Formerly the Thinking Catholic Strategic Center
Definitions: Definition of Marxism, Socialism, Communism, etc., all of which equate to Leftism. First, some "nut-shell" definitions are in order. Marxism is not merely an economic system, and it is not merely a system of government; it touches all areas of human endeavor, and seeks to replace or modify and rule them all. The broad sweep of it is simply breathtaking. Each of the definition links you encounter here will present a brief, short, one page or so description. I suggest you select them all as you encounter them, including any sub-links you encounter in the new windows that open up. As you finish reading each one, just use your browser's BACK button, and you will be right back where you were and you may continue reading.
(Note well that, to define Marxism, we must define the Marxist sub-systems that oppose and would eliminate or replace such American concepts as individual citizen rights, an open and free market, Capitalism, practical and workable forms of Democracy, and representative government itself. While Marxist governments and organizations hide under typical titles such as “The People’s Democratic Republic Of (Whatever)” or “Students For (whatever)” or “The Worker’s Liberation Party,” or The People’s this, or The Worker’s that, in actual historical fact Marxism represses and stifles the voices of the people and the workers. The People and The workers had no voice whatsoever in the governments of Lenin, or Hitler, or Stalin, or Mao, or Ho Chi Minh, or Pol Pot, or Castro, or any other supposedly “Marxist” absolute dictatorship.)
Marxism describes the overarching philosophy of Karl Marx, 1818-83, born in Trier, Germany as the son of a Jewish lawyer. He was the founder of International Communism. With the collaboration of Friedrich Engels he organized the Communist League and wrote the Communist Manifesto, which attacked "the state" as the instrument of oppression, and attacked religion and culture as the ideologies of the "Capitalist class." In 1849 he settled in England where he wrote Das Kapital, and was a leading figure in the First International. Thus was Marxism born.
Marxism falsely claims to be scientific; in truth, it is scientistic, in the manner of Darwinism and Freudianism. It begins with revolutionary overthrow of the state, moves into a phase of Socialism called the "dictatorship of the proletariat (meaning working class)" which is in actuality "the dictatorship of The Party," which is the unpleasant but theoretically necessary preliminary phase leading to what Marx called Communism, the theoretical state of perfect, harmonious, classless, stateless, government-less Utopia, meaning, literally, Heaven on Earth. Strictly man-made and man-maintained Worldly perfection.
The traditional Judeo-Christian and Western culture wisdom handed on through the ages which tells us that perfection is not of this world, but the next, is directly opposed here. Flying in the face of logic, Marxism seeks to force this worldly perfection upon us all, whether we like it or not, at whatever cost. The Utopian ends justify any means whatsoever that must be used to achieve them, including even terrorism, mass enslavement and mass murder. A favorite Marxist motto is you can’t make an omelet without breaking some eggs. In Materialist-Marxist moral standards, if you can call them that, people are equated to eggs. Marxism always seeks to forcefully impose itself upon everyone everywhere.
And in so doing, it seeks to eliminate free markets and Capitalism. Marxism also seeks to replace all existing forms of government, including even the older Socialism of the collective, including the Republic and including Democracy meaning most especially Liberal Democracy as opposed to that newer, Marxism-infected, pseudo-Democracy called Social Democracy.
In actual usage, Marxism is a sham, a false-front, a tool of use for a ruthless dictator to get into power and then stay in power, with a supporting new class of supporters and cohorts, comprising a thundering herd of submissive bureaucrats, who help to ruthlessly control and rule the workers and the people. As a point of simple historical fact, no nation that ever moved into the theoretically temporary unpleasant state of the “dictatorship of the proletariat” – meaning Socialism - ever moved out of it. Socialism is, really, a permanent state.
Over time, the terms Marxist and Socialist and Communist have blurred into one common-usage meaning, that being the governmental process exemplified by the old Soviet Union, which is held by all to be, at once, Marxist, Socialist and Communist. In common usage, the formula Marxism = Socialism = Communism is quite accurate. Although it may be technically incorrect, that is the most common usage.
So, to sum up: what we have here is a "scientific" socio-economic system with no price mechanism other than to have the Party fix all prices for everything, always; the Party (or Leviathan State) owns everything, the people all work for and are paid by the Party, they don't necessarily pay taxes because the Party already gains all profit; the people are all equal in housing and clothing and so forth; the only thing the people have to worry about is Party imposed work quotas.
The “People” (meaning, really, the Party) owns all of the “means of production,” meaning all the land, tractors, machines, factories, etc., necessary to produce the food and housing and stuff needed by citizens for normal living. The theory is that government bureaucrats can produce food and housing and clothing and factories and health care and stuff better, more cheaply, more efficiently and more “fairly” than can free entrepreneurs and investors and businesses acting competitively to bring all these things into the market place as cheaply and effectively as possible, for profit. And all of this is to lead to an eventual perfect classless society. See?
Karl Marx sought to lower or level all of human society to its lowest common denominator; he hated God, denied the right to private property, and stressed the need for class warfare and for violent revolution. Marxism was not limited to economics; it sought to “revolutionize” all of society and all fields of human activity, to destroy Christianity and existing human culture in general, to replace all philosophies with a New World Order, of Communism, which was to dominate all education, to remake the family, and, finally, to “recreate” the individual - the worker.
To this very day all Socialist (meaning Communist - devotee of Marxism) educators include these ideas in their educational agenda. The ideas of Marx joined those of Darwin and Freud to form the basic nucleus of modern Socialist thought, which is essentially atheistic, materialistic, naturalistic, relativistic, and secular, which is to say purely and strictly worldly, and purely and strictly anti-spiritual.
Marxism says that environment alone forms personality, controlled and manipulated environment will therefore form predictable personality; society creates and therefore may modify or destroy theology and philosophy, and, of course, any progress that is ever made is due only to society. Society and society alone makes, and breaks, gods.
In actual historical fact, no nation that ever entered the theoretically temporary phase of Socialism ever advanced beyond it. Socialism - the so-called Dictatorship of the Proletariat - was theorized to be an unpleasant yet necessary phase on the "evolutionary" road to eventual Communist perfection. This period of unpleasant but necessary dictatorship was theoretically needed to perfect the worker and the bureaucracy and the entire social order in preparation for entry into the theorized perfect man-made utopia. Russia, for example, remained in this unpleasant but necessary condition for some seventy years of unpleasant dictatorship. It is and was characterized by government of the people, by the bureaucracy, for the dictator.
Over time, even the most ardent Marxists quietly realized the impossibility of the total journey, and the goal became simply the achievement and maintenance of the Socialist phase itself. Socialism itself - dictatorship - is the real aim of today's Marxists.
Let us examine the theoretically "perfect" or "pure" applications of Socialism versus Democracy. The following is taken from the Pure Socialism page.
Pure Socialism involves a centrally planned economic system, which requires a government controlled population of workers to operate the system. Therefore Socialism is both an economic system and a government system. Socialism absolutely requires government control of all economic as well as political and public affairs.
Pure Socialism represents a completely planned economy, in which the means of production are collectively held, and in which state authorities rather than free market forces directly determine prices, output and production. Socialism is an economic and social system under which total equality of individuals is given preference over individual liberty, and under which all of the economic means of production, distribution and exchange are collectively owned.
The most important features of the planned economy are:
The right of the individual to excel, or to improve himself or his condition is denied, along with all other individual rights, in favor of one single individual right: the right to be exactly the same as everyone else. The balance between the mutually exclusive ideals of individual liberty and total equality always favors total equality at the expense of individual liberty.
