From: pecampbe@mtu.edu (Paul Campbell)
Subject: Re: Weinberger's Pardon
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 23:24:55 GMT

In article <C0nJM9.v5@dscomsa.desy.de> Hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
>In article <1993Jan10.060854.20847@mtu.edu>, pecampbe@mtu.edu (Paul Campbell)
>writes:

[a nest of quoting deleted]

>|>No. It's not. Although the name has changed (they call themselves
>|>liberals in this country), communism by any other name (socialism,
>|>American Liberalism, or Marxism) is the same thing.
>
>Given that Robert Owen died before Marx was born that would be a rather odd
>claim.

I'm not arguing who was reading who's text book. If it walks like a duck,
quacks like a duck, and flies like a duck, it is a duck.

>|>George Bush's "New World
>|>Order" is a push in the right direction (assuming you're a practicing
>|>communist).
>
>Well the Bush new world order does have an imperialist edge and the phrase is
>rather evocative of Hitlers speach at Neuremberg where he spoke of a World Reich
>(order) that would last a thousand years.

Imperialist? Dictatorial? Perhaps a better word is tyrannical.

>|>          The 1st Plank:  THE ABOLITION OF PROPERTY IN LAND AND
>|>APPLICATION OF ALL RENTS IN LAND TO PUBLIC PURPOSES.
>|>[we have so called 'property taxes' or the '99 year lease']
>
>Well this comes from the Land Nationalists.It is a reaction to the "enclosures"
>that had effectively stolen what had till then been common land from the people
>and given it to the aristocracy.

In both English and American law, unless you wish to use the Court of
Chancery, only matters of substance (property) may be argued. Shortly after
1800, England passed a series of statutes which drastically altered their
court systems; however, this was after the colonies were severed from
England. No such statutes exist here. Without matters of property,
people in the United States must turn once again to the despised courts
of Chancery, which they have been doing. Only here, they laughably term
it 'equity'.

"To lay with one hand the power of government on the property of a citizen,
and with the other to bestow it on favored individuals. . . is none the less
robbery because it was done under the forms of law and is called taxation."
Supreme Court Justice Miller, Loan Association v. Topeka, 20 Wall (87 US)
664 (1874)

>|>          The 5th Plank:  CENTRALIZATION OF CREDIT IN THE HANDS OF
>|>THE STATE, BY MEANS OF A NATIONAL BANK WITH STATE CAPITAL AND AN
>|>EXCLUSIVE MONOPOLY.
>|>[translation: The Federal Reserve]
>
>Precisely the grounds on which the Federal reserve was opposed before the civil
>war made it inevitable.

Yes. Quite true. Out of the mouths of babes..or at least a chairman of the
Federal Reserve Board..
"While boasting of our noble deeds, we are careful to conceal the ugly fact
that by an iniquitous money system we have nationalized a system of
oppression which, though more refined, is not less cruel than the old system
of chattel slavery."  Horace Greeley

...and his subordinates know it.
"We are completely dependent on the commercial Banks.  Someone has to borrow
every dollar we have in circulation, cash or credit.  If the Banks create
ample synthetic money we are prosperous; if not, we starve.  We are
absolutely without a permanent money system.  When one gets a complete grasp
of the picture, the tragic absurdity of our hopeless position is almost
incredible, but there it is.  It is the most important subject intelligent
persons can investigate and reflect upon.  It is so important that our
present civilization may collapse unless it becomes widely understood and
the defects remedied soon." Robert H. Hemphill, Credit Manager of Federal
Reserve Bank, Atlanta, Ga.

