Typically, there have been two effective manners in which societies may implement the abatement of Marxists:
1. Outspend them.
2. Kill them.
Now, if one is dealing with small numbers of these pesky vermin, obviously No. 2 is the least expensive, speedy end to this objective. In the case of the Soviet Union, No. 1 proved (at least for a time) to be the most expeditious.
Over the last several decades, conventional wisdom in America has transformed from one in which Marxism was accepted as manifestly evil, into a “conventional ignorance” that is unaware of the malignant nature of this sociopolitical philosophy, or holds that it has as much of a place in America as, say, libertarianism.
We are now faced with what would seem to be a contradiction of canon: dedicated Marxists with all of the capital resources in our prosperous nation available to them; with this they more and more effectively ply their putrefactive trade. A study of the rationale behind those who find it necessary to saw through the base of the limb upon which we all sit perched could fill a book.
Some argue that the people to whom this columnist and others refer to as “Marxists” aren’t that at all, given that by declaration their political leanings lie elsewhere. To this I would remind the reader that I might assert that I am a virgin Eskimo princess, but that doesn’t make it true. If a politician, activist or plain old Joe advocates social doctrines practiced in Marxist regimes or proscribed in Marxist teachings, then that person is a Marxist, whether they call themselves a liberal, progressive or a virgin Eskimo princess.
An example, apparently innocuous and uncomplicated on its face, but germane to the discussion of Marxist encroachment involved a friend of mine:
This person owns a three-story, hundred-year-old brownstone in the Bronx. A schoolteacher, this individual is most definitely not wealthy. They had occasion to get into a rent dispute with a tenant. Because the tenant was collecting rent subsidies from the city of New York, the latter conducted an “investigation” into my friend’s so-called landlording practices. It was determined that the property had not undergone lead abatement, which was mandated for rental properties in which tenants were collecting rent subsidies because calcium-deprived toddlers from low-income families had been known to eat paint chips and develop lead poisoning.
There were tight deadlines on this, and penalties for noncompliance; who could tell when a busload of undernourished kids from the local day care on field trip might descend on the property? I’m sure it will not surprise the reader to learn that there were no children in this apartment, just one deadbeat, system-playing adult. Nevertheless, the city’s lead abatement squad swept in, ripped out baseboards, doors and walls, significantly undermining the value and historical aesthetic of the property. Guess who had to pay for all this: My friend, who subsequently came within a hair’s breadth of losing the home.
This is Marxism in action. These things don’t have to trickle down due to acts of Congress. In places like New York, one of the bastions of American Marxist thought, such mandates are concocted by weedy, unhealthy looking little individuals in assembly halls and council chambers. The fact that it wasn’t a “capitalist oppressor” who wound up taking it in the shorts is immaterial, but commonplace. As in the former Soviet Union, where everyone but a handful of caviar-nibbling, dacha-building inner party elites were susceptible to personal ruin, everyone but the lawmakers themselves and a few mega-rich are subject to the capricious machinations of the State.
A more encompassing example had shattering unintended consequences: the Clinton administration’s decision to open the sub-prime mortgage market to less-than-qualified buyers so that more people could realize “the American Dream.” This resulted in the recent implosion of the sub-prime mortgage, financial markets and ramifications of the subsequent federal bailout of certain investment banks. We don’t have space here to examine the possibility that this phenomenon might have been a case of deliberate economic sabotage.
Given the bold monopoly of the establishment press and popular dissatisfaction with the Bush administration (advanced in part by the establishment press), politicians have exercised a certain latitude when offering Marxist solutions to voters of late. However, the current global financial crisis could translate into a death sentence for any candidate seeking high office who proposes raising taxes or increasing government spending. That, of course, would be Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic presidential nominee. Despite the advantages to him should our economy tank prior to his election, he may well be forced into a position of doing what is unthinkable to the progressive-socialist mind: Reversing himself on taxes “for the good of the American economy.”
It is ironic that in this election cycle, which has featured more subterfuge, wild propaganda and more evidence of our nation’s overall disintegration that any other, unforeseen circumstances have suddenly created a scenario in which façades are being peeled away, with those who maintained them having no say in the matter. We are indeed at war – corruption within our industry and government has brought our economy to near-devastation, and we are faced with a choice between two fundamentally corrupted parties. Though one is mistrusted, the other proposes solutions that all but the most ignorant know will be tantamount to pouring a volatile cocktail of accelerants onto our nation’s smoldering woes.
The alarming aspect is that for many, the choice is still a difficult one.