Pure Socialism cannot coexist with the honest popular elections of representative Democracy because no population would ever willingly (or knowingly) vote for the total loss of individual rights required to achieve pure Socialism; thus the biggest problem of Socialism is how to select the leadership. In practice, the Socialist method of selecting leaders has been by use of force. In pure Socialism, all power is vested in the central government, and, economically speaking, the government does everything, and the individual, nothing, other than what he is told.
The rule of subsidiarity, whose two main precepts are that everyone who is affected by an issue should be in the jurisdiction responsible for it, and that as few people as possible who are not affected by an issue should have jurisdiction or responsibility over it, says that all political authority should be vested in the most local jurisdiction possible. Problems affecting only a town should be handled by that town, county problems by that county, etc., and problems that can be handled by any part of the private sector should not be given over to any level of government at all.
The rule of subsidiarity is denied under pure Socialism because the centrally planned economy requires the top level of government to be in charge of all aspect of economic, political and social life. Low level and local matters are handled, in accordance with central planning, by various bureaucrats in the vast government bureaucracy that is required of Socialism.
The ideal Socialist situation follows:
Such a situation is, of course, possible only under the fiercest form of totalitarianism imaginable, where the central government involves itself deeply in the most minute and mundane details of the private affairs of the individual citizen.
Majoritarianism must be replaced by absolute authoritarianism (to use the Orwellian Newspeak terms favored by America's pro-Socialist Left against them.) The majority cannot rule; everything must be centrally planned. Von Mises argued that a planned economy is not only wasteful, but must ultimately fail because it lacks the most efficient basis of resource allocation, which is a natural price system, and it cannot institute a price system without betraying and destroying its political principle.
On the bright side, since the government is the only employer, pays all salaries and holds all wealth and property, there are no taxes to worry about. Only work quotas.
Under pure Socialism, increased population presents a problem. Experience shows that men not free to improve their own condition show less initiative, become more dependant, are seen by their own government as “mouths to feed” rather than as human capital, who consume wealth rather than generate it. More Socialist governments always therefore seek to reduce their population rather than increase it.
Socialism equals Dictatorship by another name.
Lincoln described our unique American form of representative government as “government of the people, by the people, for the people”. Socialism opposes representative government on the theory that the masses are not wise enough to govern themselves and are therefore in need of an intellectual elite to rule them and make important life decisions for them. Elections in Socialist lands are always either corrupted or sham elections. Most usually, when elections are held at all, there is only one candidate representing one and only one political Party. Bureaucrats and government officials gain and hold office at the sole discretion of the dictator.
If that’s the Socialist “point,” let us look at the Democratic “counter point.” What other practical, workable system stands opposed to this supposedly superior and worker-friendly Socialist dictatorship of the proletariat? The following is taken from the Pure Democracy page.
Pure Democracy, built on the Jeffersonian model, is a representative government system that operates independent of free market Capitalism, except to keep it free. (For instance, to legally restrict monopoly, etc.) Free market Capitalism absolutely requires freedom from government planning.
Free market Capitalism is an economic system that must be free of any planning or excessive controlling influence in order to properly operate.
A pure Democracy cooperating with a natural free market Capitalism is the economic and social system in which individuals are free to own the means of production and to maximize profits, and where an automatic price system determines resource allocation in accordance with supply and demand. The right of the individual to excel, or to improve himself or his condition is granted, along with all other individual rights, at the expense of one single individual right: the right to be exactly the same as everyone else. The balance between the mutually exclusive ideals of individual liberty and total equality always favors individual liberty at the expense of total equality. (Constitutional and civil law guarantees equality before the law, but not equality of “outcome”, i.e., equality of income, housing, clothing, etc.)
The rule of subsidiarity, whose two main precepts are that everyone who is affected by an issue should be in the jurisdiction responsible for it, and that as few people as possible who are not affected by an issue should have jurisdiction or responsibility over it, says that all political authority should be vested in the most local jurisdiction possible. Problems affecting only a town should be handled by that town, county problems by that county, etc., and problems that can be handled by any part of the private sector should not be given over to any level of government at all.
Subsidiarity operates best in a pure Democracy where government is limited. The opposing position in the culture war has the top level of government in charge of all aspect of economic, political and social life.
Truly Democratic people should be given, or rather, allowed to assume, as much responsibility as they are willing and able to assume. The ideal situation under pure Democracy (in the Jeffersonian mode,) cooperating with a natural economy based on free market Capitalism follows:
That describes the ideal condition under pure Democracy. Many from the other side of the culture war call for personal liberty, or freedom, when what they really want is freedom to not have to do too much, or risk too much, or be responsible for too much, or suffer too many “liberty/responsibility” consequences; in other words, freedom to be lazy, and perhaps even freedom to be somewhat dependant. But true freedom is not for wimps, nor is it for the lazy; liberty has a price that is well worth paying at the individual level. Any person, left alone, will strive to improve his condition as best he can; nearly all will succeed; if they are left alone they will find a way. History repeatedly proves it.
This is where pure Democracy shines: very large numbers of people cannot improve their own condition without improving their larger environment. The greater the number of individuals striving for self-improvement, the greater will be the positive effect that this improvement will have on the entire economy.
Social “safety nets” need to exist at the lowest levels of government for the always very small number of people who cannot, as opposed to the always larger number of those who will not, be able to take care of themselves for whatever reason.
People free to improve their own condition are the only source of the creation of new wealth, and they are most free to do so under pure Democracy. Free people improving their own condition in life are what drive Adam Smith's "invisible hand of Capitalism." (Wealth Of nations.)
In the quite unique American version of Democracy, which is a Constitutional Republic, the people are sovereign. The state governments and the Federal government represent the people, through officials elected by them in elections within the individual American states. State Constitutions grant the right to vote to the people for local elections, state elections and federal elections. Elected officials swear a solemn oath to protect the Constitution itself and preserve it. The Constitution is a legal document, written in English, which says very specific legal things. Each individual state has a similar Constitution. We are a nation of laws and not just of men or current opinion.
In a pure Democracy, increased population is seen as a blessing. Only free people generate new wealth; governments only spend it. Experience shows that people free to improve their own condition show initiative, become more independent, generate new wealth, and are seen by their government as “human capital” rather than mouths-to-feed. More Democratic lands therefore should seek to grow their population, which is the source of all increases in national wealth. Here the natural or worldly incentive coincides with the moral and spiritual incentive.
Nevertheless, Marxist "intellectualism" continually advanced and gained grand prominence in the twentieth century. In America, John Dewey carried it a little further, using it to redefine good and evil; that which is of social benefit is good, and that which is not is evil; society determines right and wrong. Society invented religion, and therefore society can abolish it. Social progress demands that, as the values of society change, the content of education must change, to be consistent with evolving “reality.” Or, the reality that’s real to most of us, perhaps. Or to the most important ones of us. (Marxists really think that reality evolves.)
The “modernist” Bertrand Russell, in his 1935 Religion and Science, declared the death of God, claiming that science had clearly refuted all of the main tenets of religion, based upon two scientific “revolutions,” those being the Copernican, and the Darwinian.
The declaration was perhaps a bit premature. (Note: God is not dead. Bertrand Russell is dead.) It claimed that science had more or less irrefutably shown that, first, the universe and the solar system and the Earth, and second, life and mankind, had come into being, balance and intelligence, not due to any Creator, but due to circumstantial happenstance, as a most curious accident in a cosmological backwater.
