Socialism vs Marxism (Part 2)

Here is updated Part 4 March 16, 2013:
go to or read below ……. then you can read part 2 too.

click on Marxisn tab on home page for full list of posts regarding Marxism.

Marxism vs Socialism – Part 4 – Marx to Lenin, Stalin, Mao, maybe Alinsky and maybe Obama

Marx to Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and MAYBE Alinsky, and MAYBE Obama ….
This is a March 17, 2013 update or Part 4 of my series ‘Socialism vs Marxism’. The last page has still been getting approx 30 views per week so let’s update.

Part 3 was published Sep 16, 2012. I now update this with Part 4 – March 17, 2013.


It is important to note that Marx viewed socialism as temporary step prior to Communism. Marx predicted that Socialism would collapse and a more centralized powerful system Communism would supplant it. Socialism for Marx likely would have included the European ‘social’ welfare democracies where the government does not outright own industries and property but ‘controls’ more than 50% of the economy. Marx predicted that such economies would collapse. As we view Europe we realize Marx was largely correct. But we must examine the progression of Marxism and its variants from Marx all the way maybe to Saul Alinsky and maybe Barack Obama (BO).

Why maybe BO? His mentor Saul Alinsky criticized 20th century implementation of Communism. Saul Alinsky’s teachings of class warfare, how to use the political process to destroy or control capitalism, and how to destroy opponents Chicago style, have all been exceptionally implemented by BO. If one is unconvinced please read Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals.

A pure Marxist has never existed. Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro did NOT follow at least 2 significant end goals of Marxism:

Significant Marxist End Goal 1 – No long term Top 1% ruling class:
A commandeering, very authoritative Guardian of Proletariat is only to be a temporary transition from Socialism to Communism’s stronger command and control apparatus. After that the Guardian is to become less of a factor. No ‘special’ ruling class is to form with EXTREME disparity in privileges and wealth in comparison to the masses. Call this a new Top 1%. This Top 1% did form and last for decades with the USSR and its East European satellites and still does in China, Cuba, and North Korea.

Regarding BO right now:
We are not (yet) in a transition phase from a European Social welfare state (which Marx would classify as ‘Socialism’) to a stronger more command and control apparatus.

However, BO utilizes powerful and unelected czars, excessive use of executive orders, Federal agencies to implement policies Congress has rejected (ex: Cap n Trade by EPA), domestic drones that may be spying on citizens, and Chicago gangster tactics against those that disagree with him (Bob Woodward latest casualty … Rand Paul and Ben Carson – watch out!). BO thus at least exhibits a version of an imperial President, and possibly a semi dictator, or a dictator in the making. What he would do in event of US economic collapse (thus the last phase of socialism collapse per Marx with economy projected as a reemergence as Communism under Marx) is uncertain. Bear in mind that current economic policies, left unchecked, will result in US dollar collapse. If this occurs under BO’s time, I still do not think that BO would be as nearly authoritative or despotic as the Communist leaders mentioned above. I do not think it is part of his character. Besides I believe the US military would not allow such a scenario. Would he then be a true Marxist as Marx envisioned – temporary leader of ‘Proletariat’? Likely not. He could finish his term and encourage his successor to ease up over time. We are however in uncharted territory here so we are in major hypothetical scenarios.

Significant Marxist End Goal 2 – ‘State’ meaning nation owning all means of Production

I argue this will never happen in the US. Marx underestimated success of capitalism, its pervasiveness, legacy, transition to crony relationship with government, and its longevity. No sane politician, even most radical, would advocate full ownership of all means of production, or our residences, possessions, etc.. Instead the US Left (with great success lately) has increased much ‘control’ without ‘ownership’ over the economy and multiple industries (Health care, mortgage market, student loan business, banks via Dodd Frank, etc …). Many crony capitalists (usually leaders of large companies) strongly acquiesce to Big Government –in part to seek favors to ward off competition from smaller, nimbler competitors. The US is quite far from classis ‘free market capitalism’. It is also much easier for Big Government to ‘control’ compliant Big Business than fresh entrepreneurial start-ups or small companies. Hence it is in Big Government’s best interests to collaborate with Big Business.

If US social welfare state collapses, pay much attention to type of collapse and the new power base. In a dollar collapse expect our foreign creditors and IMF to exert much power. Yes – Arab Sheiks, Chinese Finance ministers, and IMF accountants will play major role in setting conditions for the US to re-enter the world’s financial markets. A wild card will be how much control they will allow BO. After serious debt restructuring BO may still have sufficient power and leverage over the new economy. He may argue that capitalism caused the collapse and argue for more regulations and more powers for his czars. With IMF and our creditors stating that a new austerity needs to be in place and with a chance they may support BO, BO may increase control over the economy and work with the IMF to a shared goal of a stronger world government (my opinion based on my research in alternative media .. may list later at some point).

