March 18, 2011
Marie Lozito is a Registered Nurse, Licensed Massage Therapist, wife, mother, grandmother and life-long conservative. She wrote a text on medical massage and taught at New York College of Health Professions.
Interested in, and observing politics since 1960, she
ran for elected office in 2010.
The Left, the '-isms' and Violence
Lets deal with two of the “-isms” first. Communism – “a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism...”, “a theory advocating elimination of private
property”. Socialism - “any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of
goods” + “a system of society or group living in which there is no private
property”. (Definitions from Webster's dictionary.)
Neither are new concepts that occurred in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Both governmental/societal forms have been tried at various times in history and have always failed. Why? Because neither takes into consideration human nature. Do you own anything? Do you have any pride in things you own, or what you have done? Have you ever worked to get something and enjoy it? Would you want to have it taken away in exchange for a promise that you would be taken care of? How would you feel? Would you be happy about it? Would you work very hard to produce anything when you could not have it, or the benefit of it, because “it” belongs to the government/society?
Most people don't want to give up what they have or what they have worked for. While many people are generous and voluntarily give to help others less fortunate, almost nobody wants everything they have to be taken from them and given away by the government to someone else.
The communist theory sounds nice but that is were it ends. Just look at the results in countries that have mistakenly tried this form of governing this past century alone. Communism was tried in Russia, China, Cuba, Vietnam, Cambodia, North Korea, etc. The result was extreme violence, wide spread poverty, deprivation and famine in the populace and a small, elite ruling class that enjoyed what the masses of people no longer had. In Russia, Lenin and Trotsky had
four million people - men, women and children - killed by mass executions, death camps, and state-caused famine. (See
The Black Book of Communism for a good introduction to their genocide, which started as soon as they got into power in 1917.) Stalin murdered over 20 million people and Mao Zedong murdered over 30 million of his own countrymen.
R.J. Rummel in his book Death by Government states
“Finally, at the extreme of totalitarian power we have the greatest extreme of
democide.” (He defines democide as large scale murders ordered or sanctioned by the government.)
“Communist governments have almost without exception wielded the most absolute power and their greatest killing (such as during Stalin's reign or the height of Mao's power) has taken place when they have been in their own history most totalitarian. As most communist governments underwent increasing liberalization and a loosening of centralized power in the 1960s through the 1980s, the pace of killing dropped off
sharply.” Please note that even though the “killing dropped off sharply”, nobody anywhere even suggests that communist countries have stopped the political killing of their citizens.
As for Socialism, that is just “communism lite”. Socialism simply does not work for the same reasons communism doesn't work. Again, a very nice sounding theory that just doesn't work with human nature. The one good thing is that usually it is a less violent form of government.
What or who is the “left”? “Those professing views usually characterized by desire to reform or overthrow the established order especially in politics and usually advocating change in the name of greater freedom or well being of the common
man” + “a radical as distinguished from a conservative position”. (Again, from Webster's dictionary.) In America, “the left” has generally come to mean those who believe in the socialist principles of government: that the government should take care of the less fortunate in the society,
and the government should redistribute the wealth.
Many countries during this past century adopted some socialist programs even though they were not “communist” or “socialist” countries. They adopted these programs with the best of intentions but no understanding of the unintended consequences. Programs that redistributed the wealth with progressive tax codes (the more you have, the more you pay), social programs designed to guarantee that no one would “do without”. Everyone would have income, retirement, education, health care, etc.
This past year we have been witnessing the problems in Europe when various governments have gotten to the point that they can no longer afford these programs. Remember the riots in Greece? Greece was going bankrupt and government employees rioted because some of their benefits were going to be cut. Remember the student riots in England? Students rioted because they would have to pay more for college. In many European countries people rioted because the privileged status and benefits they enjoyed from the socialist programs were coming to an end. They had been on the receiving end of the redistribution of wealth.
People were hurt and on some occasions killed. (I.E. the pregnant woman burned to death in a fire set by the mob in a Greek bank.) Private and public property was damaged or destroyed. I am sure that most of the people who were rioting did not intend to harm people or destroy anything – they just didn't want to give anything they considered 'theirs' back to the society they received it from. (There is that old human nature again! Like the small child saying “MINE!” and having a tantrum when the object is taken away.) The problems occurred because of “mob mentality” and the few individuals in the mob who were either anarchists or simply nasty and violent individuals.
This brings me to what happened in Madison Wisconsin. The public sector unions , by using their power and money, had over the years gotten contracts with unsustainable benefits. The state had a multimillion dollar deficit that it needed
to correct. The people of Wisconsin agreed. They elected politicians who campaigned that they would fix this problem and
those politicians proceeded to do so. The union leaders did not want to loose any of their power and money. The union members didn't want to contribute more for their health care and retirement benefits nor loose collective bargaining rights for
benefits (the only way the state could prevent firing thousands of public union workers and prevent the recurrence of contracts giving workers unsustainable
benefits). The unions bussed- in thousands to demonstrate. Organizing for America and MoveOn.org coordinated and encouraged massive demonstrations. Then the troublemakers in the mob got active -
and riots, damages and injuries occurred.
All of this because of the misguided, benign sounding, allegedly “kind” and “humane” socialist philosophies. It's not opinion, it's fact: socialism causes poverty, deprivation and death.