Socialism or Fascist?

I stand corrected.
Upon further review.

I should have said Marxism.

Where Marx's ideals are always framed in the class struggle, they are often detached from how the relationship between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat works out in practice.

The labor revolutions overthrew monarchies or hegemonies to establish proletariat control. The problem is that control requires power and the power always has been given through a bourgeoisie, typically an economic and military power exercised either through brute force or control of politics.

The reality is that our country started by establishing guarantees of liberties and freedoms to protect the individual from the power of government. Government has always been the vehicle for the bourgeoisis to control. I personally feel that this applications was not lost on industrialists and bankers who have manipulated socialism going back to the French Revolution.

The purest ideas of Marxism always result in control of people. I believe a careful study of Marx and his works reveal that he was aware of this. The bourgeoisie is always in transition from one type to another- but socialism is a vehicle to keep the controls in place. How does a proliteriat rule? With money and power. Again if you carefully study the role of wealthy industrialists and bankers in the government of the U.S., especially since the industrial revolution I think the reality shows that the trend towards statism in America is not by accident and is inevitable.

The idea that the industrial/wealthy/bankers can control nations using these applications of a dialetic process is historical.

Capitalists have now gained their control in China. China is going through its industrial revolution and since it has the advantage of socialism in place, I expect it to continue to be a nation that severely limits individual property ownership, free enterprise (no govt. intervention), ownership of labor (de-centralization of govt.) and civil liberty.

Captialists and Communists co-exist quite well, on purpose, and I feel this is the result of a Marxist philosophy.

I may be wrong, but it certainly is a reality in the world.

How does fascism come into play? Once there is an authoritative leader or dictator then the political parties can meld into one party. Socialism is a dictatorship of the industrialists through politics. Fascism is a dictatorship of the industrialists through force. On one hand you get to vote for who they decide you should vote for, and on the other they just skip the vote step.

 

Here is an interesting interview with conservative republicans that in a tiny way illustrate how confusing the idea of the class struggle can appear to the average American.

RADIO ENCOUNTERS OF THE THE THIRD KIND


By Terry Hayfield
January 23, 2003
NewsWithViews.com

There is a “Third Kind” living amongst us in this Republic. This “Third Kind” comes in a political package disguising themselves as Republicans (World Conservatives of the International Democrat Union) and Democrats (World Liberals of The Third Way). The “Third Kind” wants to establish a self-regulating classless society on planet earth. I have had radio encounters with two Republican members of the “Third Kind”, Anne Coulter (author of the best seller Slander) and David Horowitz (author of Empire and Revolution and How to Beat the Democrats and Other Subversive Ideas).

What you are about to read will readily (and always) be identified by members of the “Third Kind” as a conspiracy theory. By calling this a conspiracy theory the “Third Kind” wants the reader to envision this writer sporting a Hitler style mustache, dressed in “brown-shirt” Khakis, setting in a room with book cases filled with all kinds of “Hate” literature and the walls decorated with Swastikas and portraits of Der Führer. People such as Coulter and Horowitz do not want to talk about the very real existence of the “Third Kind” nor do they want you to know what is really taking place in this Republic and the world.

The “Third Kind” is actually the Radical Capitalist Class (RCC). The Radical Capitalist Class is group of people that are trying desperately to spread a very specific American/British Capitalism based on Fabian Socialism to encompass the globe. It is the belief of the RCC that this Capitalism if left unopposed will naturally evolve into a Socialism that will pave the way for Communism. The RCC uses a continuous process known as Permanent Revolution (War, Revolution and Terrorism) to remove all impediments (national sovereignty) for the necessary establishment of Free Trade in order to create a global Free Market System (Economic Democracy), catalyst for Socialism.

