Saturday, April 27, 2013

What's "Left Wing" Anyway?

You guys have put up with me going on and on about the dangers of left-wing thinking. Well, I guess it's about time we explored exactly what "Left Wing" and "Right Wing" mean, and do some comparisons. But first comes first: Thank you all for tuning in to the blog and putting up with me.

The terms come from the French Nationalist Assembly (pre-revolution) in the late 1700's. The more conservative members sat on the right side of the chamber, led by the nobles. The left side was occupied by the more revolutionary and liberal members. The terms just kind of stuck throughout the years, and have come to generally mean the contrast between liberal and conservative schools of thought.

Conservatives in general desire less government involvement in business, fewer regulations and less government spending. In social circles, they favor a more pro-family stance, pro-faith (Judeo-Christian) and the values commensurate with those faiths. The accusations conservatives usually face are these: Being pro-Judeo-Christian values automatically means hatred of anyone not a Christian or a Jew. Being pro-business automatically means being desirous of environmental destruction. Being for limited government automatically means kids and old people starve and die from medical neglect, and being pro-family automatically means hatred of anything else.

Now, all you folks who define yourselves as liberal, feel free to correct me. I'm actually going to try to be fair in my analysis her (I know, I can hear the gasps). Liberals in general desire more government involvement in business, for purposes of "fairness." No one gets a Cadillac until everyone has a Prius. They call themselves the "Party of tolerance" and decry any definition of standards applied to the terms "family." Faith is something you either have or you don't. It doesn't matter; it's between you and your god or gods. Moral absolutes are outmoded and unenlightened. And Mankind is the worst thing that ever happened to Planet Earth. The accusations most often leveled at liberals are these: They are the "Party of Tolerance" for anyone except Jews and Christians, and anyone who doesn't forcefully agree with them. They are accused of being for "Big Government" regulations at the cost of individual liberty for the good of all.The Government is our "Sugar Daddy" who takes care of us, feeds us, gives us jobs, and makes sure Mother Nature is protected.

Here's the dangerous part of Liberal thinking: The roots of the Modern Liberal Movement originate in Communism.

I took the liberty of download and reading the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Freiderich Engels, and I found some disturbing parallels.

Communists have declared that a state of class warfare exists bewteeen two groups defined as "the proletariat" and "the bourgeoisie." The proletariat are anyone who works for a paycheck. The bourgeoisie are anyone who signs that paycheck.

They demand the abolition of personal property by "the bourgeoisie," again defining the bourgeois as anyone who strives to make more than anyone else. Any private property owned by the bourgeoisie are to be confiscated by The State. They don't specify what gets done with it after that. I wonder if Marx and Engels counted on becoming "The State."

Communists also stand for a steeply graded, progressive tax on income. It's not about simply supporting government, which our Constitution specifies. Taxation is about "making things equal." Let me ask you now, which American political party stands for this type of tax structure? Which party has declared class warfare?

Communists demand the dissolution of the traditional family. The State should raise children. Marriage is an outmoded tradition. No relational exclusivity need exist. All women are commonly available to anyone and everyone (How do you feel about that one, ladies?). "It takes a village to raise a child." That wasn't a quote from the Manifesto, but someone prominent in politics has said that. And our public school system has been steadily edging out parents as the final authority in children's' lives.

In fact, here are the ten points from The Communist Manifesto in bullet-point (I'm quoting directly from the manifesto):

  1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
  2. A heavily progressive or graduated income tax.
  3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
  4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
  5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
  6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
  7. Extensions of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
  8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
  9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.
  10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form Combination of education with industrial production, etc, etc, etc.
Does anyone remember Pol Pot's regime? The Soviet Union? The Cultural Revolution under Mao? Not only is Communism a train wreck as an economic and political system (The Communists themselves claim that it is a political system, as the state "the struggle of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie is a political struggle."

The only things that Communism breed are universal poverty and the deaths of millions. Stalin was responsible for 24 million deaths in his purges, but it was Hitler whom everyone remembers. Pol Pot's wonderful attempts at Point 9 were exposed in a book called The Killing Fields.

This is "The Left," folks. It's dangerous, it's wrong, and it's a miserable failure. It's just too bad we have so many in Washington who think it only failed because they haven't tried it yet.

Please, in our desire to serve the common good, can we simply use common sense and human compassion, and not worry so much that someone else makes more money than us? In other words, let's be Human beings.


  1. Are you an author of a political book to support conservatives? No, you’re not. If you want to sell any books, stop talking about politics and talk about science fiction to attract readers. The readers who might buy your book are not interested in this stuff, or you might convince them to walk away. How you ask? While you make some good points, the part about the risk of Americans turning into communists just goes too far. It ruins your whole argument because it’s extreme. This turns off independent voters. That’s why conservatives keep losing. Remember one thing. No one group is every 100% right about everything. Anyone believing that is brainwashed, and there are a lot of brainwashed people out there.

    1. You make an interesting point. But the point of my blog isn't just to sell books. It's for people to know me as a person. You don't have to agree with me, just think about what I say.

      Now, if I said something that chafes your sensibilities, we can talk about those specific items. And I'd encourage you to drop the "Anonymous." Everyone who offers civil discourse is safe here.

      With which points would you contend?

  2. Brad,

    Just offering these points up as a history major who enjoys studying radical leftist policies (that 20 some page seminar paper I was working on was an analysis of WWI era Russian anarchist, communist, and socialist ideology on war).

