Special to the Mirror written by Charles Landis.
This is Part I of a three-part essay on the most topical issue of today: socialism. Part I relates the sameness of Karl Marx’s Dialectal Materialism to the socialism of the Democrat Party of today. Part II explains the threat of the Administrative State and the Chevron Rule (as opined by the Supreme Court in 1984); what Marx called the synthesis or new order of governance. In Part II, I conclude that the division in America today is due to two different views about the Constitution; the originalist vs a living constitution.
————————————————————————————————————-
Part I. The Dialectical Materialism of the Democrat Party: Thesis, Antitheses, and Synthesis.
When a senior at university in 1957, I was asked to write an essay on communism and socialism and enter it in a competition sponsored by the Republic Aviation Corporation. (I received an award but no money which I sorely needed). I titled the essay: Dialectical Materialism: Thesis, Antithesis, and Synthesis based on the writings of Karl Marx. The essay I wrote 62 years ago is as apposite today as I observe the prevailing ideology of the candidates of the Democrat Party for the 2020 presidential election, which is existentially Marxist Socialism.
With a penchant for pithiness, Dialectal Materialism is a materialistic analysis of history whereas there has been an evolutionary progression of socio economic relationships from nomadic hunter-gathers to modern industrial capitalist society. Karl Mark, the father of this interpretation, said that during each period in history there has been a constant struggle between the working class (proletariat) and the owner/controlling class (bourgeoise). A class struggle of the proletariat which has always been exploited by the bourgeoise.
A simple way to understand what Marx was saying is to think of a large forest fire (thesis); many firefighters organize to fight the fire and extinguish it (antithesis). After the fire is put out, the land is reforested, the habitat returns, and all is as it should be (synthesis).
In Marx’s analytic the thesis was the established order of capitalism and industrialism. The antithesis was the struggle of the down trodden masses (proletariat) against the profit motive driven owners/controllers (bourgeoise). Synthesis would be achieved by revolution, which was necessary in order to resolve the conflicts and establish a freer society with an equitable distribution of proceeds of labor or contribution to production. “From each according to ability and to each according to need.” Marx posited that synthesis would be achieved by establishing a “dictatorship of the proletariat.”
Th syllogism of Marxist socialism and the Socialist Democratic Party of today is, again, defined by the rhetoric of the Democrat contenders for leadership and control of the agenda: thesis, antithesis, and synthesis of Marx.
The thesis of the Socialist Democrat Party is a technology driven economy, globalization of production, corporate capitalism, and political division as great as at time of Civil War. There is a stagnant growth in the middle class, disparity in income distribution, racial inequality, environmental issues, ideological differences (socialism), and employment/income insecurity. The working classes and disadvantaged minorities (proletariat firefighters or antithesis) must be organized to overcome the bourgeoise (fire).
Synthesis is to be achieved in a socialist utopia with a need for a “living constitution” to accommodate the newly discovered rights to a lot of free stuff: guaranteed annual minimum income, quality affordable housing, free quality healthcare, free child care, and a free college education.. ad infinitum. Social justice. Cradle to grave government control and dependency… socialism.
Synthesis was achieved in Russia, China, North Korea, Cuba, Cambodia, and the populist socialist welfare state of Venezuela, by revolution and control by authoritarian government. In the United States, synthesis by the Socialist Democrat Party is being pursued by overturning the election of President Trump and assaults on certain fundamental presets in our Constitution.
The Declaration of Independence speaks to “the laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” and we “ are endowed by (our) creator with certain unalienable rights.” The Constitution established certain and enumerated rights guaranteed to every individual personally and in a representative Republic. Democratic Socialism ignores natural and God given rights and establishes a living Constitution with many new collective rights under centralized control based on identity as to racial, gender, and ethnic group identity (the oppressed people). (Note. “Religion is an opiate of the people”).
The Electoral College, as mandated by Art. 2, Sec. 1 of the Constitution, is under attack by the Socialist Democrat Party because Trump won by the Electoral College but lost the majority of the popular vote. Elimination of the Electoral College and instituting the popular vote is antithetical to the Constitution and was one of most important safeguards to protect interests of minorities and against tyranny of majority. Thus the Executive branch would be decided by a few large cities/states with dominant Socialist Democrat Party majorities. There would be no need for candidates to campaign in small states. (Note. Abraham Lincoln received 40% of popular vote, John Quincy Adams 30.9%, and Trump 46.9%).
To understand the ideology of the Socialist Democrat Party, one needs only to read Marx, understand Dialectal Materialism (thesis, antithesis, and synthesis) and listen to what their presidential contenders and the predominant base say about the established order (thesis), what is wrong about America (anthesis), and their agenda to establish synthesis.
Marx talks about socialism as a classless society and establishing a dictatorship of the proletariat but does not tell us what governance would look like. Stalin, Mao, Castro, and Pol Pot do tell us the fundamental priority is to establish political correctness. 100 million “deplorables” were killed because they did not think correctly. History was re-written and images of the past were destroyed. Sound familiar?
In Parts II and III of this essay, I will explore further the synthesis of the administrative/deep state and originalist vs. living constitution interpretations of the Constitution.
About the Author
Some excellent background!
With respect to the “synthesis of the administrative/deep state and originalist vs. living constitution interpretations of the Constitution,” back in the time of this nation’s beginnings as a Constitutional Republic, the venerable James Madison, known to some as “the father of the Constitution, stated thusly:
Do not separate text from historical background.
If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.
end quotes
That was roughly 230 years ago give or take, or twelve generations, considering a new generation every twenty years, and most “Americans” I have had contact with over the years are totally clueless as to both the historical background of this nation, in many cases not caring about what happened yesterday, but only focused on what they can get today (“I’m in it for my pocket,” goes the familiar saying) and what the Constitution actually is, and is not, so that today, we do in fact have what Jemmy Madison predicted, that is to say, in our times, we, the people have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which has resulted in the distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government, a clown show, really, that exists today in dysfunctional Washington, D.C.
As to our so-called “rights,” which today depend on who you are, the original Constitution was purposefully silent.
The purpose of the Constitution was not to define our “rights”; rather, it’s sole purpose was to “constitute” (give legal or constitutional form to an institution; establish by law) the “frame” of our federal government, period.
As to “rights,” let us go back to the Declaration of Independence, where we have as follows:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
end quotes
The key word there with respect to “certain unalienable rights” endowed by the Creator is “among,” which is to say life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are not the only rights we have as human beings.
So, did the Creator then endow people with the “right” to be LBGTQ?
And that of course in our times today is the political question of the day in this benighted (in a state of pitiful or contemptible intellectual or moral ignorance) country which has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the Constitution, which document simply states the form or frame of Republican government we are to have in this country.
And that then breaks down because in their benighted state, especially the minority Democrat faction in this country that is trying to take control of our federal government to pervert it further, people think “republican” refers to that faction, when in fact it refers to a “spirit.”
Simply stated, “Republicanism” is a term for beliefs that have defined the American political experiment and in particular, republicanism stems from a form a government where the people are sovereign so that in such a government, virtuous and autonomous citizens must exercise self-control for the common good.
Stated another way, for our Republican frame of government to work, it required of we, the people as citizens to be virtuous and autonomous and exercising self-control for the common good, which is why the American political experiment with a Republican frame of government failed so miserably – because we do not have people in this nation today who believe that for the good of the nation, they are required to be virtuous while exercising self-control for the common good (the benefit or interests of all).
So we have ended up with a pitiful democracy instead.
So why talk about a “living” Constitution at this point in our political history when we all know the Constitution is dead?