This essay is by Charles Landis
In Part I of this essay (Dialectical Materialism), I make the argument that the analytic of Karl Marx (thesis, antithesis, and synthesis) is existentially the ideology of the Socialist Democratic Party. If, for example, you read Marx or Stalin’s Constitution of 1936, you would think this was Bernie Sanders’ (et al) play book: promise of guaranteed income, free medical care, housing, education, proletarian control, … etc. Indeed, this is the agenda of the Democrat Party contenders for the 2020 presidential election and the prevailing party base.
In his Communist Manifesto, Marx says in order to establish a classless socialist society there must be a violent revolution and a dictatorship of the proletariat as has been the case in Russia (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics), Peoples Republic of China, Socialist Republic of Vietnam, Republic of Cuba… etc. and arguably the National Socialist Party of Germany (Nazi) albeit based upon racial identity.
In later years, however, Marx conceded the end for a socialist state could be achieved by peaceful democratic means but would require changes in governance in the process. In the United States this would mean elimination of such fundamental principles of our Constitution as separation of powers as provided for by the Administrative State, the democratic republican structure, and the electoral college.
The Administrative State refers to the vast bureaucracy of the Federal government within the executive branch. Th phrase Administrative State was coined by Ralph Waldo in his dissertation on Public administration at Yale in 1948. His thesis was that the purpose of bureaucracies was to do public good and not a business model of efficiency and scientific management but with authorities that transcend the traditional boundaries of executive power to include also legislative and judicial powers; independent of political control and in good measure of presidential control. Ie. Executive orders.
The concept of an Administrative State is traced back to writings of Woodrow Wilson in 1885 wherein he believed it was necessary to separate politics from administration and “freeing administration from the confines of constitutional law.” And … “to free us from the idea that checks and balances are to be carried down through all ages…” The expert civil servant, secure in his position and with no self-interest would only focus on doing the public good.
The vast expansion of new administrative agencies in the era of FDR in the 1930s and again with Johnson’s Great Society in the 1960s, together with the increased regulatory environment of Obama, define the scope and space occupied by the Administrative State in the national economy today. In 1984, the Supreme Court in a landmark case (Chevron v National Recourses Defense Council) held that courts should defer to the regulatory agencies when they interpret laws passed by congress… “unless the agencies interpretation are unreasonable.”
The ability of administrative agencies to make the law by rules and regulations, enforce the laws, and adjudicate the laws by the agencies own administrative law judges is of great concern to conservatives and those who believe in the “separation of powers” as mandated by the Constitution. A new study by professor Jeffrey Pojanowski of Notre Dame Law School argues the Chevron Deference gives too much power to administrative agencies and undermines the rule of law: first because it makes it easier for agencies to make law and policy and, second , it undermines the court’s duty to determine what the law is.
The political theory of our Founders was that the primary purpose of government was to protect the natural rights of man as in the In the Declaration of Independence which asserts…”there are self-evident truths.. all men are created equal…endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights… among these are Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness.” The Bill of Rights enumerated certain other rights and freedoms. All in a social compact between the government and the governed.
In a scholarly essay on the Admirative State written for the Heritage Foundation, professor Ronald Pestritto, an authority on the Constitution at the Claremont Institute , writes that Wilson and Frank Goodnow, president of John Hopkins, set the agenda for achieving the Progressive big government liberalism. They rejected the social compact of the Founders because they said it had no “historical foundation” and the rights guaranteed by the Constitution were not conferred by a creator, but by the society to which we belong.
The success of the Progressive Socialist Democrat Party is dependent upon the continued diminution of the separation of powers and promotion of the Administrative State that allows delegation and combination of powers and insulation from political and judicial control. It is the Chevron Deference that allowed Obama to boast that if congress did not act because of political differences, he would act to accomplish his goals with his pen; meaning exercising executive orders via administrative agencies and the Chevron Deference. Indeed, this is how thousands of new regulations were promogulated, and roll back was at top of Trump’s agenda.
