Ever wondered why the terms communist and/or communism are seldom, if ever, used in connection with today’s political milieu? I know I have. Matter of fact, I ask myself the same question incessantly. I have been writing about politics for the past ten years. In that time, I have written a book, and countless numbers of other political narratives in which I use these terms [communist / communism] liberally. Vis-à-vis, more-often-than-not, I find myself uniquely isolated, forsaken, deserted in the use of these terms. Question is: Why?
In lieu of the fact that, not even the most outspoken conservatives amongst us, including some iconic radio and T.V., political commentators such as Rush Limbaugh and all of Fox’s News right-wing advocates such as Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson, Laura Ingraham, and others, none of them, ever, do use the words communist and/or communism, to describe today’s radical left and their labors the way I do, which makes me wonder: what am I missing here?
My endless and continued usage of these political labels [communist / communism] to describe much of what I perceive is going on in today’s unbridled political landscape, has something to do, I guess, with the fact that, many of us of Cuban descent, by virtue of the fact that we had a close-encounter with communism, [the] most dreadful political system ever to afflict mankind, must have left us scarred for life; to wit, Freudianly traumatized to where our lives have been an ongoing déjà-vu of Castro’s communist revolution. Much in the same way, veterans suffer from post-traumatic stress disorders after coming back from war.
Arguably, my political biases, coupled with a tremendous sense of frustration as a byproduct of my political misperceptions had me second-guessing myself on what to me appeared as indisputable and glaring evidence of a progressive communist takeover of the U.S. by the so-called liberal democrats – a takeover, long on the makings, going as far back to the days of Saul Alinsky, maybe even farther back. Certainly, the nature of the dilemma was sufficiently provocative for me to research the possible causes on why the term “communism” has been practically abolished, eradicated, disregarded, and / or dispensed of all talking points by just about everyone in the nation – the world maybe.
Before I begin my narrative though, I must forewarn you all, the nature and extent of my research was one that demanded some rather deep and lengthy insight and evaluation of the variables affecting the answers we sought to find – each of which were complex, tortuous and, at times, maybe even controversial in their interpretations. As such, again, at the outset, I should respectfully caution those who have a penchant dislike for lengthy arguments, this is not a blog for you. Ditto for all who suffer from ADHD [Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder]. All things considered, this may be the point when those of you with either condition should seriously consider quitting to read before going any further
That said, for those of you who want to continue, I want to welcome you aboard to join me in this fascinating journey of what to make of our political landscape on this the third millennium in History and for years to come – buckle up and enjoy the ride.
My journey today begins with the question: Is the United States of America leaning towards becoming a communist /socialist government? To properly answer this magnanimous inquest, one must first have a thorough understanding of both these ideologies, including but not limited to their historical impact on mankind since their inception. Arguably, many today consider “The Communist Manifesto”, published in 1848 by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels the pivotal moment in history when people started to use the terms “capitalism”, “socialism” and “communism” as descriptions of diverse political concepts.
I personally and respectfully bid to differ with the academia, only because, I think capitalism did precede communism and socialism. As matter of reference, and to put into a sensible historical perspective, capitalism is generally thought to have emerged in north-west Europe in the Low Countries (present-day Flanders and Netherlands) and Britain in the 16th to 17th centuries, while socialism and communism, on the other hand, are a 19th century phenomenon which came into being only in response to an ostensible yearning for the abolition of the capitalism by virtue of the purported abuses and inequalities inherently associated with the wealth of individuals within that system.
Arguably, one must concede to the fact that, in principle, both socialism and communism, were intended to exist for the betterment of a greater part of a political universe. Both were stalwartly reliant on the principles of “equality”. Vis-à-vis, capitalism was viewed by many as a destructive force due to the “inequality” that resulted from the differences in wealth among individuals in the political universe – romantically appealing, wouldn’t you say?
My first admonition on the practical impossibility for “equality” such as that ascribed to by the mentors of either one of these political systems lies solely on the very same principles governing the Darwinian theory of evolution – survival of the fittest, albeit the fact that my use of the term ‘survival’ in this political context deals not with the longevity of the species but constrained to man’s ability to compete with each other for wealth by means of his heritable traits.
My next contention has to do with the fact that, communism, in its purest form as originally proposed by Marx, has never existed, has it? Think about it again. According to Marx, to achieve communism, the capitalist system had to be destroyed through a violent revolution. Marx and Engels believed that industrial workers (the “proletariat”) would rise around the world and overthrow the middle class (the “bourgeoisie”). Once the communist system was established, governments would cease to exist, as everyone toiled together for the common good; a commune and/or a communist society, according to Marx, would be stateless, classless, and governed directly by the people – this, however, never happened.
