Sunday, August 2, 2020

Lenin To the Left of Me – Troksky to the Right


by Joe Siano



Alexander Hamilton would be proud of today’s United States.

The German economist Wilhelm Röpke dispensed with the labels of “conservative” and “liberal” as their meaning varied from place to place, from era to era.  Röpke preferred the more precise terms of “centrist / centralizer” versus “decentrist / decentralizer”.

Centrists advocate for the centralization of power in an economy, a nation and the world.  Decentralists assert the benefits of free markets and dispersed decision making.  Having lived through Nazim and next door to Communism, Röpke understood that human liberty was an essential condition for peace, progress, and prosperity.

But  Hamilton won out.  The centralizers are in control.  Now it is true that not every centralizer is necessarily a Marxist.  However, the thesis of this blog is that both major American political parties have Karl Marx’ chromosomes in their gene pool.

This is Cliff Notes version of the story.

Hamilton was centralizer.  At the Constitutional Convention, he argued for a much stronger central government than the approved document provided.  Though Hamilton was perhaps the Constitution’s most ardent pitchman, he understood that it was a Swiss Cheese construction with plenty of holes and wiggle room for future mischief.. 

Hamilton’s party was called the Federalists, an irony, because these “Federalists” shied away from a loose confederation on sovereign states in favor a single nation, anchored in DC with the “states” serving as mere administrative districts.  In time, he pretty much got his way.




In The Progressive Era, Rothbard points out that:

Throughout the 19th century …. The Federalists …and after them the Whigs and then the Republicans, were the party of statism: of Big Government, public works, a large public debt, government subsidies to industry, protective tariffs, opposition to aliens and immigrants, and of cheap money and government control of banking (through a central bank”

These Republicans were the “progressive” party of their era looking to create a new heaven on earth, the “the party of great moral ideas”.  The used  “the State to compel personal morality: through a drive for Prohibition, Sunday blue laws, or a desire to outlaw the Masons as a secret society”.

It should be not surprising that this party of big government, that was committed human improvement through social engineering, would embrace with the nascent European socialist movement and its leading exponent, Karl Marx.

As it turns out this same Karl Marx became a “ a prolific contributor to the New York Daily Tribune, the most influential Republican newspaper of the 1850s.”  Throughout the 1850s and into the early ‘60s Marx contributed:

“with some help from his friend Engels — over five hundred articles for the Tribune. Hundreds of these pieces were published under Marx’s name, but eighty-four appeared as unsigned editorials. He wrote on a global range of topics, sometimes occupying two or three pages of a sixteen-page newspaper.”





The record shows that Marx corresponded with President Abraham Lincoln and his influence is evident in Lincoln’s December 1861 Message to Congress;



“Lincoln criticized the ‘effort to place capital on an equal footing with, if not above, labor in the structure of government.’  Instead, he insisted, “labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor . . . Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.’ “




And it’s not like this is any new revelation.  The Washington Post reports: 







“When the socialist orator and frequent presidential candidate Eugene V. Debs made a campaign stop in Springfield, Ill., in 1908, he told the crowd, ‘The Republican Party was once red. Lincoln was a revolutionary.’

It was also noted by the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. In February 1968…

‘It is worth noting,’ King said, ‘that Abraham Lincoln warmly welcomed the support of Karl Marx during the Civil War and corresponded with him freely.’ “

The Republican Party continued as America’s progressive party through most  of the 19th Century while the Democrats were the voice small government, free markets and sound money.  That began to change with William Jennings Bryan who steered the Dems in a new populist direction.

In the early 20th Century Republican  Presidents Teddy Roosevelt and Herbert Hoover were activist, big government, social engineers.  These Republican Progressives created an elitist cartel of Big Government, Big Business, Big Banking, Big Academia and Big Labor to steer the ship of the nation, culture and economy.  This was the onset of James Burnham’s ManagerialRevolutionthe corporatist, deep-state alliance the governs America today.