To understand fully the agenda of the Progressive Democratic Party, one needs only to go to the website of the Democratic Socialists of America, which is the largest socialist organization in America and successor to the Socialist Party of America which was formed in 1901. Here you will find everything you need to understand about the Democrat Socialist Party. It is the road map.
The Democrat Socialists say their socialism is different from that of Russia, China, etc. because their focus is on the means to their end is by democratic means… which is exactly what all the socialists/communist authoritarian[CL1] regimes said. When Bernie Sanders says the movement is a “a political revolution” he does not mean (I hope} a dictatorship of the proletariat by a violent revolution. The Democratic Socialists will achieve control of large corporations by having equal representation on boards of directors by the working class (proletariat) and the break up of large financial institutions.
Th Administrative State (Federal Government) employs 2.7 million federal workers in over 2000 agencies, bureaus, commissions, and government corporations. During the Obama administration nearly 500,000 pages of new rules and guidelines were added to the Federal Register’ The Tax Foundation calculates 4.9 million people are employed for compliance. Nearly 2/3 of a $4.2 trillion budget is for mandatory entitlement programs. It is mind numbing to think about the cost of all the new entitlements the Progressive Democratic Party promises
The manifestos of the Democratic Socialists of America, the Progressive Socialist Democrat Party, and Marx are the same. The distinction is the means…the Administrative State and confiscatory taxation.
Paul Plante says
As to the Constitution, which is pretty much a tattered rag these days, I think it has to be one of the most, if not the most, misunderstood documents on the face of the earth.
All the Constitution did, and all the Constitution was ever intended to do, was to “constitute” our unique form or frame of government here in the United States of America, a point made clear by Alexander Hamilton in FEDERALIST No. 84, entitled “Certain General and Miscellaneous Objections to the Constitution Considered and Answered” from McLEAN’s Edition, New York to the People of the State of New York, as follows::
IN THE course of the foregoing review of the Constitution, I have taken notice of, and endeavored to answer most of the objections which have appeared against it.
There, however, remain a few which either did not fall naturally under any particular head or were forgotten in their proper places.
These shall now be discussed; but as the subject has been drawn into great length, I shall so far consult brevity as to comprise all my observations on these miscellaneous points in a single paper.
The most considerable of the remaining objections is that the plan of the convention contains no bill of rights.
It has been several times truly remarked that bills of rights are, in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgements of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince.
Such was MAGNA CHARTA, obtained by the barons, sword in hand, from King John.
Such were the subsequent confirmations of that charter by succeeding princes.
Such was the PETITION OF RIGHT assented to by Charles I., in the beginning of his reign.
Such, also, was the Declaration of Right presented by the Lords and Commons to the Prince of Orange in 1688, and afterwards thrown into the form of an act of parliament called the Bill of Rights.
It is evident, therefore, that, according to their primitive signification, they have no application to constitutions professedly founded upon the power of the people, and executed by their immediate representatives and servants.
Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing; and as they retain every thing they have no need of particular reservations.
“WE, THE PEOPLE of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ORDAIN and ESTABLISH this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Here is a better recognition of popular rights, than volumes of those aphorisms which make the principal figure in several of our State bills of rights, and which would sound much better in a treatise of ethics than in a constitution of government.
end quotes
That is what our history actually is.
It is intended to protect our liberty, not to convey any rights on us, at all, as we see by returning the Federalist No. 84, as follows:
I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous.
They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted.
For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?
Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?
I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power.
They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government.
This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.
What signifies a declaration, that “the liberty of the press shall be inviolably preserved”?
What is the liberty of the press?
Who can give it any definition which would not leave the utmost latitude for evasion?
I hold it to be impracticable; and from this I infer, that its security, whatever fine declarations may be inserted in any constitution respecting it, must altogether depend on public opinion, and on the general spirit of the people and of the government.
