Those who do not remember the past.....

You'd have to have lived under a rock the size of Stone Mountain if you don't know the subject that has been on the lips of almost everyone over the past month: health care.

In the wake of passage of the healthcare bill, there have been accusations of all sorts fired at the current Administration (all of which I agree with, I have to admit.) The most damning and accurate accusation is the one that this bill smacks of socialism. (And, in my opinion--it does alot more than 'smack' of socialism. It's a sucker punch.)

....which has inevitably led to a re-examination on my part to 'socialism' as outlined by Karl Marx; the leaders of the most famous socialist movements in the 20th century--and the hypocrisy that exists among those socialist revolutionaries. I've always been fascinated by history, and in another life, was a history major. And after my nursing degree is finished, I may go back and finish my history degree yet. (There's always a community college that can use a part time history professor.)

George Santayana stated that 'those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it'. With the exception of perhaps China and North Korea--true communism--the ultimate goal of socialism--has failed, and failed miserably. And even in China and North Korea, there exists not true communism as outlined by Marx; but totalitarian regimes in which the government and its sycophants live in the lap of luxury while the people live in abject poverty. They epitomize the statement that 'absolute power corrupts absolutely'. Socialism and communism, IN THEORY, are ideal economies. The problem is this: these economies won't set themselves up--they have to start somewhere, and people have to get the ball rolling.

Note here that I said 'economies'. According to Karl Marx, in order to set up a communist regime, communism wouldn't require government after an unspecified amount of time known as 'the dictatorship of the proletariat.' I point out that it was unspecified because history has proven: the dictatorship of the proletariat drags on in the still-existing communist regimes. The former Soviet Union was still governed by a system no better than the tsarist government they overthrew when the Soviet Union ultimately collapsed in 1989.....72 years after the 'workers' revolution of March, 1917; 71 after the Bolshevik revolution Lenin launched in 1918.

China. Mao Tse-tung secured power in 1949. 81 years later, the people of China are still the subjects of a government that is recognized by the UN as a government that is in perpetual violation of human rights.

China and the Soviet Union are the most notable communist regimes, because of their place in world history. Before I go on into an examination of socialist leaders--first I would like to repeat here the definition of 'proletariat'--as defined by Karl Marx (the original definition of 'proletariat' was a class who had no wealth other than sons):

Proletariat as defined by Marx is a worker--one who uses their 'labor power' to earn a wage. Remember again Marx's philosophy of the 'dictatorship of the proletariat.'

The problem here is....without exception, those who succeeded, however briefly, in establishing socialist regimes were NEVER proletariats!! If you look into the lives of the most notable socialist revolutionaries of our time, you will see that they weren't much more than poor little rich kids who had way too much time on their hands--because they were FUNDED by the regimes they eventually overthrew.

And.....people who (their behaviors and the revolutions they led would suggest they had overwhelming compassion for others) had little, if any regard for morals and human life.

Vladimir Lenin. The son of an educator who was decorated by Tsar Alexander II for his dedication to tsarist principles. The brother of a man who was executed for his involvement in the assassination of the tsar who recognized and rewarded his father--and in doing so, elevated Lenin's family to an almost aristocratic status to them. Lenin himself spent many years in exile, living off the money sent to him by his mother......his mother's income being the pension awarded by Tsar Nicholas II for Lenin's father's service to Nicholas' father.....the assassinated Alexander. (It should be noted here that Lenin wrote Karl Marx just before Marx died, and asked him how to precipitate a socialist revolution in Russia. Marx's response was that a socialist revolution would be virtually impossible in Russia because--even with the vast wealth of the Romanovs--the tsars--there was not enough wealth to go around.) It should also be noted that every socialist revolution in history have taken place in countries of abject poverty....populations with illiterate, uneducated people who would naturally fall under the spell of someone who would promise them the world. The ruthlessness of those who promised them the world keep them silent. There is a story about Lenin at the time his mother in law died. His wife, nursing her dying mother, asked Lenin to wake her if her mother needed her. Lenin's wife woke to find her mother dead. When she asked Lenin, "Why didn't you wake me?" Lenin's response was, "She was dead.....she didn't need you."

Stalin. Born to a relatively wealthy family in what is now the country of Georgia. Studied for the priesthood before embracing socialism. Went on to murder 30 million of his own people.

Mao Tse-tung. Son of a wealthy trader. Educated at secondary schools and universities (in China at that time, a miracle in and of itself.) Married a woman already promised in marriage by her father--Mao's professor--only to have her murdered while he lived openly with a 17 year old girl. Mao raped countless young girls--the younger the better--only to have them executed or resigned them to live as his concubine for as long as he willed. In his little red book, Mao stated that 'political power grows from the barrel of a gun.'

Ho Chi Minh. Son of a lawyer and a baroness, under then-French ruled Indochina. Educated in Europe. The guerilla war he fought against South Vietnam and the United States cost North Vietnam 900,000 of the people he pledged to protect. And ironically enough.....worked for a U.S. intelligence agency.

Pol Pot. Born to an aristocratic Chinese-Khmer family. Moved in high circles in French-run Indochina. Attended college in Paris. Joined the communist movement in Cambodia and later went on to lead a revolution and founded the Khmer Rouge, who would ultimately kill 1/3 of Cambodia's population, and who systematically tortured and killed 'educated' members of Cambodia, whom he felt a threat to his system and the agrarian society he wanted to establish.

Kim Il-Song. Here is one example of a man who lived neither in poverty nor in particular privilege. Born in Vladivostok to a minister. Only formally educated for eight years. Kim Il-Song's placement in power can be attributed only to being in the right place at the right time: Stalin need a puppet regime for North Korea. Kim Il-Song was chosen by Stalin for this task--and it is believed it was due to his lack of formal education: Stalin felt he would be easier to manipulate. During Il-Song's regime and now that of his son, the notorious Kim Jong-Il, hundreds of thousands have died of famine--and there is open cannibalsim in North Korea in hopes of staving off starvation--while the government lives in obscene luxury.

Which leads me to what would appear to be the next socialist revolutionary on the world scene. President Barack Obama. Born in Hawaii (we would be led to believe) to an American mother and a Kenyan father (whom, after the age of two, only saw once in his life.) Educated in Indonesia at parochial schools. Attended Harvard and Yale. Elected to the U.S. Senate after having worked (and at least he's had a job, I'll give him that) as a constitutional rights professor and a lawyer. Spent 158 days in office before deciding to run for President, wins the election and manages in his first year in office to trample of the constitutional rigths he formerly taught (and how I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall in that class, because I wonder what he taught.) Passes openly socialist legislation in spite of a public who did all but launch an armed assault on Washington to stop it. Which makes me wonder what he would do if he were really backed in a corner--what would armed resistance be met with?

Reverend Al Sharpton openly admitted recently that when the American public voted for Obama, they voted for a socialist agenda. If that is true, I would encourage Americans--and those of you who read this, encourage your liberal Democrat friends to research the history of socialism.......and remind:

Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.