The crash of 1929 was Hoover’s Waterloo.  An engineer by training and a tinkerer by inclination, Hoover implemented a wide array of stimulus and corrective programs to avoid long-term economic collapse.  They failed.  His reputation as a laissez-faire president is unwarranted.

Franklin Roosevelt replaced Hoover but  his policies stayed the course.  Roosevelt followed the Hoover blueprint and upped the ante again and again with similar unsuccess.

With FDR's election and the implementation of the New Deal, America now had two major statist/corporatist parties. None represented the Classical Liberal ideals of the Founders – limited government, low taxes, free markets and sound money.

We are all aware of the Democrat Party’s love affair with  Marxism from Henry Wallace and  Alger Hiss up through Bernie, Angela Davis, the SDS, BLM and AOC.  The Roosevelt administration fawned over “Uncle Joe” Stalin – one of history’s great mass murderers.  No need to dwell on this. 

But where is the Republican link?  Just because they are rooted in Progressivism and are Centralizers does not automatically make them Marxist.



Let’s shift scenes to Mother Russia near the end of World War I.  The Kaiser sneaks Vladimir Lenin into Russia into Russia to foment revolution, as Lenin is pledged to ending hostilities with Germany.  The Bolshevik Revolution succeeds, and Lenin governs Russia.

Lenin dies in 1924. An intra-party power struggle ensues.  Stalin prevails.  His chief rival, Leon Troksky, is exiled.

In exile, Trotsky was an active writer, an advocate for an international /globalist socialist order led by an elite cadre of intellectuals, for permanent revolution and an opponent of the Stalinist regime.  His disciples, the Trotskyists, in the United States found a home in the Democratic Party along with other socialists.

Disillusioned with the brutality of Stalinism, the Trotskyites drifted away from the Democrats who still romanticized the Soviet Regime.  The movement’s leaders included Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz.  These are the Neo-Cons.

Although they were disillusioned by Soviet Communism, the Neo-Cons remained Marxist Utopians.  Their new goal was one-world under global, liberal democratic governance.

Neo-Cons are dogged Centralizers, with scant difference from their Democratic cousins.  Like all Marxists and Utopians, they believe in the coercive power of Big Brother to realize their globalist agenda.  They put their faith in:

·        The collective above the individual
·        Elitist governance and corporatism
·        Permanent revolution – permanent war and nation building
·        Totalitarian intrusion  in personal social issues
·      Control of all economic engines including fiscal and monetary levers, fiat currency and a disregard to for public debt

By the 1980’s the Neo-Con’s ascended into the top ranks of the Republican Party including “conservative” academia, think tanks and punditry.   



American voters hoped that a Trump presidency might “drain the swamp’ of these heinous DC insiders.  It is debatable if he was sincere or not.  Nonetheless, he lacked the human capital devoted to the cause of peace and unobtrusive government.  Prior to his election, it appears that his personal political network consisted of the local hacks an hooligans who green-lighted his sundry construction projects.  Thus he had to relay on the Neo-Con Republican Establishment to staff his Administration.  Thus, he failed.  

Perhaps a Ron Paul or Pat Buchanan might have done better with their ready network of highly qualified and like-minded thinkers.

In the U.S,.the Neo-Con Trotskyites along with the along with their Democratic cohorts replaced the Politburo with a Corporate, Academic and Media elite to oversee the state, commerce, and culture. 



Theses bloodsuckers have  blessed us with the Surveillance State, lawless bureaucratic governance, administrative courts, unpayable debts, worthless money, an unsustainable global empire, militarized police and U.S. Troops on the ground in American cities.  

They have turned Americans against each other to deflect attention from their own failings. 


But now their schemes are unraveling,  They are cornered and their fangs are bared. 


This is what out two mainstream Marxist parties have wrought and I’m having nothing to do with them.  Please join me by opting out of  voting for any Centralizing party or demagogue.







Related Articles:

Go back to:  2 Percenter Home      Article Archive
Connect through:
Facebook     Twitter     E-mail    
"Half the people are stoned and the other half are waiting for the next election.
Half the people are drowned and the other half are swimming in the wrong direction."
 
- Paul Simon

No comments:

Post a Comment