And here, after all, as is intimated upon another occasion, must we seek for the only solid basis of all our rights.
The truth is, after all the declamations we have heard, that the Constitution is itself, in every rational sense, and to every useful purpose, A BILL OF RIGHTS.
The several bills of rights in Great Britain form its Constitution, and conversely the constitution of each State is its bill of rights.
And the proposed Constitution, if adopted, will be the bill of rights of the Union.
Is it one object of a bill of rights to declare and specify the political privileges of the citizens in the structure and administration of the government?
This is done in the most ample and precise manner in the plan of the convention; comprehending various precautions for the public security, which are not to be found in any of the State constitutions.
Is another object of a bill of rights to define certain immunities and modes of proceeding, which are relative to personal and private concerns?
This we have seen has also been attended to, in a variety of cases, in the same plan.
Adverting therefore to the substantial meaning of a bill of rights, it is absurd to allege that it is not to be found in the work of the convention.
It may be said that it does not go far enough, though it will not be easy to make this appear; but it can with no propriety be contended that there is no such thing.
It certainly must be immaterial what mode is observed as to the order of declaring the rights of the citizens, if they are to be found in any part of the instrument which establishes the government.
And hence it must be apparent, that much of what has been said on this subject rests merely on verbal and nominal distinctions, entirely foreign from the substance of the thing.
The great bulk of the citizens of America are with reason convinced, that Union is the basis of their political happiness.
Men of sense of all parties now, with few exceptions, agree that it cannot be preserved under the present system, nor without radical alterations; that new and extensive powers ought to be granted to the national head, and that these require a different organization of the federal government – a single body being an unsafe depositary of such ample authorities.
Joseph Francis Corcoran says
Can you provide a link to the Progressive Socialist Democrat Party website ?
Paul Plante says
Resistance Rising: Socialist Strategy in the Age of Political Revolution
June 25, 2016
https://www.dsausa.org/strategy/resistance_rising_socialist_strategy_in_the_age_of_political_revolution/
https://www.dsausa.org/
Barnaby Conrad says
Great essay! And a frightening vision our how the Left will try to destroy our country.
I left the word “try” in that sentence because we still have a chance to keep America great—and free—by voting on a county, state and national level.
Paul Plante says
While class struggle is definitely a part of the Democratic Socialist Manifesto for America, equally striking is its “anti-white male” bias, which gives us a very strong indication that despite the presence of the word “democratic” in their name, the Democratic Socialist do not intend to be democratic, at all – more like autocratic (taking no account of other people’s wishes or opinions; domineering. synonyms: despotic, tyrannical, oppressive, repressive), as we can see from the following excerpt from the Manifesto, to wit:
Given the profound and sustained defeats suffered by the Left and progressive movements during this period, by the mid- 2000s socialists and progressives in the United States and Europe could boast of virtually no examples of successful resistance to neoliberalism.
Many turned their eyes to South America, which during this time was practically the only democratic leftist political stronghold in the world.
end quotes
Now, with respect to the type of government these Democratic Socialists intend to install here in the United States of America, that statement that “Many turned their eyes to South America, which during this time was practically the only democratic leftist political stronghold in the world” should be a real wake-up call.
Getting back to the Manifesto:
Only a few short years later, however, the situation in Europe and the United States looked completely different: the Left had finally galvanized significant support in the electoral arena, and had pulled the terms of political debate significantly leftward through creative social movement organizing.
end quotes
And in the following, we then see the class struggle aspects of the Democratic Socialist movement, to wit:
To take the United States as one example, the progressive offensive against neoliberalism began in earnest with the Occupy protests of 2011 and the resistance to Governor Scott Walker’s anti-labor offensive in Wisconsin, which put the issue of inequality at the center of U.S. political discourse and cultivated a new generation of activists that have been crucial in more recent movements.
