EuroComs

I ran across some interesting information the other day while looking up the accepted definitions of socialism and communism.  Let me first say that, in my opinion, believing in socialist ideology does not make one evil or a politically radical villain.  It does make me question one's sanity since socialism as it is defined in theory cannot ever work in the real world.  Regardless, I have called Barack Obama a socialist and a communist a number of times over the past few years.  I believe both of those terms still apply, but only in a general sense.  Both socialism and communism have many derivative spinoffs, meaning they both contain a number of different ideologies embodied within each philosophy.  Communism itself is a spinoff of socialist theory, but actually is more of a successor to socialism in that Karl Marx viewed socialism as the temporary stage between the destruction of capitalism and the triumph of communism.

Webster's American College Dictionary defines socialism as a theory or system of social organization in which the means of production and distribution of goods are owned and controlled collectively by the people.  As mentioned, there are a number of different branches of socialism, including state socialism, market socialism, libertarian socialism, democratic socialism, religious socialism and even anarchism.  Each professes to be based on the idea of the people communally owning, managing and operating all sectors of economic activity.

One definition of communism is identical to that of socialism.  But communism has more definitions.  It is also a political doctrine or movement based on Marxism and developed by Lenin and others, seeking a violent overthrow of capitalism and the creation of a classless society.  Another definition is a system or social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.  In both socialism and communism all property is held in common, but the key difference is that in socialism property is owned collectively by the workers and in communism it is owned by the state.

Communism encompasses a wide range of more specific ideologies, such as Marxism, Leninism, Stalinism, Trotskyism, Maoism, Titoism, etc., etc.  Each authoritarian dictator and wannabe dictator practiced their own brand of communism with varying degrees of oppression.  But other less personality directed forms of communism also developed in various parts of the world.  The one I found interesting is called Eurocommunism, also known as Neocommunism or Western Marxism.  The foundation for Eurocommunism was the work of an Italian political theorist named Antonio Gramsci (1891 - 1937).  Basically, Eurocommunism rejected the form of communism practiced by the Soviet Union and China and focused on adapting Marxist-Leninist theories to democratic societies.

Eurocommunism began to gather adherents and become popular during the 1970's and 1980's in Western Europe.  Socialists in Western European countries realized that violent revolution to impose communism, as occurred in the Soviet Union and China, would not work in democratic countries.  So they plotted to take over from within.  The goal was to gain influence by embracing and infiltrating powerful activist special interest groups, such as public sector workers unions, environmentalists, feminists, gay liberationists and minorities.  Society was to be led by a 'vanguard', or oligarchy of enlightened leaders.  It was thought that the movement faded in the late 1980's, but it sure sounds disturbingly familiar.  Perhaps it just went underground and crossed the Atlantic Ocean.  Maybe we are experiencing a stealth revolution and don't know it.

There are certainly a number of troubling things that have occurred under our current political regime.  One of the first things Barack Obama did when he became president was to get HR3590.AS, Section 5210 passed by Congress, when the Democratic Party controlled both houses during his first two years.  This legislation updated and increased the president's control over the Ready Reserve Corps, a constabulary force that can be called up at any time for any emergency the president deems necessary.  Not only that, we are all aware of the number of Executive Orders and recess appointments Obama has issued to bypass Congress and the multiple instances of Executive Branch departments ignoring the Constitution to mandate rules and regulations.  These actions are not unknown but none of our elected representatives seem to be doing anything about it. 

The separation of powers that form the foundation of the American Constitution is being dismantled by our current president with the acquiescence of Congress.  What is the intent?  I can't imagine it would be happening in order to preserve a capitalist democracy.  Nor could the intent be to establish a socialist society.  I think Karl Marx is right, socialism is not sustainable.  The problem with socialism is that, despite its claim to be a society where all of the people are equal and wealth is shared, that never happens.  In fact, it cannot happen because there is always a need for someone to coordinate economic activity and maintain civil order.  There is always a small privileged elite at the top who control and maintain limits on these activities, typically by instituting arbitrary, restrictive laws and a powerful police force.  It is inevitable.  Instead of generating widespread affluence that benefits many, socialism always results in the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of an elite few.  That is communism.

In the end it doesn't really matter what Obama's precise ideology is.  Whatever form of socialism Obama believes in, it is quite clear he and his closest colleagues despise traditional American principles and culture, because he is obviously doing everything he can to change it.  Why these guys think they can create a better society than any of the other socialists have is the real question, since none have ever produced the standards of living capitalism has.  The only rational conclusion is that they don't really want a society where everyone is equal because they must be smart enough to know that can't happen.  They must want one where they are in charge and dictating all aspects of national policy.

Then again, I suppose it is possible Obama doesn't have a real ideology.  He may just know what people want to hear and is happy to tell it to them to get their votes, and is an exceptionally good liar who doesn't have a clue or even care about providing responsible leadership to the American people.  Maybe he just loves the attention, the adulation and the wealth that goes with it.  Personally, I think that guy was Bill Clinton.  I think Obama is smarter than that.  But regardless of whether he is the product of a two decade conspiracy to bring Eurocommunism to America or just an unqualified amateur who doesn't know what the hell he is doing, his re-election for another four year term will not have favorable consequences.  The coming election could be the last legitimate one we ever have.