Significant Marxist End Goal 3 – rise of Proletariat results in Revolution that overthrows capitalism or some stage of socialism:

There is no evidence BO subscribes to this. The Communist rulers cited above did; so this is a clear distinction. Rather BO seems to subscribe to Saul Alinsky’s operandi. Alinsky in his Rules of Radical’s (I argue BO’s bible) argues that Alinskyites should meticulously strategize to win control via electoral process. Dress and act like classical politicians to extent possible he argues. Identify yourself with the major class that can be swayed. This has been the middle class. Ever wonder why BO constantly refers to ‘middle class’ in speeches where he promises help?

So BO then does not meet 3 major end goals of classical Marxism, whereas the Communist rulers cited above meet 2 of these 3.

Nevertheless if Marx were alive today, I argue he would have made some adjustments – perhaps earlier than 1970 – Saul Alinsky’s time. Alinsky stated he was not a Communist and cited reasons why and those include points listed above – the violent overthrows of governments and totalitarianism. But he shared many common goals and some tactics such as:

• Class warfare
• Providing benefits to middle class that top Bourgeois have
• Grow the welfare state
• Debase the currency
• Control banks first then other industries

However, we should note get too involved in an academic exercise to prove or disprove whether BO is a Marxist. Instead we must be fully cognizant of his Left Wing agenda. Then we must fully assess how to respond.

Marxism vs Alinskyism

Therefore please read on and follow progression of variants or evolution of Marxism or the intellectual Radical Left.


Please follow progression of Marxism from inception and realize both the US and Europe are close to Marxism or Saul Alinsky’s radical Left vision. After reading this please do all that is possible to prevent BO from implementation of Saul Alinsky vision; this article has a concluding recommendation.

Details of Marxist Radical Left evolution:

Karl Marx predicted the fall of capitalism. Basically, the belief:

1) Capitalism was necessary for transition from feudalism to industrialization as next logical step to generate new economic prosperity.

2) Eventually, that Capitalist (the business owners, upper middle class and wealthy Bourgeoisie) would become wealthy on the sweat of the brow of the working class (the Proletariat). These Capitalists would no longer yield any benefit to society as they would hoard their wealth and gain more riches and power while the workers get less and less.

3) The disparity in wealth will lead to a worker uprising of the Proletariat, mostly through unionization and will result in the formation of a socialist society where the government will take from the wealthy for the benefit of the Proletariat. ( ahh – BO and wealth re distribution)

4) Transition from Socialism to Communism or not true Communism but stronger command and control Radical Left government, as a socialist society long term will not be able to sustain the economy and society. Ultimately this will lead to the collapse of society and of nations. This will force people to move to a system of equal obligation to the good of man that being Communism per Marx.

5) Marx believed that Russia was the key country for this to happen first and that it would be done by force there, while in the West (Britain, France, the US) it would be a more peaceful and gradual transition.

6) In Russia in 1917 there were two revolutionary events, one in the Spring that overthrew the Tsar and created an imbalanced socialist society, run by the workers. This lasted until October, when the Communists under Lenin and Tolsky gained control.

7) One of Marx famed quotes: from each according to his means, to each according to his needs.

This leads to analyzing some of Lenin’s thoughts. Lenin believed that for Communism to work, there had to be a revolutionary purging of the those that resisted the greater good. Communism would need central planners, basically a totalitarian enforcement for the good of all. Those central planners are the enlightened few that would dictate for the good of the collective: Hence the formation of the Communist Party. All business would be government run for the good of all and each would get what the government deemed equitable for all. Eventually, when all nations adopted this concept, no more need for national boarders as the Party would run the world for the good of all mankind.
What assisted Lenin in his revolutionary drive from 1917 – 1924 and take advantage of chaos? It was damaging the monetary system via fiat monetary manipulation. Money and other liquid assets were confiscated as fiat money was printed, causing spiraling inflation, debasing the currency. Lenin stated, “The way to crush the Bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation.” Lenin also claimed, “The best way to destroy the capitalist system is to debauch the currency.”

What can debases a currency today? 2 main ways are increasing total debt from 10.6 Trillion to 16.6Trillion in little over 4years per BO and Fed Chief dollar printing – QE3; hence BO is following a core strategy of Lenin.

