Tuesday, April 24, 2012
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, the purported founders of communism, established in the 19th century a government paradigm that transformed Europe and other regions in the eastern hemisphere, adding to an already expansive repertoire of political ideologies. And the seemingly farfetched assertion that communism could someday take control of America seems, quite simply, unfathomable. But is it really that improbable, or furthermore, has it already ensnared certain sectors of society?
Writing for The Blaze, Tiffany Gabbay recently produced a thoughtful exposé entitled “Are We Headed Toward the Constitution or the Communist Manifesto?” that breaks down the 10 tenets of Marx and Engels’ infamous 1848 publication and describes how those 10 steps or “planks” to establish communism are slowly being woven into American society. In prefacing her piece, which was published on Saturday, Gabbay quotes the British philosopher Anthony Flew, who exploited Marx’s blatant disregard for the truth:
… the first and only volume of Das Kapital to be published in the lifetime of Marx was, in his own words, to demonstrate that “In proportion as capital accumulates, the lot of the labourer must grow worse. Accumulation of wealth at one pole is at the same time accumulation of misery, agony of toil, slavery, ignorance, brutality, mental degradation at the opposite pole.” But by 1867, when that volume was first published, Marx had known for 15 or more years that this thesis was false.
In describing how the Communist Manifesto’‘s key tenets stack up against the U.S. Constitution, and society as a whole, Gabbay’s argument should provoke alarm, as the republic founded centuries ago, which was built on the concept of freedom and justice, has been tainted with characteristics of an illegal and despotic political structure.
The first ideal under the microscope is the abolition of private property, and while the complete confiscation of private assets is not fully developed here in the United States, such freedom is enjoyed not in its entirety. Eminent domain, for example, has arguably violated the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which prevents the government from confiscating private property “for public use, without just compensation.”
Now, what the government determines to be “fair and just” is often arbitrary, and regardless of the dollar amount agreed upon, the citizen’s property is still confiscated with or without the owner’s blessing. Moreover, politicians stretch what is acceptable under the Constitution’s “public good” charge, as they often acquire land or property through eminent domain to launch public works projects designed to “improve communities,” by building such things as freeways, schools, libraries, and public utilities. And following the Supreme Court’s decision in Kelo v. City of New London, the use of eminent domain greatly expanded in scope to include reforming “depressed areas” — meaning, a private citizen’s home could be seized by government bureaucrats to construct shopping malls and sports complexes on their land.
Another tenet included in the Communist Manifesto advocates a highly progressive income tax. This ideal is an archetype of class warfare, as Marx and Engels believed the upper echelon of society must have their wealth redistributed to establish so-called “social equality.” This progressive tax structure is evident in President Obama’s “Buffett Rule” tax plan, which would set a minimum tax rate of 30 percent on the nation’s highest earners. And the consequences of not adhering to the U.S. government’s progressive tax code are draconian, including imprisonment, the freezing of bank accounts, and the confiscation of personal property.
The third tenet under the Communist Manifesto deals with abolishing the rights of inheritance, such as the estate tax, more commonly known as the “death tax.” The abolition of inheritance was evident in Marx’s ideology, as he strove to eliminate all physical property upon a person’s death, which in a subtler form, has woven itself into the U.S. political system. Ms. Gabbay explains how the estate tax is not only unconstitutional, but it delivers the IRS another arbitrary stream of income for it to disperse at its own discretion:
First, many argue the estate tax is unconstitutional because it creates a direct tax that is not disbursed to the states for collection. But the more obvious discrepancy is that it allows the government to tax individuals twice, as the items that find their way into one’s estate — be they a car, house, land, jewelry or other valuable possessions — have already been subject to either sales or property tax once before. The Federal government’s carte blanche to double-dip is spurred further by Democrats’ renewed push to resurrect and expand what the Wall Street Journal dubs President Obama’s “night of living death tax.”
Another unconstitutional, and communistic-inspired entity, is the Federal Reserve, America’s national bank which exerts unprecedented power to set monetary policy with the intent of “stabilizing” the economy. All in all, the impact central bankers have had on the U.S. economy has been devastating, by, for instance, devaluing the dollar and spiking inflation rates by printing more and more money.
“One of the fundamental problems with the U.S. economy right now is the Federal Reserve thinks the answer to all our economic problems is printing money,” asserted Stephen Moore of the Wall Street Journal. “We haven’t created new jobs from all of this printing of money, but what we have produced is inflation in prices.” (The actual definition of inflation is an increase in the amount of currency in circulation, which in turn causes an increase in prices.)
One of the more widely perceived tenets of the Communist Manifesto is its stance on the “equality of labor,” which often take the form of labor unions and their intimate relations with government. While unions themselves are not nationalized organizations, many develop a strong bond with government leaders, resulting in favoritism in the area of labor policy.
Another example of labor control comes from the Labor Department’s policies in the area of Affirmative Action, which forces private businesses to adhere to a staff-quota consisting of minorities, women, and people with disabilities. This mandate imposes a blatant confiscation of individual rights, as it ties the hands of business owners who desire to hire employees based on merit, not on the color of their skin or other characteristics.
Nationalized education, which is glaringly evident in the United States, is also a tenet of the Marx-Engels communist ideology. In America’s K-12 education system, despotic bureaucrats have largely seized the parents’ rights to choose their school districts, they have imposed certain religious teachings on children, and have decided what can and cannot be consumed during lunch break.
Among the remaining tenets propagated in the Communist Manifesto — government ownership of factories, combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries, centralized control of transportation and communication, and the confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels — Gabbay points to nationalized healthcare, the unspoken 11th plank of the Marx-Engels brand of communism.
If President Obama’s landmark healthcare overhaul makes it past the Supreme Court, a blatantly unconstitutional precedent will be set that grants the U.S. government a supreme and tyrannical authority over citizens’ health and well-being. Gabbay sums up her article by countering the inevitable charge, that all those who claim America is embracing communism are fanatical:
Some balk at the use of the word “Communism,” dismissing its invocation as hyperbole. Yet when dissecting actual policies, laws, regulations and bureaucratic government approaches which Americans are increasingly subjected to, and weighing them against the 10 progressive “rules to live by,” the facts scream loudly and clearly in the face of those who deny the ever-creeping onset of Socialism. Marx’s Communist “utopia” is only one evolutionary stage away from reality.