Socialism-Communism-Democratism
What's the difference?
Part I

George M. Haddad
June 1, 2004


The advent of the socialistic/communistic tenets of Karl Marx and their direct implementation by Lenin and Stalin has been a slow but steady political process in our country. When you read the manifestos of Socialism and Communism you are aware of phraseology which is full of hate. An emotion which is effectively hidden in the sentences which proclaim the rise of the workingman. You do not read of any love or of any real humanitarian instinct. Only the overt drive for power and conquest. The common denominators for all of the Marxian Credos has been the abolition of private property, the distribution of wealth, a completely secular society or an assault on any religion and the heavy taxation of all to the point of forced dependency on government or a governing class. This is also the present platform of our Democratist party.

Marx, in his studies of economics, tended to focus mainly on capitalism. A way of life which he hated with a passion. Unfortunately, in all his works there is a lack of knowledge and sensitivity relative to the human equation...that is, the innate human desire to create, to succeed, to possess self worth and to own.

Basically the difference between socialism/communism and democratism in today's American political atmosphere is only in degree and not in principle. As a Socialist the aim is to control; the objective of the Communist is to own; and the main tenets of the Democratist is an embracing of both.

We have, in this instant, a distinction without a difference. To allow for difference between these entities would be to allow for a modicum of dignity for the so-called Democrat party. To understand that there is little difference is to face reality.

Our history indicates that the influx of socialist thought and doctrine has been pervasive in the last half of the 20th century with no sign today of a let-up and it was possibly spawned just prior to the beginning of the last half of the past century and during the Franklin D. Roosevelt era. The seeds of the give-away programs could have been planted at this time and principally right after WW II when Russian communism, fresh from its victories of the war was emboldened to begin its stretching on a more serious note.

At Yalta, Franklin D. exhibited his magnanimous, generous and expansive nature by giving Stalin the Balkan countries. Later he furthered this atrocity by allowing the Russians a good piece of Germany and half of Berlin. He made the appeasement philosophy of Neville Chamberlain appear as chicken feed.

Roosevelt himself was an unwitting pawn to the communists at that time and possibly in being so weak to the demands of Stalin he could have been, either consciously or unconsciously, a willing adherent to the Bolshevik ideology.

He didn't stop there. He went local. This kind of fertile soil allowed Democratism to gain a toehold in the once proud Democrat party and created the vacuum which was later filled by the flower children of the sixties. And they filled it with an impact from which we are still reeling. The Roosevelt residue was the cadre already in place which welcomed with open arms these recalcitrant mop-head, pot-smoking misfits as they filled the open posts awaiting them. The legislative dominance of the so-called Democrats during this period exacerbated, encouraged and abetted their culture drenching hypotheses and destructive lifestyles into every aspect of our daily lives. They oozed, eased and seeped into every segment of our society which included the once considered standard bearing institutions of the day.

They presented us with culture shock. The Democrat party, or whatever you wish to call this hodge podge (and I prefer Democratist) is basically a coalition of, illiterate radicals, intellectual snobs, guilt ridden nouveau rich, the major unions, abortionists, trial lawyers, radical environmentalists, the world of entertainment freaks, generally the field of education, gay rights activists and helter skelter revolutionaries. This broad brush excludes the naive in these categories but the others know who they are. The average American who claims to be a democrat is carried along with the backwash of this conglomerate and is obviously unaware of the quagmire into which he has been thrown and to which he is a willing dupe.

After WW II we were warned on many fronts. I can still recall the Walter Winchell radio broadcasts and his lone voice via the radio waves. Some can also recollect the warnings of Senator Joe McCarthy who unfortunately lost his cause to ferret them out because of his zeal for operating beyond the limits of our constitutional safeguards. McCarthy did a great deal of flushing but the vermin hung onto the edges and with the help of the news media were able to keep from being swept down the drain.

In his book, The Fight for America, Jesse Friedman stings McCarthy pretty well but then admits "In the last few years, CIA and KGB declassified information has confirmed to some degree McCarthy's accusations of Communist infiltration in our government. I am not calling Senator Joe McCarthy a liar. He was right. The problem is, he didn't know it!"

James Forrestal was Under Secretary of the Navy under Roosevelt and Secretary of defense with Truman. The Forrestal diaries tell a story not often read or heard in our historical perspectives. There was also the fear of communistic spread here and abroad, the desire for a solid "World Organization," and the recognition of an obvious leftist movement of the American Press.

September 2, 1944 In Forrestal's letter to Palmer Hoyt, "I find that whenever any American suspects that we act in accordance with the needs of our own security he is apt to be called a god-damned fascist or imperialist, while if Uncle Joe (Stalin) suggests that he needs the Baltic Provinces, half of Poland, all of Bessarabia and access to the Mediterranean, all hands agree that he is a fine, frank, candid and generally delightful fellow who is very easy to deal with because he is so explicit in what he wants."

September 28, 1945 Ambassador Patrick Hurley who had just returned from China told Forrestal, "a good many of the professional staff of the State Department had not merely been of no help to him but a definite hindrance." He went on to relate that many of the American Correspondents were communistically inclined as well as many of the people in the State Department."

July 10, 1946 While visiting Japan and MacArthur at this time Forrestal wrote that MacArthur stated he was critical and contemptuous of what he called the left-wing writers in the American press. They were, he said, playing the game, whether consciously or not, of the communists against the interests of their own country.

As you can see, nothing has changed.

The fact that we have a party in our country whose sole role is to win an election even if it aids and abets an enemy while we are at war is a sad commentary. It happened before and they got away with it. Maybe this is what James Russell Lowell meant when he wrote, "Democracy gives every man a right to be his own oppressor."

Go to Part II


George M. Haddad has a Bachelors Degree in Sociology and a Masters Degree in Social Administration with extensive work experience with the mentally ill. The former Executive Director - National Institute for Burn Medicine - affiliated with the University of Michigan. He is retired from the National Staff of the YMCA as a troubleshooter in financial management and administration and has worked as a management consultant to non-profit corporations. He has written frequently on medical, social and political issues and has many published articles to his credit. He currently writes from Franklin, Michigan and can be contacted at gmhaddad@comcast.net.

Copyright George M. Haddad

BACK Articles

Search TYSK

TYSK eagle
www.tysknews.com

News Depts Articles Library
Lite Stuff Links Credits Home

 

2 jun 2004