socialists eat the seed corn:
the fake economics of cult socialism

a briefing document

“Lenin was right. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose.”
[John Maynard Keynes]

Index

Sane politicians and businessmen build up production and capital.

Socialists cannot see success without wanting to tax and control. This makes it impossible to build a better future.

As soon as sucess returns to any society, socialists start promising the foolish and gullible that they will take wealth away from those that are producing it, and give it to those who are consuming the wealth. And the foolish and gullible are taken in by the offer of a free lunch.

Thus, every time society starts to move ahead, dishonest politicians come in and start destroying the advance; a,d so the electoral cycle rolls.

Having destroyed the society, eventually enough people become fed up with the mismanagement and increasing impoverishment to kick out the con men.

socialists destroy capitalism - they eat the seedcorn

The First Book of Moses, called
Genesis 41, Joseph interprets Pharaoh’s dream

1. And it came to pass at the end of two full years, that Pharaoh dreamed: and, behold, he stood by the river.
2. And, behold, there came up out of the river seven well-favored kine and fat-fleshed; and they fed in a meadow.
3. And, behold, seven other kine came up after them out of the river, ill-favored and lean-fleshed; and stood by the other kine upon the brink of the river.
4. And the ill-favored and lean-fleshed kine did eat up the seven well-favored and fat kine. So Pharaoh awoke.
5. And he slept and dreamed the second time: and, behold, seven ears of corn came up upon one stalk, rank and good.
6. And, behold, seven thin ears and blasted with the east wind sprung up after them.
7. And the seven thin ears devoured the seven rank and full ears. And Pharaoh awoke, and, behold, it was a dream.
8. And it came to pass in the morning that his spirit was troubled; and he sent and called for all the magicians of Egypt, and all the wise men thereof: and Pharaoh told them his dream; but there was none that could interpret them unto Pharaoh.
9. Then spake the chief butler unto Pharaoh, saying, I do remember my faults this day:
10. Pharaoh was wroth with his servants, and put me in ward in the captain of the guard's house, both me and the chief baker:
11. and we dreamed a dream in one night, I and he; we dreamed each man according to the interpretation of his dream.
12. And there was there with us a young man, a Hebrew, servant to the captain of the guard; and we told him, and he interpreted to us our dreams; to each man according to his dream he did interpret.
13. And it came to pass, as he interpreted to us, so it was; me he restored unto mine office, and him he hanged.
14. Then Pharaoh sent and called Joseph, and they brought him hastily out of the dungeon: and he shaved himself, and changed his raiment, and came in unto Pharaoh.
15. And Pharaoh said unto Joseph, I have dreamed a dream, and there is none that can interpret it: and I have heard say of thee, that thou canst understand a dream to interpret it.
16. And Joseph answered Pharaoh, saying, It is not in me: God shall give Pharaoh an answer of peace.
17. And Pharaoh said unto Joseph, In my dream, behold, I stood upon the bank of the river:
18. and, behold, there came up out of the river seven kine, fat-fleshed and well-favored; and they fed in a meadow:
19. and, behold, seven other kine came up after them, poor and very ill-favored and lean-fleshed, such as I never saw in all the land of Egypt for badness:
20. and the lean and the ill-favored kine did eat up the first seven fat kine:
21. and when they had eaten them up, it could not be known that they had eaten them; but they were still ill-favored, as at the beginning. So I awoke.
22. And I saw in my dream, and, behold, seven ears came up in one stalk, full and good:
23. and, behold, seven ears, withered, thin, and blasted with the east wind, sprung up after them:
24. and the thin ears devoured the seven good ears: and I told this unto the magicians; but there was none that could declare it to me.
25. And Joseph said unto Pharaoh, The dream of Pharaoh is one: God hath showed Pharaoh what he is about to do.
26. The seven good kine are seven years; and the seven good ears are seven years: the dream is one.
27. And the seven thin and ill-favored kine that came up after them are seven years; and the seven empty ears blasted with the east wind shall be seven years of famine.
28. This is the thing which I have spoken unto Pharaoh: What God is about to do he showeth unto Pharaoh.
29. Behold, there come seven years of great plenty throughout all the land of Egypt:
30. and there shall arise after them seven years of famine; and all the plenty shall be forgotten in the land of Egypt; and the famine shall consume the land;
31. and the plenty shall not be known in the land by reason of that famine following; for it shall be very grievous.
32. And for that the dream was doubled unto Pharaoh twice; it is because the thing is established by God, and God will shortly bring it to pass.
33. Now therefore let Pharaoh look out a man discreet and wise, and set him over the land of Egypt.
34. Let Pharaoh do this, and let him appoint officers over the land, and take up the fifth part of the land of Egypt in the seven plenteous years.
35. And let them gather all the food of those good years that come, and lay up corn under the hand of Pharaoh, and let them keep food in the cities.
36. And that food shall be for store to the land against the seven years of famine, which shall be in the land of Egypt; that the land perish not through the famine.

