I think I would title this of Marx and Socialism.
Recently I was listening to one of those evil conservative talk show hosts when I heard one of them call Barack Obama a Marxist. It was in reference to the debacle concerning his pastor in which he distanced himself from the beliefs of the congregation to the extent that you couldn’t really call him a racist (which I do, his pastor as well, maybe more on that later). But, on the other hand you had to ask yourself how do you exist in a cultural environment such as a church and not take away anything from it. Barack may not be a racist because of the church he was a part of, but he certainly is Marxist.
Certainly that is a broad and sweeping generalization that needs some explanation. Let me first say that I am only an observer. And like any observer I have a cultural background and the biases that follow it. Also, I believe that the other candidates are generally Socialist as is our current congress and attitude towards governing. Now Socialism is essentially a small branch of Marxism or at least is a distant cousin. So I see Marxism as an extreme and blatant position. Whereas I see America currently involved in a sort of accidental socialism that develops once the voting public realizes that they can vote to be paid for not working and once the politicians realize that the can make a living being a politician as long as the people are pacified.
Karl Marx did not write an application of Marxism book. He simply outlines the class struggle created by the idea that profit is simply not paying workers for the value of their product. Therefore, the reality of Marxism is far different then they application. As my brother says, Marx was just smart, most of the capitalists that are famous in the US were apt students of Marx. In other words they read Marx’s theories and actually used them to make a ton of cash. So we see Marxist theories taking life in capitalism and not Socialism or Marxism.
I believe there is a reason for this. There is one framework truth that I adhere to arrive at the idea that Marxism and Socialism actually remove freedom from the lives of people and in fact result in far worse class struggles. That is the idea that man is essentially evil. We start corrupt and we fight to become less corrupt. Why does that matter at all? In fact, I’m not even sure that Marx ever assumed outright one way or the other. However, it leads me to my next point which is that because man tends towards acts of evil, man must be governed. The point of the government is not power or control or redistribution of wealth but the protection of the people. While there are people who struggle against acts of evil to lead good, decent and productive lives, there will always be those who succumb to it and willingly harm those around him. So essentially, no matter what shape or size, there will always be a need for a government.
At its very best philosophical peak, Marxism completely removes the government in Communism. In Communism, the workers control the resources, the means of production, and the means of distribution. Socialism is on the path to Communism where the workers take over the government and organize a system by which all are owners and all are workers. Eventually this new government simply has no use and fades completely away.
In practical reality, the road to communism dead ends at socialism. The working class becomes the ruling class and sets forth production standards that remove incentive and choice from the individual. And because there is no longer any “market” for jobs there is no choice. You will be born into job x and you will stay in job x. There is no vertical movement, no lateral movement, and there will always be a ruling class. If that ruling class is benevolent, the people will be taken care of and will at least lead good lives. If however, the ruling class is evil - see my first assumption - the people and therefore the workforce will deteriorate and will cycle again to become a new revolutionary working class. And this cycle of classes replacing each other will continue on and on.
I hope you were able to bear that little foray into my ideas on political theory because this is about our government and its potential leaders now campaigning for the public’s permission to lead our nation. In at least two of Barack’s speeches and every single one of his advertisements he is creating a class divide. He says that the workers are being treated unfairly and being abused by the companies who employ them. His answer is to tax the companies, “make them pay” and uplift Joe Everyman to financial stability. But I say to you that this will only increase the class divide, enlarge the government and remove the choices you have to move forward or sideways in the economy.
The key is choice and freedom or perceived freedom of choice and government control. The constitution was created as a contract between a government setup by the people, and the people. It firstly and correctly identifies that people need to be governed. It secondly identifies corruptive power. It then sets up the mechanisms by which the government may be limited to the will of the people and then may not take advantage of the people. Through this the people have the choice to live as a worker or a business owner. That through no one else’s meddling, you can earn money by creating resources that you control or by working for a company and being paid less than your value.
The idea that the government can solve the problems of the people is silly. Protection is not provision. To confuse the two can only lead to an inflated economy and inflated government. That is what we are seeing now. The government needs a reformation. The judicial branch has been too slow and unresponsive in protecting the people from the laws that hurt them by not upholding the contract we’ve signed with the government. We have an executive branch that tortures, lies, kills, threatens, and spies on the people who elected it. And finally we have a legislative branch that does not create laws that protect people but instead creates laws that wins them popularity so that they can be career politicians at the whim of lobbyist and corporate sponsors.
Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John McCain are not that reformation.