The ideas of this “Third Kind” are alien to the American people. Here are a few facts to ponder:

In 1983, former Trilateral Commission (a Fabian Society Front group) members, George Bush Sr. and Margaret Thatcher, founded an organization called the International Democratic Union (IDU). The IDU views itself as an organization of World Conservatives dedicated to establishing a Free Market System and a “compassionate conservatism.” There are 70 member parties from around the world to include the Republican Party. At the gatherings of the IDU the members set around and plot strategy “to win the political argument” and “planning winning election strategies” for World Conservatism. Every four years the IDU holds a major meeting to coincide with the Republican National Convention in the same city, at the same time and with the Republican National Committee. Recently (June 10, 2002) George W. Bush hosted an election strategy meeting of the IDU in the White House at which the President announced to the world of this nation’s right to carry out pre-emptive military strikes (translated, raw aggression) against Terrorist wherever they may be. The IDU gave overwhelming support to this policy. All these facts came from a 1979 Trilateral Commission membership list, the June 11, 2002 Toledo Blade, the May 8, 2002 Wall St. Journal and www.IDU.org.

Yet, when the current and leading political cheerleaders of the Republican Party, namely Coulter and Horowitz, were confronted with the IDU’s existence, they chanted “conspiracy theory” and pleaded ignorance, despite saying more than they should have.

Now for the Radio Encounters of the Third Kind:

Anne Coulter, a bouncy and vivacious blonde, recently has been the darling on the major media “talking head shows” plugging her recent best seller Slander in support of the Republican Party’s election strategy. The various talk show hosts has billed her as one of America’s most intelligent women and an expert on the politics of the Republican Party. Coulter’s message is about how the terrible Liberal Democrats along with the Liberal biased Media slanders conservatives, especially conservatives of the Religious Right. Her biggest criticism of these “Socialist radicals” is the liberal accusing the conservative of “not being cerebral.”

Ms. Coulter was interviewed on a July 19, 2002 Omaha, Nebraska AM radio talk show. I had the opportunity to be a “phone in” guest. I wanted to know what kind of response Anne Coulter would give when confronted about the Republican Party’s membership in the IDU. In the first part of the interview Anne bemoaned the fact that the Religious Right is slandered by the Liberal biased Media for belief in a higher being and tax cuts. Coulter also observed when media consumers have a choice they overwhelmingly choose “conservative” talk shows. One thing she did not explain is why the Liberal biased Media networks had her on their Liberal biased programs to speak kindly of conservatives. Before I got to ask my very specific question she made the claim the Liberal biased Media is 100% Socialist.

The question:

“I am a patriotic conservative. I am so glad you stated there is a liberal control of the press. My research shows in some way this is a two way street. These same liberals since 1983 have not said a word about the Republican Party’s membership of the International Democrat Union, that is promoting the same liberal agenda on a global basis and then passes it off as world conservatism. Can you enlighten me on that?”

The answer:

“No, (emitting an uneasy laugh) I think that is your field of expertise. I don’t exactly know what you are talking about.”

The next question:

“That is exactly what I run into. The rank and file Republican does not know the Republican Party is a member of a global Socialist organization. You have demonstrated in the first half of your interview that you are against this stuff and Gee, shouldn’t we know the Republican Party is promoting international Socialism?”

The answer:

“I, I…I don’t think so…actually…um. I…mean I never understood the idea….um…um this, this…um, secret organization theory, What are they doing behind our backs? They take half our money. When Clinton was president he was gunning down religious fringe groups, shipping little boys back to Cuba and I,…umm, ummm, (now with her voice raising) They take half our money, wetland designation tells us what we can not do with our land, what exactly do you think they are doing secretly, (voice really tense and still raising in tone) “Good God” Look what they are doing right in front of us!”

Next question:

“That is the point I am driving at! You can ask any chairman of a state Republican Party about the Republican Party membership in an international socialist organization…”

Hurried response:

“We’re talking about something I…ummm…don’t think exists. We’ve kind of gone off the road here…Can I have another call?”

It was more than obvious Anne Coulter did not want to discuss the IDU. There are only two reasons for this. One of course is she really did not know about the IDU. If this is the case then it is a stretch of the imagination to consider Ms. Coulter an expert on Republican politics. The second reason is obviously she did know about the IDU and wasn’t about to enter into a public discussion about the Republican Party’s membership in an international Socialist organization.