socialists are like the foolish virgin

The Parable of the Wise and Foolish Virgins, Matthew chapter 25

1. Then the kingdom of heaven shall be likened to ten virgins who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom.
2. Now five of them were wise, and five were foolish.
3. Those who were foolish took their lamps and took no oil with them,
4. but the wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps.
5. But while the bridegroom was delayed, they all slumbered and slept.
6. And at midnight a cry was heard: ‘Behold, the bridegroom is coming;[a] go out to meet him!’
7. Then all those virgins arose and trimmed their lamps.
8. And the foolish said to the wise, ‘Give us some of your oil, for our lamps are going out.’
9. But the wise answered, saying, ‘No, lest there should not be enough for us and you; but go rather to those who sell, and buy for yourselves.’
10. And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came, and those who were ready went in with him to the wedding; and the door was shut.
11. Afterward the other virgins came also, saying, ‘Lord, Lord, open to us!’
12. But he answered and said, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, I do not know you.’
13. Watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour[b] in which the Son of Man is coming.

how socialists undermine the economy

“You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.”
[Rahm Emanuel, 21 Nov 2008]

The Cloward-Piven Strategy of Orchestrated Crisis

“The strategy of forcing political change through orchestrated crisis. The "Cloward-Piven Strategy" seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.”
—
“Saul Alinsky wrote in his 1989 book Rules for Radicals [105-page .pdf], “Make the enemy live up to their (sic) own book of rules” . When pressed to honor every word of every law and statute, every Judeo-Christian moral tenet, and every implicit promise of the liberal social contract, human agencies inevitably fall short. The system's failure to "live up" to its rule book can then be used to discredit it altogether, and to replace the capitalist "rule book" with a socialist one.” [Source: Discover the Networks.org]

“Lenin was right. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose.
[John Maynard Keynes, The Economic Consequences of the Peace, ch. 6]
This is, of course, the point. This is the objective of Marxists/Socialists - to so disrupt society that they can take over.

site map

advertising disclaimer

“A compelling book called California Crackup describes this problem more generally. It was written by a pair of journalists and nonpartisan think-tank scholars, Joe Mathews and Mark Paul, and they explain, among other things, why Arnold Schwarzenegger’s experience as governor was going to be unlike any other experience in his career: he was never going to win. California had organized itself, not accidentally, into highly partisan legislative districts. It elected highly partisan people to office and then required these people to reach a two-thirds majority to enact any new tax or meddle with big spending decisions. On the off chance that they found some common ground, it could be pulled out from under them by voters through the initiative process. Throw in term limits—no elected official now serves in California government long enough to fully understand it—and you have a recipe for generating maximum contempt for elected officials. Politicians are elected to get things done and are prevented by the system from doing it, leading the people to grow even more disgusted with them. “The vicious cycle of contempt,” as Mark Paul calls it. California state government was designed mainly to maximize the likelihood that voters will continue to despise the people they elect.”

the Curley effect

Lefties deliberately destroy wealth in order to keep people voting left.

“VI. The British Labour Party
Before Thatcher, party loyalties in Britain were shaped by “class” identity. Working class individuals—generally defined as manual laborers — overwhelmingly voted Labour. In ten out of the eleven general elections between 1963 and 1992, the share of manual workers voting Conservative was below 35.5 percent (Crewe, Fox and Day, 1995). In the 1960s, Labour’s share of these workers’ votes was around 2/3. Labour’s share of trade union members’ votes is similar during this period: about one in five trade union members voted conservative. Goldthorpe et al. (1968) report samples of working class respondents where 80 percent vote Labour and 13 percent vote Conservative. Conversely, non-manual laborers tended to vote Conservative. Between 1963 and 1992, the proportion of professionals and managers that voted labor was always below 24 percent. The minimum proportion of these non-manual workers that voted Conservative was 52 percent.

