BUD BREWER
One Man's Opinion
FROM MARX TO LENIN TO MAO TO OBAMA
October 17,2009: The following five paragraphs are excerpts from an article written by Kelly O’Connell and published in the October 17th issue of the American Thinker. It describes in cogent terms the background for and the most probable result of “Obamanism” here in the United States. I thought it worth including in this week’s Blog.
“Marxism is a violently revolutionary doctrine. Marx claimed capitalism’s Armageddon was inevitable, but followers should bear arms to hasten change. Since the rich will never give up their capital voluntarily, it must be taken by force. As Lenin in Russia, and Mao in China launched Communist revolts, the prophesied global apocalypse seemed imminent. But the staggering failure of Marxist theory to make productive societies, coupled with the West’s relentless growth forced an intellectual crisis.
Twentieth century leftist progressives developed a Neo-Marxism less warlike and more psychologically attractive approach by combining Marx with Freud, creating a highly sexualized socialism. The Frankfurt School Marxists who escaped Frankfurt, Germany to avoid Hitler’s wrath, relocated to the U.S. where they successfully infused Marxism into American universities. For example, “Political Correctness” is a Frankfurt movement, and the first modern use of this phrase is found in Chairman Mao’s “Little Red Book,” according to Geoffrey Hughes’ article, “Political Correctness: A History of Semantics.”
Neo-Marxist theories now dominate Western universities. Movements like Race Theory, Feminism, Gay Rights, Modern Art, Critical Theory, Animal Rights, Gender Studies, abortion advocacy, Deconstruction, penal reform, Hate Crimes legislation, etc. are all informed by Frankfurt scholarship. Redefined Marxism has produced spectacularly disruptive results. Some argue Obama’s election is a direct result of cultural Marxism’s success. Universal Health Care is another Marxist holy grail. The USSR had free medical treatment, notable for a staggering lack of basic supplies, horribly outdated methods, and horrifically filthy conditions.
Ominously, in 1966, Columbia University scholars Richard Cloward and Frances Piven published a theory outlining methods to destroy a healthy capitalist economy and force communist revolution. This eliminates capitalism by making impossible state budgetary demands, thereby bringing government insolvency.
Critics claim Obama’s budget is an example of the Cloward-Pivin model of planned economic destruction of a functioning capitalist economy via sabotage. Outlays are so gigantic, and so dreadfully misspent, that our financial infrastructure will soon collapse. A trillion dollar tax increase and spending rising by $10 trillion dollars over the next decade is probable. If so, government default will occur, only offset by mass currency printing, which will then bankrupt the general populace. The middle class will fall. Chronic inflation will result, causing America to lose its sterling credit rating. Global financial players must dump the dollar as it swan-dives. Then, hyperinflation will accelerate, and the era of superpower America will end.”
I have spent many hours during the last year trying to brace myself for the anticipated sharp move to the political left by the electorate of this country. Never, however, did I entertain serious consideration that the new liberal President and his Democrat majority in Congress would seek to address the serious financial deficiencies in our banking system and overleveraging by consumers and businesses with government deficit spending programs that are mega huge and not only threatening our very ability to recover economic and financial stability but also preserve the integrity of our currency. America has the highest Gross Domestic Product of any country in the World, but to continue to produce this output, we will need to depend on increasing domestic demand and rising global trade. This means trade agreements that bar placing tariffs on products from importers supposedly to protect less efficient domestic companies both here in the USA and in the foreign country from losing business. Unfortunately our President signed an executive order recently to slap tariffs on auto tires imported from China, for reasons I suspect that have root in the fact the U.S. Government is knee deep in the auto business now. The problem with exports is that to be competitive with developing countries with labor costs well below ours, we will have to devalue the U.S. Dollar, or increase the productivity of our labor force, or both. But how do we do this with a government whose policies appear to be designed to shift to a more command type economy and to redistribute wealth by bringing more regulation or government restrictions, tax rates and politically correct policies to our business community? I believe that the entrepreneur commits his savings or investor capital to economic or business risk as he gains expectations that he will be able to earn a satisfactory return thereon. Otherwise he is unwilling to take those risks that create businesses, employment and eventually a basis for government tax revenue. Our country’s political leaders don’t seem to understand the calculus that goes into creating economic growth from a free market system based on capitalism. Or as Kelly O’Connell suggests in the above extracts, maybe they do understand but they have a different agenda.
One Man’s Opinion- Bud Brewer
Ive been researching this and I’ll have to agree