And, when the economy under Lenin went off a cliff, the government used the army for labor, and then turned the labor force into a wing of the army. In 1924 the Russian Border States had been conquered and merged with Soviet Russia to form the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, or U.S.S.R.
Stalin pushed central control to the extreme and executed over 25,000,000 people. His philosophy on this you was: kill a few and you are a murderer, you kill millions and you are a liberator.

Mao also was a control extremist. He killed up to, and probably more that 75,000,000 with some estimates at nearly 150,000,000. This was, per Mao, for the common good of the worker and the collective.

Saul Alinsky’s vision

Next, please review key tenets from one of Obama’s major ideological mentors – Saul Alinsky and his ‘Bible’ – Rules for Radicals. As you read more you will understand that BO has well implemented the first 5 below; watch carefully for timing of 6 and 7 — If we let him implement Saul Alinsky version of Radical Left command and control.

1) Violent overthrow of the US government won’t work; it failed in the Civil War and it failed in the 1960s. Therefore, befriend the largest voting block and convince them you are for them. This in the US is the middle class.

2) Convince them that the wealthy are their enemies, the bourgeoisie. Convince the middle class that you will create equality regarding their wealth and that of the capitalist and that by empowering you, they will gain what the capitalists have.

3) Use the electoral process to gain this control.

4) Get the majority on a government entitlement programs so that they are entwined in government being their financial supporter.

5) Use the unions to accomplish this (ahhhh the GM bail-out benefited the Unions, clobbered the creditors and non union GM Delphi subsidiary).

6) When you have centralized power, then unleash it against the middle class and rise up the poor against what they have.

7) Then you will have a collapse of the USA and then you can work to restructure it to basically reform the USA into a collective with the central planners at the top that being a moderately functional equivalent of the Lenin Communist Party however without outright ownership of means of production and property. Instead strict controls and regulations will be the norm with much stronger czars than we have now.. Add to this USSR like 5 year central command of 5 year economic planning. We got a hint of this at SOTUS when BO called for 15 regional manufacturing agencies to ‘guide’ manufacturers.

Does this all sound familiar?

It does to me. In fact, what we are seeing in Europe is Marx prediction that a socialist state will eventually fail and lead to chaos, thus opening the door for communism or an Alinsky variant of radical Left command and control.

Noted above are the currency debasement strategy of BO debt and Fed quantitative easing #3 now to exceed the $2 Trillion already in first 2 phases – essentially printing dollars). This factor (currency debasement may tank our economy. But we have another factor – Mid East chaos which BO sparked in his June 2009 Mid East ‘apology’ tour.

Yes – QE3 increases the probability of a dollar collapse. So does the Mid East turmoil. If I was a Chinese creditor with clout right now I would add 2 variables to my decision as to whether to dump US dollar denominated securities: (1) – QE3 – dollar investments probability of loosing value increases – unless some Chinese select investments are in the most promising of US equities (very small percentage now) ; (2) Mid East turmoil increase probability of significant increase in US Trade deficit. This by itself will weaken dollar further as all know increasing trade deficit damages economy which decreased Treasury revenues which further increases unsustainable debt. The “event” that Tom Coburn refers to in his book “Debt Bomb” that can be catalyst to dollar collapse (unless US drastically changes policy to control debt — Tom’s main driver) can be one of these, maybe both together. We live in very, very dangerous times.

Let us do all we can to help change the mindset that got us into this mess. The window of opportunity to avoid economic catastrophe just went down an inch in Q1 2013. We are not sure how many more inches we have. Maybe our foreign creditors have a better idea.


Aggressively educate our largely economic illiterate public and Congressional representatives of what is occurring. Argue that adherence to free market principles are the proven best means to both economic prosperity and individual freedoms. In the short term stress significant expansion of our energy industry. Allow much more drilling on public land, oceans, and ANWAR. Use this as a means to propel GDP to at least 4% GDP growth. If that occurs then growth may reduce debt growth by $5trillion in 1 decade.

How can free market capitalists encourage BO to more reasonable policies?

If BO truly cares about efficiently spending more money to help the poor, why does he not cut $500 billion in waste as identified by the GAO? This includes many duplicate agencies and programs. Cutting waste would free up more money for the needy. Does he truly want to help the poor or does he want to bankrupt the US then rebuild the economy in a more command and control Saul Alinsky version?