A statement that was, and remains, as we shall see, false; science has shown nothing of the kind, irrefutably or otherwise. All science did was increase man’s knowledge somewhat, which is what science is supposed to do, and science continues to do that, sometimes even in spite of many scientists.
But this Marxism-inspired kind of “God is dead” thinking had, and still has, much to do with the clear lack of objectivity and the lowered requirements for empirical evidence in all the sciences; in almost any field, once any “natural” theory is seen as plausible, and no other purely natural theory opposes it, the need for solid evidence and for falsifiability tests for the theory are lessened. So long as no credible (and very strictly worldly) alternative theory is presented, the theory will stand.
(It has reached a point today where lack of evidence is seen by scientists less as evidence against a popular theory than as a “failure” to prove a “known” theory; the conclusion comes first; all efforts after the conclusion are exclusively aimed at proving the conclusion. As we have already seen in “evolution science,” modern scientists, after huge expenditures of time and effort, often don’t even publish their “failures” to prove Darwinism, because they see it as personal failure.)
But Marxism was on the march.
Marxism moved under the International Socialist Workers banner following Lenin and then Stalin, and Marxism moved under the Nationalist Socialist Workers banner following Hitler. If you didn’t know that Nazism was a form of Marxism, then here’s a little quote for you: “Basically National Socialism and Marxism are the same.” - Adolph Hitler, 1941. (The Road To Serfdom, F. A. Hayek, Chapter II, page 30. Refers to a public speech in February 1941, recorded in the Bulletin of International News, published by the Royal Institute of International Affairs, XVIII, No. 5, 269.)
Stalin and Hitler were secretly collaborating while publicly attacking each other. Stalin used the guise of anti-Fascism to cover his Great Terror campaigns, and Hitler used the guise of anti-Communism to cement his strength in Germany. A great evidence of the depth of their collaboration is the famous Reichstag Fire trial of 1933, in which it has always been historically held that the Nazis burned down the Reichstag and blamed the Communists, charging Comintern leader Georgi Dimitrov, who brilliantly defended himself and was acquitted of the charges. In fact the entire episode, including the fire itself and the mock trial, was orchestrated by a joint effort of the Russian NKVD and the Nazi Gestapo, through which Dimitrov was guaranteed acquittal from the very beginning, and both ruthless Socialists got a scapegoat to point at while committing atrocities, and advancing their variants of Marxism.
The “progressive” elements in the West were thrilled by Dimitrov’s brave direct challenging of the Nazis in the Leipzig courtroom; they didn’t know, of course, that he had such good cause to be brave. Until now, all of this has lain hidden in Comintern vaults. Hitler used the ruse to publicly discredit his SA Brown Shirts and their leader, Ernst Rohm, who was being prepared for slaughter. Stalin used it to purge actual anti-Nazi Field Marshal Tukhanchevsky, using as evidence against him incriminating documents forged for Stalin by the Nazi Gestapo. Stalin also used the new Nazi scapegoat to tell the world that his Great Terror was really an anti-Fascist action.
Stalin sent out into the world two different sets of Communist agents to further his internationalist aims in foreign lands; spies, under the NKVD, and Popular Front disinformation specialists, under Willi Munzenberg. Both groups were very successful. The goals of the Popular Front were to promote Communism as progressive and anti-Fascist, to promote the idea that criticism of Soviet policy constituted proof of bigotry and stupidity, and support of “anti-Fascist” Soviet policy constituted proof of decency and high morality. Agents of the Popular Front created a huge propaganda apparatus that popularized these ideas and gained allegiances among the most prominent writers, intellectuals, artists, scientists and politicians in all the major capitals of the Western world.
Particular attention was paid to promoting the false distinction between Communism, which was progressive, and Fascism, which was evil, and in denying the horrors being committed by Stalin, or, when they could not be denied, pretending that they were anti-Fascist in nature. It was Stalin’s mechanism for gathering support while carrying out the Great Terror, and he aimed it at the “enlightened elite” of England and America, in particular.
In America Popular Front agent Otto Katz was instrumental in creating Left-liberal newspapers, and won over many prominent Americans, including much of the Hollywood nobility; his purpose was to Stalinize the glamour culture and generate cash contributions for the causes of Internationalism. He succeeded. Guilt ridden millionaire stars were happy to support and give to such a noble, progressive, anti-Fascist cause.
In point of fact, both movements began as Marxist movements, they were two sides of the same coin, and, as all other Marxist regimes would do throughout history, the governments simply took on the prominent characteristics promoted by the dictator.
Between the Great Wars, several prominent Marxists and Freudian sexologists under the Italian Antonio Gramsci, known collectively as the Frankfurt School, tried to analyze the reasons that the Communist revolutions in Germany, Austria, Bavaria, Hungary and elsewhere failed so miserably. They concluded that direct seizure of political power was not possible in most places, and formulated a new and slower, but more certain path to world Communism.
If direct overthrow of governments could not succeed, then Marxism must embark on a long term mission advocating, promoting and inciting ongoing cultural revolution, whose aim is to transform all dimensions of every day life everywhere, meanwhile educationally building up the socio-psychological basis for Socialism long before the seizure of power is begun. Evolution as opposed to revolution, but a planned and controlled evolution, as opposed to any kind of natural evolution.
A group of Communists founded the Institute for Social Research at the University of Frankfurt in Germany in 1923, and the new mission of Marxism began. Opposition to Western teaching began with strong impetus from Soviet trained Georg Lukacs, who truly hated Western Civilization. Probably had a bad teacher. Lukacs and the institute created ways to destroy Western man’s relationship with religion and with established principles of reason, and to induce in students a sense of utter hopelessness and alienation.
Direct results of educational changes during this period are shown in the dismal and depressing art that was popularized on both sides of the Atlantic. The main idea of Marxism at this point was to create a “new barbarian” as a prerequisite for true revolution. In 1934 the Frankfurt Group became affiliated with Columbia University, where it renamed itself the International Institute of Social Research, and from which base it spread its influence throughout academia, radio, and eventually, television.
Marxism advanced after the second great war as the Frankfurt Group published many works dealing with psychology, character alteration, and the need to “reeducate” people for purposes of social change. They used the revolutionary technique of creating mythical and exaggerated straw villains, from which they would save mankind, if mankind would only listen to them. One of Marxism's mythical villains was, and is, “Authoritarian Personality.” This straw villain enabled them to ridicule the authoritarian patriarchal family, the authoritarian father, authoritarian religion, authoritarian education, authoritarian government, and authoritarian culture.
Imagine that. Marxism, representing as it does the most authoritarian widespread thinking ever done in the history of man, touts itself as the opponent of authoritarianism, and the savior of the victims of authoritarianism.
Two of Marxism's original Frankfurt Group, Eric Fromm and Abraham Maslow, were widely publicized, popularized and promoted in the press during the 60s and 70s. They were sowing the seeds of future revolution. Fromm described his ideal, admirable and non-authoritarian “revolutionary” this way:
Doesn't that paint a pretty picture?
Few people in history had more impact on the education of educators – the shaping of future teachers – than John Dewey, Eric Fromm and Abaraham Maslow. Before the masses could be secularized - religiously cleansed - their teachers would need to be secularized and separated from all religious thought and influence. The main objective of these “thinkers” was to move formal education more away from producing scholars, in the classical sense of that term, and more toward producing anarchistic, sociopathic time-bombs such as their “revolutionary” described above.
