Thread: Destroying Political System Necessarily Coincides w/Economy

The Meaning of Revolution

by JR Nyquist
Fri, 13 Aug 2010

An attempt to destroy a political system necessarily coincides with an attempt to destroy the economy of that system. Economic sabotage is not the fictitious activity of nonexistent groups. It is the activity of real enemies, foreign and domestic. Watch the players at work. Consider which nations are manipulating oil prices, grain prices, and strategic metals. Ask yourself what their goal is. Why are they doing it? Are they attempting to raise the standard of living within their own countries, or attempting to smash the standard of living in the United States? In a recent speech on August 3, David Horowitz said, "We are in a war with enemies both internal and external who seek our destruction." Horowitz was accepting a Lifetime Achievement Award from the Young America's Foundation. If anyone understands America's internal enemy it is Horowitz. He was raised by communists, and broke with the Left when he realized what the Left actually signifies.

Who are the enemies spoken of by Horowitz? Most Americans cannot answer this question, because the unnamed enemy does not appear openly in a direct assault upon our system. Yes, there are the Islamists. But these are merely a front, a facade. The real enemy, in this case, is the totalitarian Left. To understand how this enemy operates, you must understand the concept of "revolution" and how it applies to present-day events.

History teaches that revolutions periodically occur. Often, revolutions follow in the wake of financial crises and wars. To make a revolution the revolutionary must therefore pay attention to crisis situations and wars. The Marxists were the first to consciously predicate themselves on the inevitability of economic breakdown, and Vladimir Lenin was the first to successfully exploit a systemic breakdown to seize power.

In October 1920 Lenin defined his revolutionary attitude in the following way:

...the revolutionary is not a revolutionary if he has any sympathy for this world. He should not hesitate to destroy any position, any place or any man in this world. He must hate everyone and everything in it with equal hatred. All the worse for him if he has any relations with parents, friends or lovers; he is no longer a revolutionary if he is swayed by these relationships

.

Lenin went on to repudiate what he called "bourgeois morality," which is based on God's commandments. "We, of course, do not believe in God," he explained. What the communists seek is the destruction of the bourgeoisie. Therefore, said Lenin, "Our morality stems from the interests of the class struggle...." Turning one class against another is the basis for a revolution in which the "vanguard party" of Lenin takes power. This is made possible by a worsening economic crisis. Once the capitalists have been fully blamed and vilified, the vanguard of the oppressed can unite the masses to overthrow the capitalists and abolish the capitalist class (in favor of a small clique of revolutionary activists).

The ambition, in this case, is not limited to taking over one country. The class struggle, said Lenin, must continue into other countries. The "dictatorship of the proletariat" must become all-powerful throughout the world. Stalin wrote that this was the chief point of departure for Leninism. You don't simply overthrow the tsar and stop. You continue to overthrow governments until all governments are under your dictatorship. Lenin wrote of a universal system "unlimited by any laws, and absolutely unhampered by any rules and relying directly on force." He proposed a new morality which "serves to destroy the old ... society."

Eugene Lyons once wrote, "Russia is a nation occupied by an internal enemy." This was the achievement of Lenin. He founded a state based on terrorism. The chief of Lenin's secret police, Felix Dzerzhinsky, explained it thus: "We stand for organized terror." The instrument of terror, of course, was the All Russian Extraordinary Commission for Combating Counter-Revolution and Sabotage (CHEKA). This organization eventually came to be called the Committee for State Security (KGB), and is currently called the Federal Security Service (FSB). Russia's current dictator, Vladimir Putin, was a career KGB officer and former chief of the FSB. It is an organization that continues to serve the Communist Party Soviet Union underground, which continues to control Eastern Europe through its cells in government, industry and culture. In other words, the Cold War did not end. Communism is not dead. It merely opened the West to deeper penetration through the facade of "controlled democracy" and "capitalism." From its inception, the Russian Federation has supported (secretly and sometimes openly) communist parties, front groups and communist governments around the world. This fact has been brought forward in books by journalists like Yevgenia Albats (see The State Within a State: The KGB and its Hold on Russia -- Past, Present and Future), and cited in news reports on Venezuela's arms buildup, on new proposals for training the Cuban military, and weapons transfers to China. Moscow still supplies its old Soviet satellites with weapons; meanwhile, the Americans are the ones fighting in Afghanistan. An interesting reversal, though few have bothered to notice.

