Is it fair to say that communism is only alive in Cuba and colleges?  Recently, with Castro’s decision to [1] publicly deride communism as a failed system, many are starting to believe that communism has finally kicked the bucket.  But consider these principles from [2] The Communist Manifesto, and how a large portion of Americans–maybe more than half–not only strongly support them, but enforce their belief through governmental intervention.  And then ask yourself: is communism really dead?

Nationhood:  “The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality.  The working men have no country.  We cannot take from them what they have not got.  Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is, so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word.”

According to the Communist Manifesto, a country is not a God-given cultural inheritance for a cultural people, but rather a means to political power and a set of resources.  In this light, the American left’s readiness to inundate our country with both legal and illegal immigrants from oftentimes hostile, anti-Christian, anti-capitalist, and anti-American countries makes sense.  To the communist, and indeed many Americans who believe the principles of communism, United States citizenship consists not within American ideal and duty, but solely within documentation.  Furthermore, the communist recognizes not the cultural identity of the nation, but only the bourgeois and proletarian within it.

Since our democratically-elected president was ranked the most leftist member of the senate, is it any wonder that many other traitorous Americans view international relations as a means to [3] forcefully transfer hard-earned American wealth to foreign nationals, and place the American people [4] under the legislative power of the world’s poor?  Should we be shocked that our own president publicly divides the nation into Wall Street and Main Street (Bourgeois and Proletarian), while simultaneously declaring that the United States has a multicultural identity as a Muslim, Buddhist, homosexual atheist nation?  Is it surprising that he and our congress do not find illegal immigration to be a threat to our identity, because leftists like Marx refuse to acknowledge and support a national identity?

War, crime, and evil: “In proportion as the antagonism between classes within the nation vanishes, the hostility of one nation to another will come to an end.  […]  Does it require deep intuition to comprehend that man’s ideas, views, and conceptions, in one word, man’s consciousness, changes with every change in the conditions of his material existence, in his social relations and in his social life?”

One might remember that the left is responsible for American programs which blame crime on poverty, like our [5] miserably-failed Section 8 housing program.  And if you’ve ever [6] been blamed for someone else’s criminal behavior simply because you belong to a different economic or racial class than the criminal does, you know that communism’s denial of personal responsibility is very much alive.  Today, the American majority, identified by the officials elected to represent them, market this same [7] false correlation between crime and poverty, proclaiming that ghettos wouldn’t have such a rape/murder problem if only they’d had better schools, and that–if we would only take from the rich, our criminals would have personal integrity.

And what is the result of this “morality”?  [8] A quick glance at the most liberal cities in America shows that communist ideals lead not toward utopia, but toward rapid, drastic, and violent social decay.  What else are we to expect, when people don’t believe that the character of thieves is the cause of thievery?

Family: “Abolition of the family!  Even the most radical flare up at the infamous proposal of the Communists.  On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family based?  On capital, on private gain. […] The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement [proletarian family] vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.”

If many Americans aren’t interested in directly destroying the family, we must admit their drive to encourage others to destroy their own families is interesting.  Most states in the USA not only give people the right to divorce without any reason and refuse to punish adulterers–both of which are serious annulments of contract rights–, but also actively ensure that discrimination against familial disintegration is punished.  Currently, the Fair Housing Act [9] punishes discrimination against familial status, meaning that a man who abandons his children all over town and continues to impregnate other women is protected from others who find his actions reprehensible.  Many Americans such as our President even campaign to subsidize illegitimate fatherhood (page 5 of Obama’s “[10] urban fact sheet“), while ensuring that the definition of “family” is always up for [11] reinterpretation.  In short, traditional families–being between one man, a woman, and any children they have–are anathema to the cause of “progress.”

Like many contemporary leftists, Marx [12] also believed that traditional marriage enslaved the woman.  And since communism’s arrival, how has this shift in familial standards affected the Western family?  In the United States today, 50% of marriages ending in life-shattering divorce, with 66% of American divorces being [13] initiated by women in America, and 75% of our more-leftist cousin Canada’s divorces being [14] initiated by women.  And if we look at the [15] most leftist cities in America, one shouldn’t be surprised that they have the [16] highest rates of single-motherhood and the most striking forms of [17] poverty and crime which follow.  Clearly, this pattern of familial dissolution is not only directly correlated with leftism, but it is intended and applauded as a moral achievement, as stated in the Communist Manifesto.

Education: “But, you say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social.  And your education!  Is not that also social, determined by the social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention direct or indirect, of society, by means of schools, etc?  The Communists have not invented the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class.”