The plot thickens!

A few weeks later David Horowitz was on the same radio station (August 6, 2002). Horowitz’s interview was prefaced by one of the hosts describing how a previous interview was scheduled in advance but had to be cancelled at the last minute because Mr. Horowitz had been summoned to the George W. Bush Waco Texas ranch to talk election strategy. This was done to demonstrate the importance of his book How to Defeat the Democrats and Other Subversive Ideas. Would Mr. Horowitz’s response be similar to Ms. Coulter’s?

First question:

“Hello Mr. Horowitz, how are you?

Answer:

“Fine.”

Second question:

“I was lucky enough to get an advanced uncorrected readers copy of How to Beat the Democrats. I do believe it is a book all Republicans should read. My question is: I understand the tactics you are trying to put across to the Republicans but, in lieu of the recent split between Al Gore and Joseph Lieberman, it seems there is a mad rush of Democrats going to the center, basically through the ages of the Democratic Leadership Council which is also a member of an international organization called The Third Way. Consequently, at the same time I started reading articles a couple of months ago, one from the Wall Street Journal for May 8, something about an organization called the International Democrat Union made up of World Conservatives, then in the early part of June there was an IDU meeting at the White House that posed these World Conservatives were right of center. Does the Republican membership of an international organization going to the right and vacating the center open the opportunity for the likes of Joe Lieberman and Hillary Clinton, rated by the DLC as a moderate to capture the political center?

Horowitz:

“Well look! You don’t want to be fooled by rhetoric or labels. How solid is Joe Lieberman’s conservative credentials, when it took him ten seconds to abandon all his principals to jump into the arms of Maxine Waters when he got that nomination.”

[Author’s note: Mr. Horowitz cautions about being fooled by labels and rhetoric, because I assume they are misleading. Notice he did not acknowledge the existence of the IDU.]

“The Democratic Party is pulled to the left by the unions, the racist NAACP leftists, and the teacher’s union. All these people are hard left. It is a left wing party. It will remain left wing until it is beaten year after year.”

[Author’s note: Horowitz then continues by painting the Democratic Party with a list of labels using his best conservative rhetoric, as urged in his book How to Beat the Democrats. Now pay close attention to the following comparison. Horowitz is still using labels and conservative rhetoric, see page 67 of How to Beat the Democrats.]

“If you look at John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan, you will not find one scintilla of difference between them. Kennedy was a hawk on defense. He was a militant anti-communist. He was for capital gains tax cut and a balanced budget. And that should tell you how far to the left American politics has slid in the last 40 years.”

[Author’s note: Yes, Horowitz is correct, don’t get fooled by labels or rhetoric. The key phrase from the above quotation is “And that should tell you how far to the left American politics has slid to the left.” Consider that for a moment. Horowitz has hinted the Republican Party has moved to the left right along with the Democrats!]

Question:

“Do you have any comments on the International Democrat Union?”

Horowitz:

“The Democrats would say… well I…you know. I don’t know, I don’t know what the International Democrat Union is an international organization. The “Third Way” is a deception that we used to use when we were in the left to avoid the stigma of Communism without embracing the American way. And that to bear, Hillary Clinton is a Socialist. I don’t care what they say in front of the cameras. They understand where the American people are and they are out to fool them. And Republicans have to be vicious in their attacks on the Democrats and strike first or be on the defensive.”

[Author’s note: Horowitz claims he doesn’t know what the IDU is or even if it is an international organization. He then proceeds to use labels and conservative rhetoric to lead away from talking about the IDU. Please also note Horowitz does recognize the existence of the Third Way.]

Question:

“It seems the Republican Party, being a member of the International Democrat Union according to their web site, they are determining election policies in their respective member parties in their respective countries?”

[Author’s note: Pay close attention to the next response!]

Horowitz:

“ That’s…that’s…(raising his voice) way too conspiratorial. (his voice, still raising in intensity) Look! Just imagine Al Gore was president when 911 Happened! If George Bush was not in there we would not have declared war on the al-Qaeda! We would have not taken the Taliban down! And there would have been tens of thousands more Dead Americans! That’s how I determine my politics! I don’t determine them by getting on the internet and finding some international organization!”