    You do make some excellent points, but I think one thing you need to consider is using communism as a benchmark for the entire left is like using the Westboro Church as a benchmark for Christianity. Many leftists are not communists, which is the extreme left wing, just as many conservative Christians are certainly not members of the Westboro Church.

    Also, a lot of those points are not exclusive to communism. Yes, they are liberal, but holding to them does not make someone a communist. For instance, the graduated income tax and national banks are not only called for by communists. Many democratic socialists in Europe also advocate those policies. (Indeed, many Western European countries have national banks and the graduated income tax system. They are not communist. They are democracies.) I can understand opposition to it, but it this ideology is not solely a communist doctrine. Likewise, using a similar line of reasoning, the Nazis opposed homosexuality. Many conservatives oppose homosexuality. Therefore, conservatives are Nazis. Obviously, that is not true. Neither is it true to claim that espousing any policies advocated by communists makes one a communist.

    In any event, I can understand your concerns, and I respect your opinions. I just wanted to clear up some of those points.


  3. An excellent point on the benchmark, Z. Most people associate the Left with Communism, so I started there. I'm not saying Communists are the only left-wing group out there. We also have socialists, anarchists, and there's still an existing Nazi movement, even though its roots are more grounded in simple, stupid hatred than any particulat political slant. What I'm trying to get to, is that these groups are still actively trying to infiltrate into the American culture, and their aim is not friendly to the constitutional republic that our founding fathers handed down to us. More and more, the responsibilities required of us by our individual liberties are being handed off or taken up by to the State to the detriment of those liberties. I've been around for 50 years, and watched many of our free choices fade off into the nether, and I doubt we'll see them again in my lifetime. I'm afraid of where this country will be in another 50 years.

    1. I can understand that. Thanks for responding to my comment, Brad!

      By the way, I am taking a class on the Constitutional Convention this semester. It is a fascinating topic! :) I think you'd probably enjoy it.

  4. Hi,
    I'm no expert on any of these subjects but it seems to me that capitalism (i.e. unbridled greed) also leads to poverty - look how many people have lost jobs and homes as a result of rich people's averice.

    I say, too much of anything can't be a good thing, that's why extremism doesn't work, whichever side of the fence you sit. Being a liberal (someone who wants to live in a fairer society) doesn't make you a communist. A little bit of the right side and a pinch from the left side should keep most folk happy and the boat still floating. Bit like salt and pepper. Problem is, people are greedy and they want it all their own way.

    And, didn't the communist leaders you cite all take power and maintain it through force? That's a little different a template than the democratic society whose existance you fear for.

    All the best :)
    Charlie (anonymous because I'm too lazy to sign into my account) :)

    1. Yeah, they did all take power by force. But don't think it can be accomplished through subterfuge and lies, too.

      I have my own problems with "extreme capitalism." I support my local mom-and-pop stores, even though I might pay a little more up front. The great equalizer with capitalism, though, is the market. What if everyone got fed up with Wal-Mart's crappy treatment of their employees, and their forcing out of smaller stores even as they use brute force to insinuate themselves into communities who don't want them?

      How about we stop buying from Wal-Mart? They'd either change their business model, or go out of business. And that's US who affect that change, with a simple tool called Market Forces.

      Charlie, you made the point that we have a democratic model to stop this spread. Well, the trouble is spreading whether we like it or not, through slick lies and marketing. "Fair" somehow has come to mean taking from those who work harder and earn more, and giving it to others, many of whom are people who have simply learned to work the system.

      Sooner or later, these liars are going to expose themselves for who they truly are, and at that point, it may be too late to stop them.

  5. Oh, and all this really is sooooooooo eighties lol has Margaret Thatcher dying set off some kind of retro-rhetoric or something?! :)

  6. Kind of bold for one hiding behind an anonymous tag, aren't we?

  7. Just so you know...the first Anonymous is me. The others are someone else. So there is more than one person posting as anonymous. Anyway, I came back to say I agree with conservatives on the issues of education, oil and some other things. I consider myself to be an independent voter. But what always ruins it's for me is a lot of conservatives tend to use fear tactics by saying extreme things like suggesting we are headed for communism or that Obama is a Nazi and other crazy stuff. I'm turned off by fear tactics and in general conservatives tend to be the most spammish with their email, on facebook, on blogs. I've had distant friends (conservatives) email me articles etc without even asking if it's okay. I've filtered people on Facebook because all they do is share political stuff all day long. I think to some extent these people are shooting themselves in the foot because they're too bold about stating their political views, they go too extreme and use fear tactics. I'm not saying you're to this extreme, but by bringing up communism you are heading that way.

    What I want to hear from conservatives is why they feel their methods will work..even for the poor people. FACTS about how they will solve problems.

    So anyway, sorry I went anonymous, but once you can't go back.

  8. I want you to know, anyone who offers civil discourse (even passionate) is welcome here, and I take great pains to protect all who would offer so. If you could do me a favor and at least leave your name (I still don't know who you are beyond "Anonymous") then at least I know who I'm talking about. I agree conservatives tend to SPAM way too much. I do a lot of ignoring, and I'm sure there's a lot of folks who think I hate Jesus because I don't forward their SPAM.

    I don't think Obama is a Nazi. But why am I labeled as one? I think many conservatives don't feel they are being heard, so they resort to email as a way of making their opinions known. After all, the major news networks openly favor the left now.

    And I agree. What burns my biscuits the most about the Republican Party is they simply aren't answering the questions people have. They have plans to fix this mess, and they're good plans. But they aren't speaking in terms average people understand, and they aren't reaching out in a way that touches the right nerve.

    I have no problem with "Anonymous." As long as I have a name to attach.