“Numerous observers have argued that British politics are dominated by class loyalty. Butler and Stokes (1974) write: “class has long been pre-eminent among the factors used to explain party allegiance in Britain—and not just by academic observers … partisanship has followed class lines more strongly in Britain than anywhere else in the English speaking world.” Goldthorpe et al. (1968) establish that their surveyed “affluent” members of the working class “have a relatively high and stable Labour vote” because of “the perception of the Labour Party as the party of the ‘working man’ or of the ‘working class.’” As one of their respondents noted, “I consider myself a working man, so a working man should always vote for Labour.”

“The logic of the Curley effect suggests that the Labour party should have been trying to enlarge the working class, or at least to stem the exodus from it. “[Labour’s] class appeal is being undermined, because the working class itself, even the lower categories within it, is emerging from its earlier unhappy plight; manual workers are gradually moving over into the white-collar category, which does not identify itself with the unskilled or semi-skilled labourers; and many, particularly among the young, are now crossing the class frontiers into the middle class” (Abrams and Rose 1960, p. 119). Cannadine (1999) writes that Labour feared what English sociologists call “working-class embourgeoisement, ” a phenomenon that “was regularly invoked throughout the decade of the 1950s to explain what then seemed to be the secular decline of the Labour Party as a political force” (Goldthorpe et al., 1968).

“To address this concern, the post-war (pre-Tony Blair) Labour Prime Ministers, Clement Attlee, Harold Wilson and James Callaghan, all engaged in some form of class warfare. In the language of our model, they all increased the level of “q”. “Attlee’s government, by raising taxation, nationalizing industries, setting up the welfare state, and reducing the delaying powers of the house of lords, attacked aristocrats, the rich, bankers, doctors, newspaper owners, and shareholders, and these measure were accompanied by extravagantly denunciatory language from ministers such as Bevan, Shinwell and Dalton” (Cannadine 1999). The tax rates, in particular, were not just punitive on the rich (76 percent marginal rate on people earning more than 20,000 pounds per year), but high on almost everyone (50 percent marginal rate on people earning between 5,000 and 10,000 pounds annually). Later cabinets increased these rates further. Under Wilson, the top marginal rate rose to 83 percent (Annual Abstract of Statistics, 1952 and 1972). These rates eliminated almost all of the wage gains that would accrue from undertaking a costly transition out of the working class.

“A second major Labour policy was nationalization. Attlee nationalized several of Britain’s largest industries: coal mining, civil aviation, and transport. These were highly unionized, declining industries, which would have lost employment rapidly in the absence of public ownership. Through public ownership, the Labour party ensured that a large sector of the economy kept its employment up and its employees in the working class and in unions. Thus 36 percent of the British labor force was unionized in 1945, and 60 percent in 1979 (Annual Abstract of Statistics 1952 and 1982). During this time period, the American unionization rate declined from 25 percent to 21 percent (Statistical Abstract of the US 1982). Much of the growth of British unions can be directly tied to the high unionization rate of the public sector and the large growth in that sector, itself the result of Labour’s nationalization policies in the declining industries.

“Finally,in its education policy, Britain under Labour kept a much earlier school leaving age than did the United States. According to one early statement: “We must use the formative years of adolescence in order to make the workers, when they come to manhood or womanhood, at once better citizens and better Trade Unionists.” (Trade Union Congress Annual Report, 1922, quoted in Barker, 1972). Barker also discusses Labour leaders who “did not want to support an educational scheme which would lead a man ‘to come along and patronize us.’ ”

“Did Labour’s policies hurt Britain and its working class? Britain had clearly declined relative to any reasonable comparison group between 1945 and 1979. In 1945, it was richer than France, Germany, and Italy. By 1979, it was much poorer than any of them. While we cannot attribute Britain’s relative collapse over this time period to the Curley effect with confidence, Labour’s policies succeeded at keeping the size of the working class up and simultaneously reducing entrepreneurship and growth in Britain.”

advertising disclaimer

bibliography

California Crackup: How Reform Broke the Golden State and How We Can Fix it
by Joe Mathews
amazon.com
amazon.co.uk

email email_abelard [at] abelard.org

© abelard, 2012,x may

all rights reserved

the address for this document is https://www.abelard.org/briefings/fake_economics_of_cult_socialism.php

1110 words
prints as 4 A4 pages (on my printer and set-up)