In the wake of Occupy, powerful new movements arose to challenge brutal immigration policies (The Dreamers), the shamefully low federal minimum wage (Fight for $15), the epidemic of police brutality and structural racism (Black Lives Matter) and inequality (the Sanders Political Revolution) to name a few.
These movements have opened up space for a serious discussion of capitalism, male dominance and racism in our society that has not existed in decades, and which provides unique opportunities for the growth of a democratic socialist movement that emphasizes the interconnectedness of all of the struggles and the structural character of the reforms needed to make real and lasting change.
end quotes
For those who have studied Communism and Marxist theory, that word “struggle” is a common element, for to keep the masses agitated, there has to be a boogie-man for them to struggle against, and for the Democratic Socialists, that struggle is against capitalism and what they “male dominance.
Another element of Marxist theory present here is this statement in the Manifesto about the “structural character of the reforms needed to make real and lasting change,” that real and lasting change involving both the end of capitalism and “male dominance” here in the United States of America.
Getting to the “anti-white” portion of the Manifesto, we have as follows:
As the life prospects of many white people in the 99% continue to decline, and as demographic tides shift steadily toward a United States in which people of color constitute a majority, this reactionary organizing is likely to grow ever more serious.
Historically the Left has been, and, despite the best intentions of many, continues to be dominated by white activists (often middle class men).
Organizations of the Left (including DSA) generally reflect the interests, aspirations, and cultural assumption of white working- and middle class individuals more than people of color.
end quotes
Sounds very much like the Democratic Socialists intend to segregate America into an upper class of “people of color,” and a lower class of white people, which they would see as striking a blow for justice, for them.
Getting back to the class struggle against capitalism, we have this from the Democratic Socialist Manifesto, to wit:
Despite these challenges, once in a generation opportunities currently exist for taking the offensive and launching an assertive anti-capitalist politics in the United States.
end quotes
That statement really does speak for itself, with respect to where the Democratic Socialists intend to take us should they gain more political power here in the USA, which takes us to the following, again from the Democratic Socialist Manifesto, as follows:
Democratic Socialism as Radical Democracy
DSA believes that the fight for democratic socialism is one and the same as the fight for radical democracy, which we understand as the freedom of all people to determine all aspects of their lives to the greatest extent possible.
Our vision entails nothing less than the radical democratization of all areas of life, not least of which is the economy.
Under capitalism we are supposed to take for granted that a small, largely unaccountable group of corporate executives should make all fundamental decisions about the management of a company comprised of thousands of people.
This group has the power to determine how most of us spend the lion’s share of our waking hours, as well as the right to fire anyone for basically any reason, no matter how arbitrary.
Under democratic socialism, this authoritarian system would be replaced with economic democracy.
This simply means that democracy would be expanded beyond the election of political officials to include the democratic management of all businesses by the workers who comprise them and by the communities in which they operate.
Very large, strategically important sectors of the economy — such as housing, utilities and heavy industry — would be subject to democratic planning outside the market, while a market sector consisting of worker-owned and -operated firms would be developed for the production and distribution of many consumer goods.
In this society, large-scale investments in new technologies and enterprises would be made on the basis of maximizing the public good, rather than shareholder value.
Crucially, investments in renewable energy and efficient technologies would be prioritized to guarantee ecological sustainability and the future existence of life on Earth.
A democratic socialist society would also guarantee a wide range of social rights in order to ensure equality of citizenship for all.
Vital services such as health care, child care, education (from pre-K through higher education), shelter and transportation would be publicly provided to everyone on demand, free of charge.
Further, in order to ensure that the enjoyment of full citizenship was not tied to ups and downs in the labor market, everyone would also receive a universal basic income — that is, a base salary for every member of society, regardless of the person’s employment status.
Finally, the work week would be gradually reduced and vacation time would be expanded to guarantee that everyone in society benefited from increasingly efficient technologies that decrease the overall amount of labor needed in the economy (and also to ensure that all who wish to find employment are able to do so).