The objective of Russia's rulers, as under Lenin, is to destroy the United States (as the last dinosaur of capitalism). Since Lenin's works were never thoroughly studied by people in the West, it is not generally understood that Lenin was in favor of using capitalism to destroy capitalism; that he favored a retreat into capitalist forms of production and trade in order to hang the bourgeoisie. When asked where he would get a rope long enough to hang so many people, Lenin replied that the capitalists would sell it to the Bolsheviks themselves.

The West has disarmed itself psychologically. There is no sense of an ongoing struggle, no sense that socialism signifies the destruction of the West's system of ordered liberty. We hear a great deal about "rights," but very little about duties and obligations. Here we enter the realm of information warfare. If a subset of the population feels that society owes them certain benefits, and the political system is democratic, they can vote for whatever demagogue promises to confer those benefits. As the movement for increasing benefits gains momentum, the government finds itself entangled in obligations that guarantee its eventual bankruptcy and collapse. The victory of Lenin's revolution, therefore, is assured.

In the days of duty, under a regime of obligation, there were three departments of government: The State Department, the War Department, and the Treasury Department. There were no departments for educating, feeding, or housing people; there were no departments for taking care of the sick or elderly. The people were responsible for themselves: to feed themselves, to house themselves, to raise and educate their own children, to care for sick and aging relatives. The involvement of the national government in these activities is something new, growing out of the pathology of inflated rights and diminishing duties. These latter concepts, in their ultimate tendency, signify a campaign of economic sabotage against the system as a whole.

Furthermore, a serious distortion of statesmanship occurs. Year by year, the statesman's time is increasingly devoted to an growing subset of misfits and neurotics, supposedly "oppressed" by an unfair social system which must be rectified. Little by little, the "oppressed" become the state's chief preoccupation, eclipsing the traditional tasks of statesmanship. The system no longer justifies itself in religious or historical terms, but on egalitarian grounds, in terms of "fairness" or "social justice." What actually happens, overall, is that greater and greater demands are placed upon the productive citizen to provide for the unproductive. For thousands of years the helpless infant was provided for by his parents. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need," was not merely the slogan of Karl Marx. It describes the operation of the family unit. The helpless infant is provided for by capable parents. In old age, the child provides for the parent. But when this ideal is applied to society as a whole, the family unit disintegrates and some children never grow to adulthood. They simply evolve into permanent wards of the state. Consider the consequences, as well, to the family: The woman is no longer obliged to be a wife and mother, the man is no longer the breadwinner, as the child ceases to be obedient. In most states of the Union, family court has effectively dispensed with paternal rights, as the woman finds her ultimate support in the state. There is no need for a husband today, because the state is the husband of every woman, the father of every child. The paternal engine of society has been disconnected. The role of the child is no longer to obey, but to rebel. And even so, the most devastating damage is yet unseen: National defense is thereby shortchanged, and all resources are consumed in an orgy of organized plunder. As this new system cannibalizes the real productive formations of society, the nation is devitalized, diverted and disarmed. The child must be rescued from the bad parent, the woman must be rescued from the bad man, and the worker must be rescued from the bad employer. All resources are mobilized to rescue the oppressed, so that national defense is left in the lurch. Feeding the hungry, and eliminating the capitalists, becomes the primary task.

The revolution becomes manifest. An attempt to destroy a political system necessarily coincides with an attempt to destroy the economy of that system. Economic sabotage is not the fictitious activity of nonexistent groups. It is happening all around us.

http://www.financialsense.com/contribut ... revolution

"Stalin had to all appearences accepted Lenin's thesis that the way to world revolution must lead through wars - wars seen as streeses in the disintegration of captilist society. He clung to this article of faith long after the advent of the atom bomb had made nonsense of it. But in his Economics of Socialism Stalin at last announced, in effect, that things had changed, that the Soviet Union was now so strong that with good luck and good judgment she could keep out future wars, leaving the capitalist powers to destroy themselves in the struggle for dwindling world markets."

From the book Khruschev Remembers by Edward Crankshaw copyright 1970

This is a book of the memoirs of Khruschev, translated into English. Loaded with propaganda, yet loaded with insight into the Soviet mindset.

When Lenin talks of war, what is he saying? The traditional sense of war? Complete with battlefields and troops with guns?

War takes many shapes. Propagandistic warfare, psychological warfare, economic warfare.

Lenin knew the traditional war was only one means to an end and probably the worst to actually force change upon the world. JMHO