Those believing in free market capitalism should encourage BO to decrease regulations and taxes holding back our private sector economy. We should not give up. If this strategy does not work well now, then plan B is to encourage BO to cut waste in all programs, use some of the savings to reduce our debt and also have some spare $ to better guarantee the long term solvency of our core entitlements and priority spending. So Mr. President, if you really want to optimize available financial resources to maximize your impact on social justice, definitely cut waste that we all know exists. Otherwise conspiracy theories will grow and for good reason. So Mr. President, what say you??

follow me on twitter —

Socialism vs Marxism Part 2 (Sep 10, 2012).  Part 1 was published Dec 2011.  It receives approx 10 views per day.  I update this topic of “Socialism vs Marxism.

Pure Socialism now is very hard to attain.  In the US, “effective” Socialism would be to “control” the US economy where most major decisions would be done by Gov or those the Gov relied on.  This is much easier that nationalizing all industries.  So BO is trying de facto socialism in “controlling” the economy.

Pure Marxism is even more difficult to attain.  Karl Marx once state that in simplistic terms Marxism is total control of all property and industry.  This would be so hard to set up and enforce so slow stealth Gov control policies can achieve close to same objective.

Karl Marx also, in great detail, explained how the leaders of the “Marxist revolution” (includes extensive class warfare .. BO is a disciple) would “temporarily” lead the effort, set up a Marxist society then get out of the way.  All would be equal in a utopian way with a government that would NOT have extensive special privileges.

Marx therefore misjudged human motives, pride, and quest for power.  Every attempt at Marxism or close variant of Marxism has resulted in a NEW ONE PER CENT that rules with an iron fist.  Privileges between this “Marxist” ONE PER CENT and the other 99%, for all Marxist nations were exponentially greater than the US Top 1% of the 20th Century and pre BO (up to 2008).  Empirical evidence – view the leaderships of USSR, East Germany, Maoist China, North Korea, Communist Bulgaria, Cuba.

Let’s turn our attention to today ..

Obama (BO) is in process of creating a New 1%. It is a BO czar dictatorship – a 21st century Politburo.  Read on …

A new 1% that BO is creating consists of ruling elite that includes the Democratic Party with their powerful czars and heads of agencies such as:


  • EPA implementing CapnTrade
  • NLRB preventing companies to expand in right to work states
  • Energy Dept wasting billions on ventures no private entrepreneur would touch
  • HUD that continues mandates for banks to loan to those who cannot repay
  • 33 new ObamaCare Agencies to ration health care
  • many bureaucrats between you and your doctor
  • DoddFrank administrators threatening to rule on financial matters they have no clue about, etc.


This new 1% will be a 21st century Politburo.


BO is currently decimating the current 1% via DoddFrank and continuing war on capitalism.  BO likes to state that he is helping the middle class.  Rather he is shrinking the middle class by providing so many entitlements that many loose work incentive and their private industry earning potential.  In early 1980’s 18% paid no income taxes.  In 2011 49% did not.  BO continues to increase the ‘Dependent of Government’ or ‘DOG’ class that will perpetually vote Democrat.  This will allow the new 1% a life of extreme luxury while all others suffer and loose many freedoms.


Marxism is the political and economic philosophy of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in which the concept of class struggle plays a central role in understanding society’s allegedly inevitable development from bourgeois oppression under capitalism to a socialist and ultimately classless society.


Every attempt at Marxism has resulted in a “vanguard of the proletariat” to “manage” the masses to a utopia where all are equal.  BO is in beginning phases of Marxism in his New 1%.  Stop him now.


What a contrast: the most anti capitalist President of all time and the least qualified to lead an economy let alone  the country versus a Presidential candidate most successful as a capitalist.  Take our country back – vote Mitt.


About economics501

1 - free market Capitalist; 2 - Fitness Entrepreneur; 56 years old, VP at an Investment Bank in NYC, ex Venture Capitalist, happily married with 2 girls. Education: Rutgers and NYU. I allow Ted Hruzd, my friend to blog at will here. He has many posts here. I have known Ted since we were both students at NYU. Ted also works for an Investment Bank as a VP in Equity Global Markets. ------------------------- I was very very Socialist leaning as a 22 year old. I then strongly believed in Gov role in helping the poor. However, as a USDA Child Nutrition Programs, I personally accounted for millions of fraud, abuse, and waste of tax payer money. I came to believe that the poor would be best served with less Gov programs and more with direct aid via tax system. Then after 5 years I became a free market capitalist, was a venture capitalist in 2007 and helped start 2 high tech companies. I dedicate this site to champion free market capitalism as the best road to Prosperity. Please join in. If you disagree, fine, but please post with dignity and class and be civil. Argue with facts always.
This entry was posted in Economics, Marxism and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s