Anyone watching the Democratic debate last week may feel amused at the way the Democratic candidates tore into each other. In earlier debates it was like a group of canines walking around sizing each other out; sniffing and touching noses and being very cautious of each other. Now, think of the Caucus in Nevada as being a big piece of raw steak being tossed into the middle of the pack and suddenly the fangs came out and the animals tore into each other. The only winner in the debate was the big wolf sitting at the edge of the pit eating a wellcooked steak, President Donald Trump. The loser of the debate was the Democratic party as it continued to splinter.
While many viewed the debate with enjoyment and smiles, and giggles were heard in rooms around the country, I had a more pragmatic picture. The fight was not only an attack on Bloomberg or snaps between Buttigieg and Klobuchar, the true fight was between middle-of-the-road Democrats and Socialists cloaked in the Democratic party robe. This made the debate far more important than a pay-per-view boxing match.
There were aspects of the debate and socialism in general that could be paraphrased from other discussions on the subject. “When such people from other classes join the proletarian (socialist) movement, the first demand upon them must be that they do not bring with them any remnants of bourgeois, (conventional middle-classed capitalist values), petty-bourgeois, (petty capitalistic) etc., prejudices, but that they irreversibly assimilate the proletarian viewpoint. But those gentlemen, as has been shown, adhere overwhelmingly to petty-bourgeois (capitalistic) conceptions. In so petty-bourgeois (capitalistic) a country as (America), such conceptions certainly have their justification, but only outside the Social-Democratic Labor party. If the gentlemen want to maintain a petty-bourgeois (capitalistic) party, they have a full right to do so; one could then negotiate with them, conclude agreements, etc., according to circumstances. But in a (socialistic) party, they are a falsifying element. If there are grounds which necessitate tolerating them, it is a duty only to tolerate them, to allow them no influence in party leadership, and to keep in mind that a break with them is only a matter of time.”
The concept of socialism is not new and the excerpt above did not come directly from one of the Democrats on the stage of last week’s debate. Even though it reflects the views of several candidates, it was written more than 150 years ago in a colonial aristocratic European country. At one time this doctrine expanded around the world like a wildfire. Reality finally came to grips and the concept quickly died out following degradation of beautiful countries populated with wonderful humans. The quoted excerpt was penned in a letter by Carl Marx, the father of Communism and the ground zero for a policy that placed millions in bondage and leading to the brutal purges perpetrated by Joseph Stalin that saw over 750,000 fellow countrymen killed.
Marx believed in concepts that identify the theory that the means of production ought to be owned in common and managed for the public good. Big brother controls everything. There is no individual thinking, no creativity and little human rights. Everything is a handout from a central government.
According to the Marx theory, for socialism to become the law of the land in America, the everyday working man and woman of middle America must be made to believe that they are oppressed and being made to slave for the benefits of an entitled few. Sound familiar? Doing this would cause the working men and women to rise up and overthrow the leadership of our government. In the case of America it would come at the ballot boxes instead of the barrel of a rifle like we have witnessed in communist coups around the world.
Once America elects a socialist government; banks, transportation and land would all become owned by the central government in Washington. The means of production for our great nation is no longer owned by freedom loving Americans. Then a central plan would be devised so that the goods produced matched the needs of the population. Individual desires no longer exist and the population receives what the government feels the people need. The concept of selecting what one wants will cease to exist.
Welcome to the wonderful world of socialism. Just as George Orwell stated in his book “1984”, “Big Brother is Watching You”.
Tuffy Fields may be reached by emailing firstname.lastname@example.org.