The Ten Planks of the Communist Manifesto:
1: Abolition of property in land and application of all rents to public purposes
2: A Heavy Progressive or Graduated Income Tax
3: Abolition of Rights of Inheritance
4: Confiscation of property of 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 means of communication and transport in the hands of the state
7: Extension 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 labor. Establishment of Industrial armies, especially for agricultue
9: Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinctionbetween town and country by a more equitable distribution of the populace over the country
10: Free Education for all Children in Public Schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its prsent form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.
Read the Communist Manifesto for yourself. It is very short, about 50 pages or so. You can view and / or download a free copy via the Internet.
Frederick Engels was born into a wealthy family. In fact, they were very disappointed in their son for encouraging his collectivist ideas. He was 28 years old when he finished the Communist Manifesto with Karl Marx. His age at the start is anyone’s guess. Not a whole lot of life experience – yet he knew it all.
In “A Communist Confession of Faith”, Frederick Engels clarifies the communist positions in key areas:
How do communist hope to achieve their aims?
“By the elimination of private property and its replacement by community property.” Engels and Marx believed that if there were no private property, there could be no oppression. Apparently they neglected to take into consideration who might be in control of the property formerly managed by a private owner, and what they may want to do with it. Control can’t be avoided if there is property, public or private, someone has to take care of it somehow. I guess they didn’t think that part all the way through.
How does a nation transit from its present system to a community property state?
“The first condition is the political liberation through a democratic constitution. Everyone over age 21 must be allowed to vote regardless of their station in life so that the majority may rule.”
Here they intentionally planned that financially unsuccessful people would be able to dominate the vote. Their self-interest would lead them to voting for communal property since they had little of their own. So the plan? Allow the unproductive to lord over the successful through mob rule.
He went on… “Democracy would be valueless if it were not immediately used as a means of putting through measures directed against private property and ensuring the livelihood of the proletariat.”
So, Marx and Engels belief system was to vote the stuff away from those who legally acquired it. At least they were honest about it. They candidly had no compassion for anyone who worked hard to earn anything, and stated it clearly. Engels parents were wealthy. I guess he grew up having to do whatever they said. Maybe this idea of letting anyone vote started when he wanted a new horse and saddle at 14 years old because some of the other kids had them, and his parents said “no”. There was nothing he could do about it, how frustrating!! I’ll show them, I’ll figure out a way to get not only their money, but the money of everyone like them too and spread it to all of my friends!!
Like the rest of us, Frederick Engels didn’t get to vote on how the money was spent as a dependent child, but never got over it. Any fool knows that it isn’t a good idea to give a dependent child free reign over the checkbook. It is obvious to adults that when dependents vote in families or in government, only bad things are likely to happen.
What are the steps to limiting private property after a democratic constitution ensures voting be unlimited?
Three basic steps to achieving communism:
1: “By limiting private property in such a way that it gradually prepares the way for its transformation into social property; by progressive taxation, limitation of the right of inheritance in favor of the state, etc, etc.”
2: “By employing workers in national workshops (government work) in factories, rather than in private companies.”
3: “By educating all children at the expense of the state from the time when they can do without their mothers care.”
Limiting Private Property:
Ever try to add an addition to your house? Who decides if you can or can’t? - Government, not you. Cut a tree? In some cases you can’t even paint your house an unapproved neighborhood color. Have you bought any land and tried to build anything on it lately? Have you been victimized by eminent domain in favor of a developer who would provide more jobs and / or taxes to the community? Private property is certainly very limited here in the United States.
Engels stated the need to employ workers nationally: The government now employs far more than any other industry, and in fact is approaching the total of all industries. Our class warfare today is not so much the rich against the poor as government would like us to believe, it is government workers and its dependents against private sector workers who pay for everything. Those of us in the private sector are often jealous of those in the public sector who work less for more pay, benefits and an easier retirement. Many of us now want to work for government. What happens when everyone works for the government? Where then does the money come from to pay the salaries? I suppose they never thought of that either.
Teach them government lessons: government good, private bad. Taxes good, profits bad. Dependency on government good; individual responsibility not necessary. A government-educated child is less likely to eventually oppose it. Today, government teachers are overwhelmingly social-democratic voters and they are teaching our children in private settings.
We now have a movement in congress to establish federally funded day care centers. A curriculum would undoubtedly have to be standardized in order to qualify for federal funding. Grade school “Social Studies” programs predominantly relate “Socialistic” ideas – what else would we expect from a course with such a description?
Many high schools in the U.S. now teach through their textbooks what their government-paid instructors deeply believe (or pretend to believe to keep the paychecks rolling in); that a primary role of government is to ensure “Social Justice”. What does that mean exactly? It is diametrically opposed to the founding philosophy of individual responsibility, freedom and liberty. It is the idea that it is the role of government, not the individual to provide for the people. Where does this money come from to supply those who need it? Their reasoning is flawed in so many areas. They have completely forgotten their place in our national evolution.