Maslow sought to develop an educational revolution in which young people would have their beliefs and value systems reshaped to ensure that they are not potential “authoritarians.” God forbid. And as time goes on it becomes more clear and obvious that Socialist educators have no interest whatsoever in classical educational subjects. Language, mathematics, sciences, the arts and all other classical subjects are simply tag-alongs and while-you’re-at-its and basic inconveniences, unless they can be manipulated to further the ultimate mission; the real mission of Marxism in education is social and societal change, with the ultimate Socialist goal being the destruction of Democracy, Capitalism and of classical freedom.
And even Marxism itself is seen only as a point along the screwy Socialist view of social and economic “evolution;” the next step after that is, of course, leaderless, authority-less, government-less, absolute anarchy. Yes, my very dear, innocent, doubtful reader, Socialists - even those with lots of letters after their names - really are that screwy. Whether they will succeed or not remains to be seen; based solely on history and on the past performance all of the grand social plans pushed by Socialists, they are likely to ultimately achieve something very nearly opposite their original goals; but that is not to say that their efforts will not also do incalculable, immeasurable harm to society first.
The Communist Manifesto, written jointly by Marx and Engles, was published in 1848. To Marx, Capitalism was just an evolutionary stage in economics, between a primitive agricultural economy and the “inevitable” elimination of all private property and classes. He saw, and his Marxism defines, two classes of people in the Capitalist state; those who owned capital, and those who did not, a division which characterized the manner in which production was carried out. He believed that this “class structure” already had within it the necessary ingredients of change.
The Labor Theory of Value, held by economists Smith and Ricardo, held that the amount of labor used in the manufacture of a product was a rough determinant of relative prices in the long run. Marx, however, held that the amount of labor “used up” in the manufacture of a product determined the product’s value, and this value was fundamental and immutable.
Marx never satisfactorily explained any connection with relative prices. In a closed, non-free, non-Capitalist market place, all price structures must be completely artificial; they cannot be based on any reality of current condition. We're talking about all prices for all goods and services here.
Marxism holds that labor consumption determines exchange value, which differs from use value. The distinction is a vital one in Marx’s own analysis, which regarded labor as a commodity. In Marxism, people are things; mere commodities, no different than any other commodity.
In Marxist theory, the wages that the Capitalist pays are determined by the exchange value of the workers, which in turn is determined by the time required to “produce” the worker (that is, the sum of the inputs required to rear, feed, clothe, educate or train him and prepare him for work.) In return for the wages he pays, the Capitalist receives the use value of labor. Marx believed that the value of laborer to the Capitalist who uses him is greater than the value the Capitalist paid in exchange for his work; this difference Marx called surplus value, and only labor produced surplus value. His exploitation rate was computed by dividing the surplus value of labor by the amount of capital used to pay wages.
Marxism stood in direct opposition to the free market, and the rights of men to own property. It incorrectly assumed that Capitalists and laborers were the same as medieval “status classes” in which it was virtually impossible to move from one class to another, and that members of the working “class” could never, ever become Capitalists. It defined a grand, diabolical conspiracy of all of those who owned anything at all, whom Marx called the Bourgeois, to control and exploit the working class, or Proletariat, who were and would always be hopelessly poor and exploitable, and who did not and would never own anything.
Marxism is an unworkable pipe dream.
In my humble opinion, Marx and Engles were a couple of real screwballs. Nevertheless, since publication, the Manifesto has moved many peoples to “revolution”, Communism, and impoverishment, to put it mildly. Marxism aims at total collectivization of all means of production, drafting of total populations into industrial and agricultural “armies”, elimination of private property, abolition of all inheritance, state control of all credit, capital and banks, state control of all transportation and communication, forced mass movement of the people for “equitable” distribution of the population between town and country, and the gradual elimination of families, churches and nations.
This is nuttiness and stupidity on a grand scale. It is the work of paranoid, wild-eyed, bomb-tossing revolutionaries and totalitarianists who would have us revolt against EVERYTHING and EVERYONE. Against institutions, governments, businesses, churches, and all individuals who own anything at all - there is no one left out. Small businessmen, landlords and farmers are attacked as Petty Bourgeois; even family farms and businesses are “exploiters” of their own children, or of each other, or of “the people's” resources.
As a simple matter of practicality - will it work or not - consider the following points.
First, consider the fact that the rigid, permanent class structures Marx spoke of disappeared from Western civilization with feudalism, and never even existed in America, with the single exception of the planters and the slaves during the period of slavery, and even those two classes were not absolutely rigid, and the vast, overwhelming majority of the population in America were neither planters nor slaves.
Second, imagine if you will the reaction of your entire family - including your grandmother, your uncle looking forward to retiring from the factory, your niece looking forward to graduating from law school, your cousins who are the tenth generation to run their family farm - to being informed that they will all have to immediately be moved off somewhere, in cattle cars if need be, in order to satisfy a need, which was dreamed up by some government jerk, for an “equitable population distribution;” but that’s not all.
Third, they will be assigned a job to do, whether they prefer to do that type of work or not, and another government jerk is going to determine how capable he thinks they are to work at it, and how much he thinks they “need” to be compensated.
Fourth, there is the matter of how to select our leaders. No one in their right mind, not you or your family, would willingly vote for such candidates and agendas as would support pure Socialism; therefore, if the socializers are to assume power at all they must rule out honest and open popular election as a method. Assuming that hereditary Monarchy is also ruled out, the only remaining option is either 1) trickery and fraudulent election, or 2) the direct, forceful assumption of power, meaning, exactly, civil war.
Now, I am just a simple, ordinary working man who lacks higher education and sophistication, and so I would be very pleased if any liberal intellectual would please step forward and explain to me in plain simple English how on this Earth any mature, responsible adult could ever even come up with such completely impractical and hare-brained ideas. I have asked several; I have yet to hear an intelligent answer from any of them.
It is even more difficult to imagine how any number of so called “sophisticated” men could ever judge such nonsense as represented by Marxism to somehow be “profound,” let alone to have any merit whatsoever. Just how did it ever come to be that, on any list of history’s greatest thinkers, the name of Marx appears in the company of such names as Einstein? One last question, for any non-intellectual to answer, is this: how did we ever allow ourselves to be duped into believing that the intellectual elite of our or any society are or were necessarily any smarter than you and me?
Marxism represents monumental, towering, and, you would think, suicidal stupidity - but somehow it still survives, thanks to the efforts of the elite. Even considering the vast differences in conditions between that place and time and this one, the basic idea of Communism was still quite stupid.
If you don’t believe it, the best advice I can give you is to go to your nearest bookstore or public library, get yourself a copy of the Communist Manifesto, and read it. It’s very short - a pamphlet, really. The copy you find may be larger, due to the original pamphlet being surrounded by “histories”, “backgrounds” and/or “interpretations” by various authors and famous historical figures. This is important information, but for your first reading, at least, cut to the heart of the matter and read the original pamphlet, which begins “A specter is haunting Europe - the specter of Communism.”, and ends with “WORKING MEN OF ALL COUNTRIES, UNITE!”. Anyone with any common sense at all will recognize this stuff at once as indefensible stupidity, and I don’t particularly care what your very dear old professor may say about it.
It was indefensibly stupid long before the Berlin wall and European Communism came crashing down; it was stupid long before the collapse of the Soviet Union; it was stupid from the start, and no educated man who believes in it can truthfully claim to be a non-zealous, dispassionate, honest, logical and thoughtful man.