[Author’s note: The Permanent Revolution is a continuous process of War, Revolution and Terror.] If you notice from the above quote Horowitz determines his politics by waging war and predicting future terror. And still Horowitz will not acknowledge or even address the existence of the IDU. Instead he yells conspiracy!]

Statement:

“But I found this information in the newspapers and the Wall Street Journal!”

Horowitz (now very agitated):

“The United States is part of the UN. It’s a left wing organization. The US is in the UN, does that make the US left wing? The UN is always denouncing the United States, Britain and Israel. That’s their business these days.”

[Authors note: Just a few minutes ago Horowitz acknowledged a severe 40 year leftward drift in American politics.]

Question and statement (with a slight chuckle):

“OK, I’m glad you brought that up! If the UN is a left wing organization, then why is the Republican Party pushing International Free Trade, which is a left wing policy? (my voice rising trying to be heard over the loud protestations of Horowitz), I can even back that up with Hamilton’s “Essay #12” from The Federalist Papers.”

Horowitz (successfully drowning out my efforts):

“Ah Look! I encounter people like you all the time. Politics is a complex business, OK? (speed of elocution picks up), You don’t get to be morally pure on everything! Just because the US doesn’t get out of the UN doesn’t make it a left wing party.”

[Author’s note: I don’t wear “brown-shirt” khakis and I definitely do not have pictures of Hitler on my walls. And don’t forget Horowitz said there was no difference between Kennedy and Reagan. This is a good indication America just may be well left of the perceived American political center.]

Horowitz (quickly changing to an apologetic and condescending tone):

“ I know I am on a religious station. Politics is the art of the possible, not the ideal! There is a big difference between politics and religion. Religion is about getting into heaven and if you mess with the Devil you're damned. In politics… politics is about getting into office! You make pacts with the devil all the time putting together a majority coalition to allow you to rule!”

End of interview.

Horowitz, just like Anne Coulter, denied knowing of the International Democratic Union, but did not hesitate to label something he didn’t know about a conspiracy theory. Again there are only two reasons for this. One is Horowitz didn’t know of the IDU. But, how could a man, who had been summoned to George Bush’s presence, to discuss electoral strategy (a man claiming to have authored the Republican manual for election strategy) have not known about the June 10th, 2002 White House hosting of an IDU election strategy session that was covered by the Associated Press? Something is grossly wrong here. Which leads to the second reason. Horowitz does know about the IDU and does not want the rank and file Republican to know about it.

There may be a reason for Mr. Horowitz’s “ignorance” of the IDU. Horowitz does know about the Permanent Revolution. This he cannot deny. There is a section of How to Defeat the Democrats dedicated to “The Unrepentant Left.” In “Chapter 4,” on page 199, Horowitz vents his anger at a member of the radical left. It goes like this:

“Far from renouncing her communist and terrorist past, Boudin is part of the same radical network that fuels Linda Evans’ seditious projects and remains an integral part of the permanent revolution both signed onto in the 1960s.”

The use of the term permanent revolution, was not some idle choice of vitriolic rhetoric to demean the radical left. Horowitz knew exactly what he was writing. One only has to turn to his 1969 epic Empire and Revolution. A series of footnotes at the bottom of pages 28, 29 and 30 reveals “the alter ego” of Horowitz.

“Lenin referred to ‘uninterrupted’ or ‘continuous’ revolution rather than ‘permanent revolution,’ which had been revived as a term by Parvus and Trotsky.” (p. 28.)

“The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionizing the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society.” (p.29.)

“Capitalist production according to Marx and Engels had centralized population and industry and concentrated property in a few hands. The ‘necessary consequence’ of this was political centralization. ‘Independent, or but loosely connected provinces, with separate interests, laws, governments and systems of taxation, became lumped together into one nation, with one government, one code of laws, one national class-interest, one frontier and one customs-tariff.” (p. 30.