...and our past leaders were acutely aware of it.
"A power over a man's subsistence amounts to a power over his will."
Alexander Hamilton

"... the only security men can have for their political liberty, consists
in keeping their money in their own pockets ..." Lysander Spooner

"He smote the rock of the national resources and abundant streams of revenue
gushed forth.  He touched the dead corpse of public credit, and it sprang
upon its feet." Daniel Webster, Speech on Hamilton

...still, we didn't listen. The people who pulled the switch only realized
too late what they did.
"My agency in promoting the passage of the National Bank Act was the greatest
financial mistake of my life.  It has built up a monopoly which affects
every interest in the country.  It should be repealed, but before that can
be accomplished, the people will be arrayed on one side and the banks on the
other, in a contest such as we have never before seen in this country."
Salmon P. Chase (1862)

"I never thought the Federal Reserve System would prove such a failure.  The
country is in a state of irretrievable bankruptcy." Sen Carter Glass (1983)

>|>          The 10th Plank:  FREE EDUCATION FOR ALL CHILDREN IN PUBLIC
>|>SCHOOLS.
>|>[even 'private' schools must follow government regulations]
>
>Well given that the above is the communist manifesto and the majority of the
>terms have been implemented throughout the west a reasonable person would
>consider that Communism hasn't entirely failed. The fact that these policies
>have had beneficial results would lead you to consider that communism wasn't
>entirely bad.

Now, in a very socialist country such as England (is _The Law_ banned over
there or something?), I can readily understand why you would consider how
wonderful communism is. However, I can also see that it takes great mental
effort to deny the fact that England is coming apart at the seams.

>However that would not be entirely valid. The Communist Manifesto is just that,
>a call for support rather than the delineation of the real program. The
>principles put forward in 1848 were not intended to be set in stone (although
>many regimes did this with tragic consequences).

The Declaration of Independence was just that: a call to tell England to
go away and leave us alone. The principles set forward in 1776 were not
intended to be set in stone. They were just a joke, really. We told your
King that you were all a bunch of stuffy louts, and we were correct: You
actually took us seriously! Hell, no hard feelings. Come on over and
discuss your new taxation policies in order to rebuild England's collapsing
economy! (Note: EXTREME sarcasm). 

>The key difference between the communist manifesto and what occured is in the
>nature of public ownership. The communists considered that in order for society
>to control something they must first own it. This turned out not to be the
>case.

We did not keep our slaves in chains (most of the time) nor place them in
physical confinement of any sort; nevertheless, the effect is the same.
Just because there aren't any bars on the windows doesn't mean it's not
a prison. Just because there is not piece of paper claiming ownership does
not mean that it is not directly controlled.

>The other objection to observing the de facto adoption of the Communist
>manifesto as the triumph of Communism is that it was as previously stated a call
>for support. The support was intended to come from the ranks of the
>socialist/Labour movement wich had it's roots in trades unionism and the
>paternalist employer principles of Owen.

[already responded to above]

>One reason why the blanket assertion from the right that Socialism = communism =

I never called communism satanism. I might equate it with tyrrany, but not
Satanism, which is a religious issue.

>Satanism is that it is impossible to gain an appreciation of the development of
>these strands of thought except by treating them as separate. I remember when

In the Soviet Union, the "conservatives" are the old line communists while
the "liberals" are those who support the new democracy or republic (I'm not
sure they understand or know what the difference between these is).

>Ed. Meese made the claim that Socialism = Communism at Oxford, he seemed
>genuinely surprized (and upset) when everyone laughed at him. Oh sorry I forget
>according to Bush we are all liberal leftists at Oxford, I suspect Thatcher
>would have been surprized at that.

Okay, this seems to explain the problem. The PHILOSOPHY of socialism is
identical with that of Communism. The concepts are identical. The end
results are identical. The words used to describe them are different. For
example, most Americans run around using the word "democracy", completely
unaware the the United States is a republican form of government. In
fact, the closest reference I can find to democracy is that of Plato.
Plato stated that a democracy results because a society cannot hold wealth
in honor and at the same time establish self-control in its citizens.
People's impulses are unrestrained and the result is a lack of order
and direction. It is ironic that the current ruling class has created
just that situation in the United States, out of usurping the Republic.

Okay, what is the difference between Communism and Socialism?
Newsgroups: misc.legal