The logical extension then is that it must also be government's duty to force those who can provide for others to do so whether they want to or not. They must be forced to give up their own production for their “brother”. From each with ability to those in need is the basic reasoning justifying the concept of social justice. It is a communist principal.
Social Justice is the antithesis of independence and freedom.
Government schools are not interested in teaching legitimate differences in political thought, but in developing government people. Why not discuss communism, socialism, fascism and capitalism, and what happens to the populace politically, economically, and individually as a nation develops one system as opposed to another? No, they want to primarily teach Marxism as the most noble of options, and ignore or vilify the freedoms of capitalism, so that the students can’t really develop their own ideas about government methods.
If in many public schools, high school students are taught our country is dedicated to “social justice” and that “from each with ability to those in need…” is the only fair way and is our national mantra. What do you suppose it is they want to teach our three year olds in federally funded day care centers? I wouldn’t want to find out.
“Justice” according to our English dictionary is: “Administering of deserved punishment or reward”. According to the Government it now means: “The taking from one to give to another to achieve equality”.
The dictionary defines that as stealing – not justice.
Marx said: “Democracy is the road to socialism”. Apparently he did understand that. Their plan was to first institute a society where everyone voted because their desired form of collectivism would always be the eventual result as voters learned to vote their personal interest.
They cared nothing about the rights of the individual property owners who were to have their assets seized and nationalized by the masses. That was unimportant; the good of the whole can't be concerned about individual rights or losses.
Our American Constitution holds private property rights and personal freedom above all else because that was how we wanted to live, earning our own way and keeping what we’ve earned. Our founding fathers, in contrast to the 20-something German idealists were mature men with a great many valuable personal life and business experiences behind them. They were not starry-eyed idealists barely requiring a daily shave.
Some recent major political heavyweights agree with Marx and Engels. A former President of the United States actually said:
"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans…" - BILL CLINTON, March 1993.
In another inspirational moment, Bill Clinton stated on national television:
"The Constitution is a radical document. It is the job of Government to reign in people's rights."
Hilary Clinton, also in 1993:
"We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society." - She too seems to be a Marx and Engels follower.
In order to relieve the perceived oppression of some, it was reasoned that if they all voted, the benefits of their labor would support the society as a whole. The evil masters would be eliminated, replaced by a benevolent government run by the people and by extension the oppressed would then cease to be enslaved because there would be no need to acquire personal property. Sounds great but what happens to the people who are willing, able, and want to provide for themselves? Do we just steal all of their stuff?
Barack Obama on the campaign trail in 2008: "When you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."
Are we living under the sound capitalist theories proposed by our very experienced founding fathers or by two young arrogant know-it-all German socialists? I am afraid we all know the answer.
Marx’s great idea of sharing wealth seems to have originated from his need for some of it himself. The only thing he really had to share was his Utopian ideas, and if he were to be the recipient, then it was for his own completely selfish end. He certainly didn’t earn much of his own money with which to prove his generosity. So he was either a misguided dreamer, a selfish elitist, or absolutely full of crap.
The ideas of these inexperienced German youngsters, who wrote this book of slavery with stars in their eyes, tofu in their mouths and delusions of grandeur in their minds are revered by many. Their followers believe that the experience of our own founding fathers, living under the oppression of English King George III, their education, business and military backgrounds mean nothing because most of them were wealthy. The personal financial successes of our founding fathers seems enough for some to discredit all of their ideas.
Life isn’t all just playing in the sandbox
Rather than following the lead of our original founding fathers, we instead believe inexperienced dreamers, men barely into adulthood. They preached what their mothers told them while playing in the sandbox, less work and more sharing. I remember what my mother once told me when I was playing as a child: “Life isn’t all playing in the sandbox.” She also said “Sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me” - Of course she had a lot more life experience than either Karl Marx or Frederick Engels – they believed life could be all playing in the sandbox – if only everyone would just do as they say.
Another issue: Marx and Engels also wrote: "Abolition of the family…Stop the exploitation of children by their parents… replace home education by social." Are you afraid to spank your child? After all you could be arrested for punishing contrary to the government way. Although corporal punishment by parents is still legal in the United States, there is a growing number of government social service workers eager to classify it as “child abuse”.
A good whack never hurt anyone. Well, maybe a little. This is not to suggest that beating a child into a bloody unrecognizable pulp of quivering fear and blind obedience is good parenting. There is a difference between parental physical punishment and abuse of a child. A spanking here and there never bothered anyone – except the progressives. They prefer to never allow the parent to believe he is in charge, - no the government is; it is the only entity that may corporally punish without fear. Parents may no longer raise their children as they see fit. Engels wanted to educate children his way as soon as they could leave their mother’s arms.
Hilary Clinton's famous quote: "It takes a village to raise a child". Does no one see the similarity?
For these thoughts she was praised by those who don't want to or can't contribute much and by those who particularly prefer to shun the responsibility of raising children their own way. They would rather leave that difficult chore to the compassionate all-knowing imperial government, then blame them when things go wrong.