David Horowitz knows of the existence of the Permanent Revolution. Like any other conflict of man there are at least two sides in the struggle. In the case of the Permanent Revolution the combatants have been Worker Socialists (The Third Way) and Corporate Socialists (today’s International Democrat Union). In his youth Horowitz was very active and a leader of The Third Way. In his maturity Horowitz deserted his Worker Socialist “brothers” in Permanent Revolution and switched sides to the Corporate Socialist cause, now his “new brothers in Permanent Revolution.”

Like his days in The Third Way, to couch his communism and shun his allegiance to America, Horowitz now hides his communism behind a conservative “cloak” of new found Americanism in the form of World Conservatism. But for some reason Horowitz, The Republican National Committee and the Republican Party do not want the rank and file members of the party to know the concept of “compassionate conservatism” comes from the International Democrat Union, just another Fabian Socialist front group helping to transform Capitalism into Communism.

Just a few last comments. Please consider all the things Horowitz did say. He compared the perceived conservative Ronald Reagan to a 1960s very liberal Democrat and graduate of the Fabian Socialist London School of Economics, John F. Kennedy. Horowitz acknowledged a severe leftward drift in American politics. And most damning of all, in order for the Republican “Third Kind” to rule (not get elected) they must consistently “make pacts with the Devil”.

© 2003 - Terry Hayfield - All Rights Reserved
link

 

A preceding article by Hayfield to consider-
THE ROAD TO A UNITED SOVIETS OF AMERICA
Part II of III
By Terry Hayfield
March 17, 2003
NewsWithViews.com
For answers to questions of this dynamic one must seek answers from those individual(s) that would be privy to the precise information (an expert eyewitness). If someone were to pose this same question to Leon Trotsky, the military leader of the November 1917 Bolshevik Revolution, he would respond (from The Revolution Betrayed, 1937),
"If you remember that the task of socialism is to create a classless society based upon solidarity and the harmonious satisfaction of all needs, there is yet, in the fundamental sense, a hint of Socialism in the Soviet Union."
But, most Conservative and Liberal Americans would all quickly agree with Leon, "sure there isn't any Socialism in Soviet Russia, it was ruled by Communism." This is an incorrect observation for two reasons. (1) Communism is the economic and evolutionary step after Socialism and (2) Communism has never existed. Once again an expert opinion is necessary. We need a precise and clear definition of Communism. This comes from the "Glossary" of Marx For Beginner's, 1976, Rius,
"Communism/The doctrine of Marx and Engels founded on the materialist conception of history. Communism is the stage following after socialism and when social classes cease to exist. Communism does not yet exist in any country."
Again, American Conservatives and Liberals will instantly reply in unison "If the way of life in the Soviet Union was not Communism, I'd like to know what it was." Oddly enough, the expert opinion chosen to answer this challenge comes from Noam Chomsky's essay Ruling the World on page 140 of Understanding Power, 2002,
"The Soviet Union was basically a Capitalist Country."
Americans must face the reality, despite popular myth, that Communism has never existed. So if Communism has never existed then that means much of 20th Century American history must be re-written. This re-write, in order to be accurate, would require the inclusion of the concept of Permanent Revolution.
In order to visualize the Permanent Revolution precisely an expert opinion is again necessary. From Trotsky's 1968 edition of The Revolution Betrayed, 1931, "introduction" by Peter Camejeo, we can read a great description of the Permanent Revolution,
"According to Marx, fundamental changes in the mode of production have resulted in the evolution of society in general, and class societies in particular. Slavery was succeeded by feudalism; Western European feudalism gave birth to Capitalism. Capitalism, he predicted, would in turn give rise to socialism, which would proceed to create a classless society.
(Now pay very close attention)
"Marx's prevision of a socialist society, presupposed the development of the highly industrialized and mechanized production fostered by capitalism"
"Capitalism won power in Western Europe through a series of revolutionary onslaughts against feudalism" Please keep in mind, in 1914, feudalism still officially existed in Europe. Feudalism would not come to a complete end until 1918 (the aristocracies were defeated by Capitalism's Permanent Revolution). So, if all this is true, then "What was the Cold War of Capitalism versus Communism all about?"
The answer to the above plea comes from Antony C. Sutton, former teaching fellow at the Hoover Institute of War and Revolution (Stanford University). On pages 11, 16-17 of his Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, 1981, one can feast their eyes on,
"We find there was a link between some New York international bankers and many revolutionaries, including Bolsheviks"
"It may be observed that both the extreme right and the extreme left of the conventional political spectrum are absolutely collectivist"
"Consequently, one barrier to mature understanding of recent history is the notion that all capitalists are bitter unswerving enemies of all Marxists and socialists. This erroneous idea originated with Karl Marx and was undoubtedly useful to his purposes. In fact, there has been a continuing, albeit concealed, alliance between international political capitalists and international revolutionary socialists-to their mutual benefit. This alliance has gone unobserved largely because historians-with few notable exceptions-have an unconscious Marxian bias"
"The open-minded reader should bear two clues in mind: monopoly capitalists are the bitter enemies of laissez-faire entrepreneurs; and, given the weaknesses of socialist central planning, the totalitarian socialist state is a perfect captive market for monopoly capitalists"
"Historical reporting, with rare exceptions, has been forced into a dichotomy of Capitalists versus the socialists."
Just a quick recap: It has been demonstrated (1) Communism has never existed and (2) there never was a Capitalist vs. Socialist war. It has also been established Capitalism is the driving force of the Permanent Revolution and Capitalism, Socialism and Communism are parts of the same process.
What hasn't been discussed is the existence of an American/British Capitalism that has become "our way of life" and just exactly what is it? This topic will be introduced in Part 3 of this series.
© 2003 - Terry Hayfield - All Rights Reserved

