes eternal truths, all religion, all morality.
The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the State; i.e. of the proletariat organized as the “ruling class”.