History shows, after 70-plus years of the Communist Soviet Union, that the Marxist “Workers of the world, unite!” should logically now be changed to “Workers of the world, I apologize!” And it would, if Marxists had any sense of honor at all. Ironically, stupid though it may be, it is also the most successful little piece of revolutionary rabble-rousing literature ever published; it has caused the most human tragedy, and still presents the greatest danger to the rights of free men everywhere, of any document published in modern times. The enthusiastic acceptance by the elite of Marxism proves that our own intellectual elite, in its overwhelming majority, is, simply, dumber than a box of doorknobs.
Thus, so long ago, via Marxism, began the great historical conflicts of individualism vs. collectivism; the rights of men vs. the centralization of power; Capitalism vs. Socialism; Democracy vs. Communism. Soon after birth, the infection of hot Socialism began to have its affect on intellectualism everywhere, and among the intelligentsia it became a sort of pop philosophy, with many variants, first in Europe and England, and finally in America.
Interestingly, many of the people most enamored by Marxism were those most directly threatened by it. The lower class worker stood only to loose his liberty, his religion (or at least the ability to openly practice it), his choice of where to live and what work to do, and what compensation to receive for his assigned labor. But, as history has proved time and again, the upper class rich man stood to loose his very life. Nevertheless, from this class came most of the intellectual support for Marxism. Go figure.But the truth is still available; all you have to do is seek it. Despite any typical, predictable secular American journalistic proclamations that, STNSEACPB8 that there is any question regarding modern social theory and the teaching of Social Sciences. And even despite how the question changes, as soon as the “journalist” of the moment detects that the target of the statement is actually serious, educated and adult, with neck stiffened and voice raised an octave, the next pronouncement will be - SNRTACBT7 that Capitalism is somehow superior to Socialism. Right thinking, in this context, means, of course, secular thinking.
This thinking is foreign to us; this ethos is foreign. Even the pre- Marxism Socialism of the "Collective" is absolutely foreign to the entire American experience. How can anyone say that they are even a little bit Leftist, or even a little bit Socialist, and feel that they represent a position that is somehow positive for America's future? Von Mises, Hayek and others have long warned that there is no middle ground here. All forms of Socialism - no exceptions - involve SOME level of planned, government control of the economy and/or the market place. Capitalism, a natural system, absolutely demands to be left alone and not planned or controlled in order to function properly. There can be no compromise here; any "Social-Democratic" approach, however limited, negatively impacts the natural working of free market Capitalism. Marxism represents controlled economies and markets, and Capitalism represents free ones. To negotiate any kind of compromise position is to harm Capitalism and prod it toward failure. Failure of Capitalism, i.e., expansion of Socialism, requires growing the government and increasing government power, with the flow of power going from the people to the government, in a one way stream. I promise you, the more Capitalism fails, the more it will fail. Beware of the Social Democrat.Marxism, Socialism, Communism are all absolutely foreign to America; they did not form our common ethos, yet they appear poised to seriously modify and eventually replace it. Look at what's happened and is happening to Socialist societies everywhere, and compare them to America. When you ask the where's-it-coming from question, you don't have to look too far. The same ultra-minority of clowns who push Darwinism on us, and who push Freudianism on us, are the ones who push Marxism on us. This tiny minority of elitists is pushing on us the ethos of BMDFP10 and the SLIMC1 .
The current popular view of Left versus Right, for instance, incorrectly lays the blame for Western Culture history’s largest and most flagrant, glaring and most frequent acts of genocide, racism, anti-Semitism, eugenics and so forth at the feet of the Right, when it clearly, perhaps totally, belongs at the feet of the Left. The fact that current disciples of Socialism don’t know that points out the fact today’s disciples of Socialism have never studied or read the masters of the subject. Most modern American college students want to associate with Socialism or be Socialists, but not, like, know anything about Socialism. They’ve been lead to Socialism, by the nose. In academia, Leftist ideas are in, particularly when they may be found under very trendy names such as anti anti-Communism.
Engles wrote in 1849 about a program of racial extermination; Socialists don’t like to talk openly about that today, it’s a truth that needs to be properly “deconstructed” first so that it will not be taken literally or completely. But, although Socialists always avoid hard evidence, hard evidence still exists. Hitler’s Mein Kamph described Nazism (National Socialism) as deriving from Marxism. He stated in 1939 to Hermann Rauschning that all of National Socialism was based on Marx. Goebels wrote in 1941 about how, after the Nazi victory, “real” Nazi Socialism would replace Bolshevism in Russia. The Nazis felt that the Communists had Socialism all wrong, and were creating “herds” rather than “liberated workers” who would more reliably displace the rule of capital.
In the 1930s genocide was an established practice and even a tradition of Socialism, and of Socialism alone; the Nazis used the Russian concentration camps as the model to emulate in making their own camps, which, of course, would be better. Anywhere in the world, in any era, certainly in almost any war, atrocities may be found to have occurred; but flat out concentrated and repeated genocide may only be found where authored by Socialists, and extreme ideas and views favoring genocide and racism and anti-Semitism and clear racial favoritism and eugenics and ethnic cleansing and acts to purify or cleanse or restrict human blood lines or create a more “pure” species of man may be found solely among the writings of Socialists. Sorry. That’s the way it is.
There is no non-Socialist tradition of genocide in Europe. Genocide is Socialist policy. And Communism equals Nazism equals Socialism equals Marxism equals Leftism. Study it. Try actually reading about it. Old time Socialists scoffed at the timid and “soft” attitudes of those not ruthless enough to do the hard things necessary to work toward utopia, and utopia, to old-time Socialists, was strictly a white gentile atheist sort of thing. Millions of people have to die? Well, you can’t make an omelet without breaking some eggs; the ends justify the means.
Modern Socialists avoid the subject, or lie about it, or trivialize it, or deconstruct it. In actual practice, all existing Socialist states are (or were) totalitarian dictatorships, which may have some complexities and formalities and bureaucracies or councils or congresses attached to them, but make no mistake about it, the Fuhrer or the Premier or the General Secretary or whatever he chooses to call himself is in absolute command, always; that ceases to be true only when the nation begins to move away from Socialism. In actual practice a Socialist revolution is a purposeful destabilization and creation of turmoil, dissent and animosity, created for the sole purpose of giving an opportunity to someone who is not in power to get in power. The very ideas of Socialism do that very thing, by feeding the lowest instincts in men.
Obviously, the notion of private property rights is so antagonistic to Socialist redistributionism as to render the two things to be mutually exclusive. And we know that All Socialists promote both collectivization and freedom, although the two things are so different and so antagonistic to each other that they cannot both be achieved within the same system. Collectivization is an extreme form of organization, and freedom, or liberty, by its very nature resists organization, particularly extreme organization. Before it is anything else, Marxism is both collectivist and redistributionist. And at the roots of Socialism, Nazism, Fascism and Communism you will find Marxism. All of these are simply other names for same thing, which is, Marxism.
In its earliest takeovers, in Russia and in Germany, we see the love-hate relationships between the early Socialist dictators, Joseph Stalin and Adolph Hitler. They secretly collaborated with each other to divide up Europe, even as they feared and plotted against each other. A Marxist is a truly treacherous “friend.” Even as they plotted together as allies, they secretly slandered each other to underlings as heretical to the “proper” vision of Marxism. In actual truth, Stalin wanted all power, and so did Hitler, and that made them mortal enemies of each other, and Marxism had nothing to do with that. Marxism/Socialism was merely a tool of use to both of them to gain power through the support of ruthless, committed ideologues that came to them through Marxist ideology. At its root, Socialism is merely an ideological tool for the ruthless dictator. Marxism centralizes all power, so that all power may be seized.