link

There are books written and much more research done to explain the link between the industrial capitalist and the socialist movement.

 

I think the reason we are 'mis'communicating is you are framing Marx's ideals simply as a social mechanism as an economic model. The idea of the labor class ruling is more of a political model than an economic model. If the labor class were to organize then you end up with government. Plain and simple.

I am looking at the process of integration of the wealth class and the labor class. The wealthy seek power and government becomes the vehicle to maintain power and wealth. During the labor movements there were wealthy classes that controlled and profited. I realize there were no industrialists during the French Revolution- that revolution was seized by the (monetary)banking wealthly.

The point I am making is that the process of socialization of governments is driven by wealth classes who are able to control the economy, politics and military of nations. This is how Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Hitler and the rest are able to take a socialist cause and produce a statist government with control of the populace.

Marxism when viewed as a labor class drives capitalists toward political control (democracies for example or communism as another means) which results in central government and statism. The State that controls the populace whether through regulation, state capitalism, or rule of force is still opposed to civil liberty, indiviual ownership and freedoms etc.

Marx called for the elimination of the bourgeois the oppressors so that the proliteriat could organize and take control as the labor class. The organization of the proliteriat resulted in two primary economic models- state capitalism and bureaucratic collectivism.

Where there is state capitalism the government controls through law and regulation.
Where there is bureaucratic collectivism the government controls through collectivism or state ownership.

Either model is fine with capitalists or wealthy classes because they can finance the government and retain the profits of associations with the government.

Since the proliteriat cannot by definition own the capital of an economy the labor class is limited to organization of labor and in relation to government the control of particular economic model that is created.

To put it in 'english'- the soviet union never could have survived without the finance and capital of the wealthy and in return the wealthy profited from the economic model socialism offered. China is experiencing the same model today.

However you think Marx was as an idealist, his work carried in it the process for control of the proliteriat through the development of the organized labor class. The socialist workers dream and vision is ineffective because government has always been controlled by the powerful and the few.

The limited free republic concept given to America is the closest model I know of to offer economic power to the individual through ownership, civil liberty and enterprise.

Of course I don't know as much as I spout off, but I think history had documented the profits of the capitalists at the hands of the socialist governments.