As far as Marx was concerned, the lapse of time between the violent revolution and the ceasing of government was essentially a ‘transitional’ stage – only problem, once in power, the ruling elites in communist countries, have all but found it impossible to detach themselves from their easy access to wealth and power. Inevitably, communist revolutions created small, enormously wealthy Party cliques that profited from connections to state-owned enterprises – a plausible explanation on why some of the wealthiest men in the planet such as George Soros, are willing to subsidize radical revolutions against capitalism.
Let it be noted then that, communism, as such, fell short of the mark – a failed system if you will. The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, marks perhaps the end of a nominally communist era. One may then conclude that communism was a short-lived utopia which lasted for little over a century. In its place, communism was swiftly replaced by centralized one-party systems which can be viewed as, no more no less than, totalitarian and autocratic dictatorships.
Bottom line, in my understanding, communism being all but a lofty idea, left capitalism and socialism as the only two practical political concepts competing for hearts and minds of the people in the U.S. Having said that, and to be clear, one can notice that in their purest ideological concepts, capitalism and socialism are exact opposites – so much for all the liberal propaganda who, day in and day out, try and sell us on the notions that: 1) these two systems can fraternally co-exist, and 2) that many nations in Europe are successfully enjoying some moderate variations of socialism.
As far as I am concerned, socialism is nothing but a human invention; it represents a human desire for hegemony of the social process. No coincidence that many socialists in the U.S., call themselves “progressives”. In socialism, by definition, the good of the society as a whole is collectively defined while government is given the hubris to implement it. That hubris, necessarily implies the suppression of rights and aspirations of individuals – a modified, softer version of communism if you will – a more relaxed dictatorship.
Either way, proponents of socialism point to the Scandinavian countries as their archetypal model having a very high standard of living and generous social programs, thanks to the very meddlesome government regulations and high taxes imposed on the wealthy. What the argument ignores is that Scandinavian countries are small and homogeneous, with traditions of community rule. What works there certainly does not apply in large to diversified societies such as that of the U.S. – enough of this lame argument.
To me, socialism comes through as a utopian hybrid, wishing for the best of both worlds: capitalism and socialism; meaning, its 1889 mentor, Otto Von Bismark, the first chancellor of united Germany, figured that capitalism while better at creating wealth was nevertheless inept to re-distribute the wealth – a task which should be left to government as a means of mandating social reforms, regulations of minimum wages, pension schemes, social insurance, universal healthcare and a range of public services, generally funded by relatively high taxation. Here again, the same unadulterated political romanticism also found in communism.
Plain and simple capitalism and socialism are not compatible. They are, in fact, mutually exclusive. Throughout history, however, people have tirelessly tried to prove otherwise. In capitalism, personal freedoms – in particular, protection of private property, freedom of enterprise and freedom of expression – are essential. In the capitalistic system, the government’s role should be solely for guaranteeing the safety and equality of freedoms for everyone.
In capitalism, government is only meant to be a tool of law and order while accommodating the private actions of individuals without any ideological agendas as to what the directions of the social and economic orders should or shouldn’t be. Paradoxically impossible then for capitalism and socialism to co-exist.
So, where are we? And, why have I chosen to give you such an elaborate dissertation of these political forms of government? I did so, simply in order to give you the same opportunity I gave myself on finding answers such as those posed at very beginning of this writing – albeit answers which I personally find to be detrimental to our well-being and to the future of this great country of ours. Based on all of the foregoing criteria, I dare say that our United States of America, as we now know it, has to be [the] topmost socialist and capitalist country in the face of the earth, both at the same time, thus the prevalent controversies now surrounding us.
Think about it. There is no other nation in the world as rich as the U.S. Vis-à-vis, there is no other nation, none, with a socialist infrastructure such as ours. Our system has been structured to provide us with the best of the best in terms of subsidies. As mentioned before, there is no country in the face of the earth with such abundance in public services as ours. We take care of the elderly, the needy, even the lazy and the envious. We are lavishly generous to all, even those who hate us – even illegal immigrants. Yes, we are the ultimate socialist nation in the world – no “ifs” or “buts” about it.