While the would-be ruthless dictator merely uses Marxism as a tool, the died-in-the-wool Marxist ideologue hates and demonizes success, profit, wealth, family, inheritance, and any visible inequality. He probably would have begrudged Abraham his flocks and his herds, all of his offspring and all of their inheritances.
Marxist “Morality.” The most potentially grievous factor inherent in Marxism is its blatant immorality, as all the world recognizes morality, by every moral standard that exists. All moral standards are based on religion. Marxism is at its core materialist-atheist, and that is a position that has no moral standard at all. All Marxists at all levels - - from the philosophical Communist who embraces Socialist “principles” but is really ignorant (in that he doesn’t even know what Socialism is or what he is,) to the useful idiot Marxist ideologues of temporary use to a Stalin or a Hitler, to the died-in-the-wool subversive Marxist politician or bureaucrat, who knows full well how to ruthlessly assume power and fully intends to assume it - - will sooner or later be heard to denigrate moral standards by which all non-Marxists and non-materialist-atheists live and operate. Which is to say, the vast, overwhelming majority of the population of the world.
You will quite regularly hear or read Leftist so-called intellectual commentators or journalists or politicians or celebrities or show-biz personalities taking strong rhetorical shots at existing moral standards and at the religions upon which they are all based. Note well that atheism has no moral standard whatsoever, and therefore, in self defense if not with evil intent, openly attacks all existing moral standards.
A typical rhetorical shot, perhaps the one most often heard or read, runs along the lines of, ”Just because people go to church does not make them better than people who don’t.” By what standard do they say that? By what norm do they judge better from worse, good from bad, vice from virtue, right from wrong? Name it. Describe it. If they know that people who go to church are not better than people who do not, then they ought to be able to explain how they know it, and present their set of moral norms before us in public, and defend them. The truth of the matter is that they have no moral standards at all, and what they attack is the very existence of moral standards. Otherwise they could answer the “name your ethos” question very quickly and very easily. Their only rule is no rule, which says there is no guilt, there is no innocence, there is only existence.
The rest of us, meaning the overwhelming majority of the population of the world, have no difficulty naming and elaborating upon our morality, our collective ethos. My ethos springs from Western Civilization. At a more detailed level, my ethos springs from Judeo-Christianity. At an even more detailed level, my ethos comes out of Christianity. At the most detailed level of all, my ethos is Roman Catholic. I embrace and profess everything the Roman Catholic Church teaches, as laid out in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, without any modification, reservation or hesitation. I openly profess and stand prepared to defend every single thing in it. See how easy it is to describe your moral standard? It’s a very simple thing, for most of us, but not so easy for Marxists.Marxism is animal-like, in that it operates on instinct and self-interest alone, and does not judge between right and wrong. Marxism lacks proper judgment. It cannot properly differentiate between right and wrong. It has no fixed rule. The name I give to their “morality” is the morality of BMDFP10 and Marxists. Everything about Marxism is false. Even as they preach about the end of classes, they seek to make a new ruling class of themselves. Even as they rail against “authority” they seek to become the world’s ultimate authoritarians.
Remember the three favorite pithy sayings of the typical Marxist petty bureaucrat on the progressive upward march to ultimate bureaucratic authority and political power:
Marxism is not dead. It simply took on new trappings. Marxism now promotes the "Global Village" rather than the rule of the Proletariat, and it awaits the sprouting of educational seeds planted long ago to produce Maslow and Fromm's anti-authoritarian, super-barbarian, Revolutionary Man. If you love America, and if you cherish our American heritage and the American ideal, then the time for action is right now. We need to do more than just plant our feet.
Figuratively speaking, it's time to lock-and-load, buckle your chin strap, fix bayonets, and get it on. We need to take back ground that has been lost, and settle this thing. The sad part is that most of us don't even know the fight has begun, let alone what is at stake.
For a look at the Marxist cliff where the slippery slope we are currently sliding down is taking us, look at the 2008 Obama Election page. It has a link to an explanation of how America's (and the world's) Great Depression started, and the startling similarities to the potential one that is beginning right now, in late 2008.
It's time to pray, and it's time to act.
The Road To Serfdom; F. A. Hayek, University of Chicago Press
Bureaucracy; Ludwig Von Mises, Yale University Press
The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality; Ludwig Von Mises, Libertarian Press
Capitalism and Freedom; Milton Friedman, University of Chicago Press
Free To Choose; Milton & Rose Friedman, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich
The Great Terror - A Reassessment; Robert Conquest, Oxford University Press
Wealth Of Nations; Adam Smith, Prometheus Books
The Theory of Moral Sentiments; Adam Smith, Liberty Fund
Sarcastic Acronym Hover-Link Footnotes: For the convenience of those readers using devices that lack a mouse, these footnotes are provided for all webpages, in case any webpage contains any hover-links. (If you don't have a mouse, you can't "hover" it over a link without clicking just to see the simple acronym interpretation. Click any footnote link to see the acronym and a detailed explanation.)SLIMC1 Secularist Liberal Intellectual Media Complex
The Brilliantly Conceived Organization of the USA; Vic Biorseth
Return to the BLOG page
Return to the HOME PAGE
Subscribe to our Free E-Zine News Letter
Respond to This Article Below The Last Comment
Date: Sun Nov 02 08:41:35 2008
From: Mike Rizzio
Subject: Karl Marx and the Birth of Social Stupidity
Vic, Great article as usual.
One additional and very key point. The HUMANIST MANIFESTO 1933, 2973 and the Aquarian Conspiracy gives the smokescreen that has infiltrated the educational, entertainment and pseudo-psychological mainstream that feeds the mass media. It is the conduit that the American Humanist Association and its allies use to bring about cultural revolution.
Date: 1/11/2009 3:04:43 PM
From: Vic Biorseth
Subject: HUMANIST MANIFESTO
From what I’ve found on the Humanist Manifesto, it looks to me like warmed over Marxism; perhaps a kinder, gentler form of it. It claims a kind-of sort-of set of “ethics” inherited from religion, which it denies, as it seeks to make another man-made religion of itself. The last elements or declarations confirm that it seeks to eliminate the evil Profit Motive and replace it with blessed Social Sameness, which appears to be a mirror image of Marx’s stupid utopian pipe dream. Here’s the newer Communist Manifesto, the best today’s Communists can come up with.
There we have it. No Revelation, and no material evidence supporting it. It’s sole support is itself. It’s a theory of a theory, supported by a theory. Life and everything came about strictly by nature, say those who have not and cannot prove it. And God does not exist, say those who cannot and do not even try to prove it. Being atheist and seeing this life as all there is seems so much easier to accept when your scope is narrow and open objectivity is not allowed to enter the arena. Eat, drink and be merry, for – this is it, and all there is.
Date: Mon Jan 12 04:58:22 2009
Subject: Another New Religion
Pardon the withholding of my name, but some of us need to keep our heads down due to the “Leftiness” of our superiors.
There is nothing new here, except for Humanism’s relationship with Marxism. Throughout history, men – mere creatures themselves – have created and fashioned, with their hands, objects and images, and then bowed down before these objects and images, and worshipped them, and prayed to them, and sacrificed to them, as if they could actually do something.
This new one actually calls itself “religious humanism” and not only sees itself as a religion, but as the ultimate religion, which must eventually replace all others. This is the tap root of the Secular Humanism movement that seeks to displace and destroy Christianity and all other religions in favor of itself. It has no natural or empirical or scientific or religious basis, or any basis, other than pure elitist consensus.