Economic democracy would be complemented in the political sphere by a new system that combined an overhauled form of representative democracy (our current system) with direct democracy, a system in which individuals participate directly in the making of political decisions that affect them.
In this system, the Senate (an extremely unrepresentative political body in which states with very small populations have the same level of representation as the most populous states) would be abolished, and a system of proportional representation would be established so that Congress actually reflects the political will of the electorate.
A democratic socialist government would also implement new referenda and recall mechanisms to hold elected officials accountable during their tenure in office, and a vast system of local participatory institutions would be set up to ensure individuals had a direct voice in political decision-making beyond the ballot box.
These institutions would include citizen boards for various government services, program councils (at the national, state and local levels) for those who receive government services, and municipal and state-level citizen assemblies that would be open to all and would be tasked with making budget decisions (much like participatory budgeting processes currently in use around the world today).
Finally, individual civil and political rights (freedom of speech, assembly, the right to vote, etc.), which are currently routinely violated, would be strengthened, and public resources would be devoted to the development of a genuinely free press and a democratically administered mass media.
While DSA believes that economic exploitation cuts across all other forms of oppression, and therefore that radical economic and social democracy would dramatically enhance most people’s capacity for self-determination, we do not believe that racial, gender, sexual and other forms of oppression are reducible to economic exploitation.
Solidarity among all working people who are ensnared in the capitalist system may be a prerequisite for a strong socialist movement, but socialism as radical democracy is much more than the emancipation of a single economic class.
The democratic socialist project also entails addressing a wide range of oppressions in law, culture and society that limit people’s capacity for self-determination.
To give a few examples, the work of caregiving, which under capitalism falls disproportionately on women — particularly women of color and migrant women — would be publicly supported through universal daycare, eldercare and paid family leave.
In the legal sphere, all citizens would have equal rights, in contrast to the current reality in which millions of citizens (in the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, overseas territories and Native American tribes) do not have the ability to elect their own congressional representatives.
In the legal system, the racialized system of unequal justice that currently exists would be replaced by a system that featured citizen review boards (vested with real authority) of both the police and court systems.
The disgraceful use of prisons to regulate behavior (which disproportionately affects communities of color and the poor) would be replaced with a system that decriminalized a wide range of offenses (particularly nonviolent drug-related offenses) and combined full services to victims with restorative justice, mental health care and various forms of counseling to help people find productive ways to move forward after committing serious crimes.
Finally, racial/ethnic and sex/gender-based oppressions may well continue in a socialist society.
Hence a wide range of programs to dismantle the privileges associated with whiteness, maleness and heteronormativity would have to be developed, and antidiscrimination policies in the workplace and in social organizations would have to be intensified.
Beyond addressing the legacies of gender, racial, sexual and other forms of oppression, democratic socialism would bring about a cultural renaissance in which a vast array of new artistic practices and lifestyles would flourish.
With more free time, protection from the vagaries of economic exploitation and deepened norms of respect and solidarity, individuals on a mass scale would be able for the first time to freely choose how they wanted to develop as individuals, limited only by principles of mutual respect and the absence of exploitation and oppression.
Race- and gender-based identities, despite having their origins in systems of oppression, would no longer be imposed upon individuals by society, and would likely play a positive role in shaping individuals’ identities.
It should always be remembered, however, that like every other form of society, a democratic socialist society cannot produce total social harmony.
Such a society will always have to navigate among the competing claims of different groups and democratic political institutions will always be needed to arbitrate and mediate such conflict.
Democratic socialism, that is, will not be the utopia that many socialists of old imagined.
Yet the achievement of a democratic socialist society would nevertheless mark one of the greatest advances in human history.
Instead of war, there would be peace; instead of competition, cooperation; instead of exploitation, equality; instead of pollution, sustainability and instead of domination, freedom.