We are presently at juncture in time where the dichotomy that results from the attempts of coexistence between a democratic capitalist republic and a socialist progressive republic have come to a dead-end – an evident conflict of interest, which, in my mind, cannot be altruistically resolved via democratically sanctioned elections but only via chaos, turmoil, and violence, thus the pervasive mayhem now prevalent -thus the hatred and the divisiveness now afflicting our nation.
It was all well for a while. It was all well for as long as democrats, the nations’ socialist party, had it going their way. It was all well while a quintessential black socialist, Barack Obama was president of the U.S. It was all well while the socialist party had long-term plans to install yet another branded socialist, Hillary Clinton, to follow in her predecessors footsteps; it was well for the past fifty years as socialists prepared themselves for the ultimate takeover; it was all well while African-Americans found themselves re-born under a socialist Civil Rights movement which finally free them to becoming a resentful minority and a perpetual challenge to the system as a means of getting even for their years of unhinged subrogation; it was well while a fringe socialist media was able to perceive a clear path for a socialist takeover and the perpetuation of a socialist system; it was well then for me then to have perceived a socialist takeover much in the image of preceding communist takeovers in history.
Yes friends, it was all well until 2016, when Donald J. Trump was elected to be our president by sixty-three million Americans. The man came as a blessing in disguise and was able to put a grinding halt to the socialist overtake. Simply put, the man put an end to a silent, albeit a powerful revolution which had been on-the-makings for a long time. It is no strange coincidence that no matter how good our president does for our nation the socialist mantra will continue to undermine anything and everything our president does – regardless.
The level of expectancy by socialists was so badly crushed in 2016, that passions have now flourished to levels never heard-off before. The cat is out-of-the-bag. It is evident. So…where do we go from here? Well, for one, Donald Trump cannot be president for any longer than 2024, assuming of course he is re-elected in 2020. Whether or not he is re-elected though, Donald Trump’s presidency regretfully will one day come to an end. So the question remains: What will happen to our U.S., after Donald Trump leaves office? And, I do have a theory on what could happen.
My theory relies on the fact that “history tends to repeat itself”. Much in the same manner that the Industrial Revolution of the 1800’s paved the way for capitalism to flourish, much in the same way I see our 21st century Techno-Revolution doing the same thing for the future of socialism in the U.S. In past decades, there has been a cynical desire by a hard-left brand of socialists advocating for a radical societal overhaul – if not an outright “proletarian” revolution – one aimed at redistributing the much-incremented power and wealth afforded us by our technological supremacy.
We have all been witnesses to strains of anarchism in the more radical wing of liberals and socialists. We have seen how congresswoman Maxine Waters and other radicals such as Nanci Pelosi, Chuck Shummer, Cory Booker, Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and many others have already begun to incite the masses to violence. Their vitriolic messages have been systematically embraced by a mantra of zealots and maniacal radicals. We are, without a doubt, on the verge of a Civil War. I see this war as almost inevitable. The socialist revolution will not be stopped by one president. I see hatred everywhere; I see hatred in the Brett Kavanaugh nomination for Supreme Court Justice hearing; I see hatred in the mob-ruled attacks to Ted Cruz while having dinner with his wife; I see hatred in White House’s press secretary Sarah Sanders and her husband having to leave a restaurant; I see hatred every night on T.V. as a fringe media vociferously attacks our president; I see hatred everywhere.
In closing, I have to admit I was not able to find concrete answers on why the words communist and communism were virtually eliminated form all the talking points nowadays. I can only speculate it might be due to the fact that communism, as such, never existed and/or whatever its remnants were died in 1991 when Premier Nikita Krushchev declared the Soviet state had withered way, though it would persist for another three decades. Either that or it died in the 1950’s as McCarthyism came to an end in the United States.
I shall now leave the reader(s) with a closing statement namely a reminder to all that communism was all but a failed political system. Only a few lamed nations, still claim to to this day, to follow that path of self-destruction, if only we realize that communism has a combined death-toll of close to 130 million people in a thirty-year period, while trying to romantically impose it’s rule upon the rest of the world. Curiously though, while searching for this grotesque statistic, I could not help but notice that such death-toll was interchangeably attributed to socialism as well as communism – wonder why?
I will try to publish this narrative in time for you to dwell on it, before going to vote next Tuesday. A vote for democrats is a vote for the perpetuation of socialism / communism – a vote for the republican ticket is a vote for “Making America Great Again”. To close, I want to direct your attention to the photo heading this article – a photo of a man about to be shot by Cuban “revolutionaries” receiving consolation from a priest just before he was executed by the animals. I chose this picture as a reminder to all on what communism and socialism are all about. May God save us and may God save America!