It seeks to get the elite into the position of being able to say “shut up and get on the cattle car”, to quote you, but it seeks to get there by a different path. Their path is the path of smooth persuasion, political trickery, mesmerizing inclusiveness and super-tolerance. It is an easier and more politically correct path than Marx’s original terrible and violent path of bloody revolution.
To that end, it is now widely held in elitist circles that referring to sin as sin, is a sin. Perhaps the only sin. Hence we see that today homosexuality is seen as normal – assuming you flunked elementary math. And it is natural – assuming you flunked elementary biology. And it is virtuous – assuming you are a humanist. And, all of this assumes that you must be very poorly educated and/or severely lacking in cognitive ability.
The bottom line strategy of the elite here is to convince everyone that we the people are just too dumb to govern ourselves, and thus we need an elite class to do that little task for us. And they are willing, in their galling condescension.
Isn’t that nice of them?
Date: Sat May 29 06:42:10 2010
From: Matt Tynan
Considering you hate Marxism so much - and I don't see why in many ways you seem very biased - what do you think is the best form of government? I would argue that all political philosophies in America are contrary to the Catholic lifestyle, but that being said there is no reason to pursue a Catholic government - it is bound to fail in itself.
Date: Sat May 29 11:56:42 2010
From: Vic Biorseth
I do indeed hate Marxism very much. The reason for my anti-Marxist “bias” is based on the recorded history of Marxism. It has failed every time it has been tried, it has brought only impoverishment, loss of liberty, gulags and even death camps to every land that ever fell to it. Read Marx’s Communist Manifesto, which is the Marxist Bible. World revolution; an end to private property; death to resistors. Very simple. Nothing to it. Read it.
The statement that “all political philosophies in America are contrary to the Catholic lifestyle” is patently false. I am both a devout practicing Catholic, and an American Constitutional Conservative, and there is nothing in my political life that runs contrary to my Catholic lifestyle.
As far as establishing a Catholic government, look at the Catholic Communism page; Catholic government only works in the ecclesial order; it would be quite impossible as a secular government. You also might want to look at the Colonial Communism page for the first experiment with Socialism in Colonial America.
Re the “best form” of secular government, what we had in the USA before the slow encroachment of Marxist thought that began, probably, with President Woodrow Wilson, and brought us to where we are today under Comrade Premier Barrack Hussein Obama, peace be upon him. Wilson, in one of his saner moments, said that The best form of government is the one that governs the least.
Government should be representative government, not government by any elite class or monarchy. That means that the people have something to say about their own government, and the ability to change the government. Any form of representative government is better than any form of Marxism. Pure democracy, as in a lynch mob, is not workable for the obvious reasons. A parliamentary democracy is much better. A parliamentary democracy with only two significant competing political Parties is better yet, for stability. Best of all is what we have here in America, which is a Constitutional Republic.
Read our founding document, the Declaration of Independence; it’s very short. Then, read our American Constitution, which is also fairly succinct and not complicated. Each of our 50 sovereign states also have a constitution and a state government.
The last and most important point is that our form of government requires a religious and moral people, with a common sense of morality, of telling right from wrong. That is our common Ethos. All of our founders agreed on that point. Our common national Judeo-Christian ethos forms the basis for our representative law.
Date: Sat May 29 19:09:50 2010
From: Matt Tynan
Your assertion that Marx's 'dictatorship of the proletariat' means 'dictatorship of THE PARTY' is completely wrong and misleading. Marx described the dictatorship based on the Paris commune - no dominating party there. Like most American conservatives, you have mixed Leninism and Bolshevism up with Marxism - they are very different.
Date: Sun May 30 04:47:52 2010
From: Vic Biorseth
Marx never ruled anywhere; dictatorship of the Party speaks of practical reality.
Look at every Marxist ruler (dictator) throughout history and see what you find. Lenin’s Party, and the sole Party of Russia, was the Communist Party. Hitler’s Party, and the sole Party of Germany, was the National Socialist Worker’s Party. Mussolini’s Party, and the sole Party of Italy, was the Fascist Party. Mao’s Party, and the sole Party of China, is the Communist Party. Castro’s Party, and the sole Party of Cuba, is the Communist Party.
Bolshevism equals Communism equals Socialism equals Marxism. The only differences between Bolshevism and Nazism involved the personality differences between Lenin, Stalin, etc., and Hitler. The National Socialists thought (or said) that the Bolsheviks had Marxism wrong; the Bolsheviks thought (or said) that the Nazis had Marxism wrong. They were two sides of the same bogus and counterfeit Marxist coin.
Date: Sat May 29 19:40:15 2010
Marxism isn’t contrary to religion. In fact neither is Leninism - he allowed religious orders to maintain themselves and hold regular services.
BTW Vic you seem to be slightly hypocritical in that you say "oh humanism is unfounded and based on theory" - so is Catholicism!
The Church established based on Jesus Christ and the religious movement he created is no different to any modern cult.
Date: Sun May 30 06:11:47 2010
From: Vic Biorseth
Matt, Matt, Matt.
Marx called religion the Opiate of the masses. The entire history of Communism is a history of unrelenting religious oppression. Only the Russian Orthodox religion was tolerated in Russia after making a Faustian bargain with the Party.
Regarding “unfounded theories” Marxism is of the world and claims to be “scientific.” Catholicism is not of the world, and does not claim to be scientific. Humanism is an atheistic approach, meaning of the world and exclusive of religion, and is therefore either empirically provable (scientific) or not.
Catholicism is unmoved by what atheists or cultists think of it.
Date: Sat Jul 30 09:00:28 2011
From: Dr Carol Byrne
I wonder if you would be interested in reading my recently published book, "The Catholic Worker Movement (1933-1980): a Critical Analysis." Based on authentic documentary evidence, it exposes the agenda of the Movement's two founders, Dorothy Day and Peter Maurin, who sought to bring Socialism into the Catholic Church under the guise of "Christian Communism."
Dorothy Day was virulently anti-American in word and deed, an admirer of Lenin and the Soviet Union, an absolute Pacifist, a collaborator in Communist-led strikes and a defender of Socialist leaders in any part of the world, including those who persecuted the Church.
In spite of all this, her cause for canonization is being considered by the Vatican. It is vital that Catholics should be alerted to the dangers of importing Marxist-Leninist doctrines into the Church which are already undermining its supernatural mission to the detriment of souls.
Date: Sat Jul 09 10:21:59 2011
From: Vic Biorseth
Yes, I would be interested. I have not looked closely at Dorothy Day; all I have read or heard of her was positive, but I always felt a bit uneasy about some of her terminology; emphasis on words like workers and exploitation, but nothing solid or definite. I never looked further into it, and perhaps I should have. This may be an opportunity to do that.
Date: Mon Aug 08 08:34:50 2011
From: Dr Carol Byrne
Hello again, Vic,
Thank you so much for your interest in my work. I am grateful for the favour of a reply.
In order to help you locate a source for my book and read some background information, here is the relevant web page:
There are also a couple of reviews of the book on http://www.amazon.com/Catholic-Worker-Movement-1933-1980-Critical/dp/1452078424/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1312806046&sr=1-1.
If you would like a more detailed set of notes which are not included in the published version, these can be found
Thank you again, and congratulations on your superb website.
Date: Mon Aug 08 20:26:02 2011
From: Vic Biorseth
Thank you; as time permits I will read your book, and perhaps do a new webpage on the subject.
Nov 26 22:06:40 2012
From: just a thought
The Catholic Bible describes the earliest Christians as living out Christ's command to "love one another as I love you" - by redistributing everything they had - so that everyone was adequately provided for - each according to need".