Consider the [18] overwhelmingly leftist slant of our public education system, and how viciously so many Americans fight against school vouchers, against states’ rights [19] to choose their own curriculum, against a decentralized control of education, and against conservative voices in the classroom.  Consider the fight against school prayer, [20] against even the right of religious schools to teach religious material.  Consider the fight for overly-powerful teachers’ unions, the fight against homeschooling, and the fact that most home schoolers are practically conservative and Christian [21] refugees.  This war for the school exists because education is the left’s most available chance to take our children from us and indoctrinate them with the values of communism, and so leftists fight tooth and nail to ensure that we have minimal control over our children.  Combine this trend with the dissolution of the family, and what we find is a very clear goal of leftist/statist-monopolized indoctrination, a goal of communism stated in its very manifesto.

History: “The history of all past society has consisted in the development of class antagonisms, antagonisms that assumed different forms at different epochs.”

Consider that amongst the American left, more praise and focus is given to the Civil Rights movement, abolition, and woman/minority rights than any other American history, and ask yourself how Americans view history, and whether or not we view history in terms of class struggle.  Consider that most children are taught about Martin Luther King Jr. for months throughout their education, but have never read The Federalist Papers (for a free copy, go [22] here), do not understand the concept of unalienable rights or what they are, and have no clue [23] why we had a gold standard until the 1970’s.

Recessions and deflation: “It is enough to mention the commercial crises that, by their periodical return, put the existence of the entire bourgeois society on its trial, each time more threateningly.  In these crises, a great part not only of the existing products, but also of the previously created productive forces, are periodically destroyed.  In these crises, there breaks out an epidemic that, in all earlier epochs, would have seemed an absurdity–the epidemic of overproduction.  Society suddenly finds itself put back into a state of momentary barbarism: it appears as if a famine, a universal war of devastation, had cut off the supply of every means of subsistence; industry and commerce seem to be destroyed.  And why?  Because there is too much civilization, too much means of subsistence, too much industry, too much commerce.”

Modern Americans are very different from our forefathers in that we–like the communists–view recessions as something to be combated with governmental power.  Instead of viewing the recession as a market correction, a reallocation of resources from something the people do not want to something they do want, we use our government’s power to subvert the will of the people, steal their resources, and keep failing industries going.  Instead of welcoming an empowering economic restructuring (which a market correction does, though painfully), we purposely oppose market populism, in effect declaring that the government should determine [24] what people want, that people do not have a choice in whether or not an industry succeeds, and that commerce exists only for the purpose of jobs–not for the satisfaction of the customer.

The central bank and progressive taxation: “Of course, in the beginning, this [communism] cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionizing the mode of production. […]

2) A heavy progressive or graduated income tax

5) Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly”

Almost everyone is well-aware of heavy-progressive taxation’s popularity in the Western world, but what of this national bank?  In the United States, our Federal Reserve controls the very value of our capital and functions not only as our country’s source of credit, but [25] sometimes does so forcibly.  Thomas Jefferson [26] warned of the dangers of a central bank and a fiat currency, Marx embraced them.  So why do we have a central bank?  And if Marx himself considered heavy progressive taxation to be a “despotic inroad” on the rights of property, why is heavy progressive taxation so popular in our USA?

In conclusion, while many Americans claim that communism and its most loudly-touted goal (the abolition of private capital and property) are not representative of their values, the truth is that communism is very much entrenched in the United States of America, and in the West in general.  Americans may not have brought all property under state control, but limiting the definition of communism to one of its outcomes instead of its ideals is not only unfair, but naive and incredibly dangerous.  We must remember that popular support for the ideals of communism led to millions of deaths around the world through starvation, torture, murder, and imprisonment; and this aside from the thievery, the abuses, the impoverishment, the abolition of natural rights.  What we must ask ourselves today is how long we believe a free society can last, when the ideals of its citizens run concurrently with the world’s most heinous modern dictators.

Some will say that anti-communism is archaic, something better left behind in the 1950’s.  Some will say that by forcing communism out of our schools, out of our churches, and out of our political offices, that we’re more dangerous than the communists, that we’re simply a new breed of fascists with a capitalistic swagger, that we oppose liberty of thought.  But if the fight against totalitarianism’s ideals is considered by us to be totalitarianism, then perhaps we deserve to have our faces under another Stalin’s boot.  A people with neither honor, nor justice, nor a respect for truth certainly do not deserve to live in a Republic, much less to inherit the United States of America.

In contrast to the Communist Manifesto, our Declaration of Independence [27] declares that we have been endowed by our Creator with unalienable rights, meaning our rights are not concocted or evolved by man, but that they are given by God Himself, an [28] eternal set of moral principles for harmonious and successful living. What we must ask ourselves today is whether or not the blood, sweat, and tears which our forefathers shed to protect these rights are worth submitting to some perverted, bearded monstrosity, and all the pompous declarations of “liberty” with which he swindled and indirectly murdered millions.  I can’t speak for everyone, but I can say this for myself: as for me and my house, like our Founding Fathers, we stand unwaveringly and uncompromisingly with our Creator.