Life would still have sorrows as well as joys, and there would still be failed projects and unrequited love.
But with democratic socialism there would no longer be unnecessary suffering imposed on the mass of society by institutions over which we have no control.
end quotes
Ah, yes, the socialist workers paradise!
Sing hallelujah, and say amen, for a new day for America is coming, and if you should happen to be a white male, for you it might very well be hell.
Paul Plante says
As to the coercive nature of the Democratic Socialist political agenda, we must focus in on these words from the Manifesto, as follows:
Finally, racial/ethnic and sex/gender-based oppressions may well continue in a socialist society.
Hence a wide range of programs to dismantle the privileges associated with whiteness, maleness and heteronormativity would have to be developed, and antidiscrimination policies in the workplace and in social organizations would have to be intensified.
end quotes
Gulags, perhaps?
Sounds like it to me, anyway.
Paul Plante says
Section III of the Democratic Socialist Manifesto, entitled “Our Strategy,” makes it clear that the goal of the Democratic Socialists is to make the United States of America into a “anti-white male_ socialist republic, as follows, to wit:
With this vision in place, we turn finally to an overview of DSA’s strategy for moving the needle of emancipation closer to democratic socialism over the coming years and decades.
We believe democratic socialism is the only humane and democratic alternative to capitalism, but considering our limited resources at present we must think carefully about how to translate our socialist ideals and values into a viable political strategy.
Given the magnitude and scope of the challenges we face, as well as the democratic and decentralized nature of our organization, there is no strategic silver bullet, or single, all-encompassing campaign to which we can devote all of our organizational resources.
Rather, our strategy — based on the preceding analysis of current political and economic conditions — consists of fighting on a number of interconnected fronts in the short-term, leveraging gains made in these struggles into more structural, offensively-oriented changes in the medium-term and ultimately employing the strength of a mass socialist party or coalition of leftist and progressive parties to win political power and begin the process of socialist transformation.
Regardless of the particular struggle(s) in which a given DSA chapter is engaged, however, in all cases we will focus on overcoming the historic bias of our organization toward white (particularly male) activists.
end quotes
For those who have studied Marx, the process of socialist transformation is a necessary step on the road to Communism.
Getting back to the Manifesto and the Democratic Socialist “war” on capitalism and straight, white, male, English-speaking, mostly college-educated people in America, we have:
Further, capitalists have consistently used appeals to white racism, and tensions at the intersection of gender and race, to maintain divisions among the working class.
In order to overcome these divisions and forge deeper solidarities across the working class, it is essential that a disproportionately straight, white, male, English-speaking, mostly college-educated socialist organization such as DSA prioritize racial justice work and organize actively within struggles where racial, gender, class and sexual oppression intersect.
end quotes
These people in the Democratic Socialists of America have some real serious issues with straight, white, male, English-speaking, mostly college-educated people in America, it seems, and if they gain power, the future of straight, white, male, English-speaking, mostly college-educated people in this country looks bleak for sure.
As to the role “free” education plays in this scheme, we have as follows from the Democratic Socialist Manifesto, as follows:
Free public higher education is a key example of what we might call a “transformative” reform that helps to popularize the idea of socialism and to make further, more dramatic reforms possible in the future.
Free public higher education would mean taking what should be a universal public good out of the marketplace, putting it under democratic control and guaranteeing it as a right to all citizens — and funding it by a truly progressive tax system that makes the wealthy and corporations pay their fair share of government revenue.
Beyond its inherent benefits, such a campaign would also show people that socialist policies are both desirable and achievable.
Gaining free public higher education could serve as a crucial step in making democratic socialist politics more attractive to a wider cross-section of the U.S. public.
end quotes
In other words, you have to suck them in when they are young and unable to think for themselves, and you do that by handing them out “FREE STUFF” at taxpayer expense, and then you have them hooked, which is how a social revolution in America to put us on the road to world Communism begins!