By Sigrid Weidenweber
Forgive me for using the first line of the Communist International in my headline, but I just looked at the new Democratic agenda by which they hope to rule, and it looks like they want to take control of the countries means of production. That is Marx’s definition of Communism, and we will be the damned. In Marx’s system of thoughts, rich people were rich because they had the means of production. By that he meant they owned the factories, law offices, hospital and doctor’s offices, plumbing shops, bakeries and so on, or they had money to start a business.
He never went so far in is theoretical musings to discern how the wealth, or the means of production, was acquired but assumed it was handed down from generations before. That still left the question open how did these previous generations of rich people acquire their wealth? Not all of them were born with the proverbial silver spoon in their mouth but worked for their money. He never considered the difference in people’s mental acumen, drive to succeed, ability to fore-fit instant gratification, the personal choices made by the individual. Also, I know from personal experience, that families with outsized offspring could never become well-to-do, never mind become rich. My grandparents had thirteen children and despite enormous work efforts by both of them, they remained poor as long as there were children in the home.
Furthermore, the amount of freedom granted by a minimalist government leads to the fulfillment of dreams and maximum achievement. In my fifty-five years residing in America, as a legal citizen, I met many immigrants from different countries and found that every one of them, who truly applied themselves and worked hard, prospered beyond belief. Soon though, after the end of the Vietnam war, I noted that the politicians in Washington had their hands in the public till and with constricting laws and regulations made it harder for the aspiring entrepreneur to reach a comfortable level of success. Yet, despite these changing odds and the accumulation of horrendous governmental debt, many men and women still prospered.
However, change is coming. The current flock of Democrats in Washington seems to be dead-set on taking control of the most important businesses in America. Economists have pointed out, time and again, that anything run by the government is mismanaged, unprofitable and failing, surviving only by constant infusions of tax-payer money. Here we are reminded of Public Housing, the Veterans Administration, the Post office, Amtrak and so many more governmental endeavors. Although well acquainted with these deleterious facts, the socialist Democrats arrive on the scene espousing policies that would accrue to the government the most important private businesses of the free market. One opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal on Thursday February 2, 2019 re-acquaints us with the Merriam Webster definition of Socialism as, “any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.” To that we might add the distribution of other people’s earnings.
Let me remind you at this juncture that Venezuela, the country of starving and dying citizens, its people fleeing by the millions, is a fully socialist state where the government owns and controls all the means of production. Apparently, the Democratic party does not consider facts, as their field of presidential contenders advocates the following:
- Medicare for All—once a plan for citizens who had paid into the system, now open to all–proposed by Bernie Sanders and Kamala Harris.
- The Green New Deal. This deal requires that the U.S. become carbon neutral within 10 years. At the moment, non-carbon sources cover 11% of our current power supply, the rest, 89% of our energy needs, comes from oil, gas and coal. How will the country produce the needed 89% of energy? With windmills? To comply with these absurd demands, the country would have to totally destroy most energy producing businesses. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez stated that a select committee for the Green New Deal would implement the plan for all this to occur. That, from a woman who believes that a tax break for a business is real money that she can spend on social services.
- A guaranteed government job for all. This is an experiment I have already seen during 20 years lived in East Germany. There, under the slogan, “He who does not work shall not eat!” I saw that a government providing jobs and university places, will also decide where and at what you work. I knew many aspiring doctors, veterinarians, other students and workers, who were sent for two years to clean the communal farm’s stalls and animal pens before they were allowed to study or work in their field.
- A new system for corporate control. This bit of mind-stretch, proposed by Senator Elisabeth Warren, would give power within a federal charter to institute and control businesses with more that 1 billion in annual revenues. These businesses would now have to answer to 40% of elected employee Directors who would decide on benefits beyond returns to the owners, meaning also shareholders.
This is a pure take-over by politicians and their interest groups, which now could determine where and how investments should be made and profits spent. I saw how well this worked in my Communist days. Bit by bit the Communist party (SED) weaseled into every successful business, bleeding it dry with taxes and rules, until all incentive to invest in the business and work as hard as before was gone for the owner/managers. Of course, they stopped producing, retired or fled to the West. Then, the business folded and closed.
- Higher Taxes, (enormously high) would also enlarge the enforcement bureaucracy. Mr. Sanders wants to increase the death tax to 77%, a thing most people find coercive, atrocious and wicked, for the moneys left at a person’s death have been taxed already, in some cases twice. Why should a person after a life of toil be taxed to benefit a government that enriches itself and its adherents?
Ocasio Cortez, who has shown herself to have problems with math, even its lowest form, namely addition, advocates for a 77% tax on high incomes, a tax that the intelligencia of the Democratic party likes exceedingly well. Don’t any of the members of their group know what happened in Sweden, where these kinds of taxes were repealed? The reason is simple: overtaxed people quit working or exchange value. I knew Swedish doctors who traded medical services for home improvements or plumbing—no taxable money changed hands, but everyone got value. At last, we must talk about Elizabeth Warren’s proposed wealth tax of 2% above 50 million of earnings, and furthermore 3% above 1 billion of assets.
Anyone who proposes to take the earnings and savings of a person or a corporation to benefit a government—making it all-powerful—is a Socialist/Communist. By the way, France rescinded its wealth-tax, it seems it did not produce the splendid results hoped for.
Sigrid Weidenweber grew up in communist East Berlin, escaping it using a French passport. Ms. Weidenweber holds a degree in medical technology as well as psychology and has course work in Anthropology. She is co-founder of Aid for Afghans. Weidenweber has traveled the world and lived with Pakistani Muslims, learning about the culture and religion. She is a published author and lecturer. You can find her books on Amazon.com
Get Citizensjournal.us Headlines free SUBSCRIPTION. Keep us publishing – DONATE