Is this Bible description not one of "Christian Humanism" - a genuine humanism based on love commanded by Christ?
The mistake that is made so often by the uneducated, is that they cannot see that atheistic-style "humanism" is DEVOID of all genuine loving humanity - and is therefore a FRAUDULENT "humanism".
What do you think?
Date: Tue Nov
27 07:14:58 2012
From: Vic Biorseth
Just A Thought:
I have always taken the places in Scripture that talk of such communal living to be the makings of the first primitive religious order, since it was always talking about the Apostles and the closest disciples of the Lord. There is also a lot of reference to wealthy supporters, most frequently women, whom we must assume were wealthy widows. Note that they remained wealthy, and gave from their plenty, else they could not continue to give over time.
In Acts 4 we see that all members of this new “order” sold all that they had and distributed among them according to need. This, of course, was a one-time-shot. After that initial collection and distribution was exhausted, obviously, they had nothing among them to redistribute. This is akin to orders of nuns and monks who take an oath of poverty.
“Let the thief no longer steal, but rather let him labor, doing honest work with his hands, so that he may be able to give to those in need.” – Eph. 4:28, shows that what you say is correct. We are to earn our daily bread and give from our plenty; before we can give from our plenty, we must earn plenty.
If we do not give willingly, we do not give out of love. Another word for love is charity.
Date: Sat Sep 13 2014
From: Vic Biorseth
Changes pursuant to changing the website URL
and name from
Thinking Catholic Strategic Center to
Catholic American Thinker.
Pulled the trigger on the 301 MOVE IT option June 1, 2014. Working my way through all the webpages. .
Date: Wed Sep 25 23:01:37 2019
Marxism is the justification for the creation of a crime organization to rob all the assets from countries. George Soros is an example of it. It is not economic. It is not political. It does not even want to rule beyond getting control of all a countries valuable assets, like gold, food, iron, cattle, anything that can be gather up and resold or stolen. After all the assets are stolen the communists don't care what happens to a country and usually a tyrant takes over who actually wants power. The people are therefore left impoverished, corrupted, and enslaved by the tyrant because they are the only assets left.
Never be lukewarm.
Life itself demands passion.
He who is indifferent to God has already forfeited his soul.
He who is indifferent to politics has already forfeited his liberty.
In America, religion is not mere window dressing and citizenship is not a spectator sport.
Do not allow our common destiny as a whole people to just happen without your input.
Get in the fight! Engage the Enemy!
Seek the Truth; find the Way; live the Life; please God, and live forever.
All Published Articles
By Publication Date
Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and
broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in
thereat. How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life:
and few there are that find it! Beware of false prophets, who come to you in
the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
Jesus Christ; Matt 7:13-15
The Purpose of this group of links is to provide a repository for articles exposing the purposeful deadly fraud behind all of Marxian theory.
The Marxism Pages
Marx's Communist Manifesto was a masterpiece of deceitful rabble-rousing incitement to class warfare and revolution against the status quo. But it produced nothing of value to human kind, in the fields of economics, political arrangements, social science or anything else. This was just another evil man with a solid following of other evil men and hordes of convinced useful idiots.
The Marxism Pages: The Destruction of Western Civilization From Within. The Marxism Pages, on the Western Cultural transformation from Judeo-Christianity into Pure Materialism.
Another right-column gathering of material, this time refuting Marxist theory. Articles refuting Marxism are linked to in the right column of this webpage.
Refuting Marxism and sub-theories of Socialism and Communism, as Scientism. If Marxism represents any sort of true Scientific Theory then there must be a preponderance of evidences supporting it. Show us any of it.
Definition of Marxism: Total control of means of production, including workers. The definition of Marxism describes the social, economic and governmental philosophy of Karl Marx, co-author of the Communist Manifesto.
The intellectual elite embrace Marxism and reveal their own true stupidity. It is astounding that any philosophy so obviously fatally flawed as Marxism could ever have gained such wide support and alliance throughout the world.
Against the great Communist Lie; the old, current and newer forms. Our argument: The whole “Communist Dream” is a lie; the history of “Communist Revolution” is a lie; virtually everything about Communism is just a big elaborate flagrant categorical lie.
American Colonial Communism lasted less than 3 years; reality destroyed it. From the Mayflower Compact through an economic disaster of Socialism to Capitalistic Liberty, our first Colony triumphed.
Communist Manifesto; Democrat Party Platform: What’s the difference? The current American Democrat Party follows the Communist Manifesto almost exactly. Here it is.
Catholic Communism: Similarities between Church Hierarchy and Pure Bureaucracy. Mises said that Communism equals Bureaucracy; the Church is a bureaucracy, therefore we have Catholic Communism. True?
Marxism Socialism Communism – what’s the difference between them all? Marxism Socialism Communism are all mistakenly held to be different things, but they are one and the same.
Definition of Communism: Marx's theoretical classless utopian society. The Marxian definition of Communism involves the theoretical, perfect, classless society with common ownership of all economic "means of production."
The term Marxist defined: Marxism today has overtaken many earlier terms. Re the term Marxist defined in contemporary usage. The term Liberal doesn’t mean what it used to mean either.
It’s Liberty versus Marxism and Islam, which cannot coexist with Liberty. Liberty versus Marxism and Islam: the epic contest of this historic era.
Can we outlaw Marxism in the USA and still be a free thinking society? I say we can and should outlaw any ideology that seeks the elimination of Constitutional America.
The Marxism of Obama: Marching America into another Socialist dictatorship. Describing the self-documented Marxism of Obama which is still not widely recognized among the American citizenry. Obama “change” is Socialism, pure and simple.
Marxist Fundamentals clearly describes the threat to America that we now face. A timely and timeless submission by Professor Libor Brom; Marxist Fundamentals describes the most successful destroyer of liberty since 1776.
Warning all bourgeoisie: Obama will destroy the middle class. Take fair warning all bourgeoisie, i.e., members of our vast middle class: the Marxists despise you and intend to conquer you once and for all.
On Evil and Nonsense: Look closely at Nonsense, and find Evil at its root. Evil and Nonsense: deny evil and you deny right vs. wrong; which is to deny common sense, which is to invoke nonsense.
Three fatal oversights of the top conservative cognizanti: Glenn, Rush and Sean. Beck, Limbaugh and Hannity are on the right track, but just nibbling around the edges of who the enemy is.
In support of American Nationalism and American Patriotism. American Nationalism and American Patriotism have been demonized long enough.
Are our federal bureaucracies all malignant outgrowths of Marxism? Any extra-Constitutional government agency is likely to be a malignant outgrowth of Marxism.
Leftist Useful Idiocy of Marxism: a time bomb planted deeply in Western Culture. Leftist Useful Idiocy idealizes impossible man-made utopian perfection at the expense of the Western culture sense of telling right from wrong.
Progressive-America: From Constitutional Republic into Democratic Socialism. Progressive America aims at ending the rule of subsidiarity and ending individual liberty.
"We belong to the Church militant; and She is militant because on earth the powers of darkness are ever restless to encompass Her destruction. Not only in the far-off centuries of the early Church, but down through the ages and in this our day, the enemies of God and Christian civilization make bold to attack the Creator’s supreme dominion and sacrosanct human rights.”--Pope Pius XII
"It is not lawful to take the things of others to give to the poor. It is a sin worthy of punishment, not an act deserving a reward, to give away what belongs to others."--St. Francis of Assisi
Truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is.—Winston Churchill
The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.—Ayn Rand
If you can't find the page you're looking for, try the