The 1960's were a time of great social upheaval in the United States. We were involved in a war overseas that caused many to question what our true moral obligations were, and to whom.
To some degree, those born 30 to 50 years after the Vietnam war and its protests can be forgiven for being ignorant of what was going on back then. But the desire to reawaken the scourge of socialism, under the altruistic intention of championing the working man, is unacceptable and quite frankly, unforgivable if allowed to continue to any sort of real foothold on American politics.
Back in the 1960's, as now, the loudest voices seem to be coming from our college campuses. Not such a coincidence when you consider the leftist agendas of the greatest percentage of academia haven't changed much since then. Some might argue that the intelligentsia are better equipped to judge the proper political dispensation of our country. An interesting idea that merits consideration, until you realize it was the same academia that encouraged college-aged protesters to line up at airports where troops were arriving home.
Were those Vietnam veterans greeted with welcoming arms for their sometimes devastating personal sacrifices and told "Thank you for your service?"
No. They were greeted with signs saying things like "Baby Killer" and they were literally spit on by many of the protesters. From the very people these soldiers risked their lives to defend.
These days, thanks to the occasional victory of common sense, the politically correct way to treat a soldier is to say "Thank you for your service." But really, as compared to the other radical ideas being shouted on campuses and in downtown Portland for example, isn't that expression of gratitude from the mouths of leftist protesters nothing more than meaningless lip service? Just one more way for them to virtue signal while they internally machinate all sorts of vilification for anyone who disagrees with their opinions, such as Andy Ngo?
One of the odd ironies of our current time is the Internet. Specifically, we are now able to instantly look up just about any information we want, including historical events. Yet for some inexplicable reason, many persons in younger generations are again falling prey to the totalitarian ideas espoused by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, because more knowledge of important information is being lost than gained.
The irony resides in the fact that Marx's and Engels's "Manifesto of the Communist Party" (now known simply as "The Communist Manifesto") has long been freely available to read on the Internet, yet most young people who support socialism have clearly not read it, or they've been exposed to crib notes that gloss over the evil contained in it.
Here is one link to the Manifesto.
In an Internet search for the Manifesto, it seems there are many links to summaries that contain various degrees of subjective apologetic, which is a shame, because if you strip all the needless prefaces and afterwords that many full copies include, you're left with only 20 pages of text, and you don't have to try that hard to find many of the objectionable directives included, such as:
1) The working class forcibly taking away all capital (assets) from the rich. But this isn't quite as 'good' as it sounds, as you continue on this list.
2) Taking away all private land ownership and transferring it to the government.
3) Heavy taxes to cover all the necessary public works in a socialist government.
4) Taking away all rights of inheritance (your assets go to the government when you die, instead of to family members or other loved ones).
5) Confiscation of all property. The Manifesto actually specifies emigrants and rebels in one place, but number two above pretty much covered this issue elsewhere in the document.
6) Centralization of all credit in the hands of the State, which basically means all money and assets of any monetary worth belong to the government, not to citizens. You have what the State allows you to have.
7) The State takes over and controls all means of communication, which means even the biased mainstream media we have now would be more balanced than a single media that says only what the government allows. Say goodbye to any independent journalism or private news networks with their own opinions.
8) The State takes over and controls all means of public transportation. No independently owned (private) means of public transportation. Transportation would be limited to that which the government feels is necessary, therefore actual freedom of movement itself becomes restricted.
9) All industry, including and especially agriculture, becomes the property of the State, so no more entrepreneurs. All means of production are controlled by the government, and if you don't like the way they do it, too bad.
10) All have to work. No freeloaders. You'll have to be able to prove to the government that you can't work, and historically speaking, all who are not productive are eventually eliminated to ease the burden on society. All get paid the same, unless they are a part of the government, which in effect becomes the new ruling class. Being paid the same isn't as egalitarian as you may first consider, because this means no matter how good or lousy of a job you do, you get paid the same. Imagine the effect that has on the average worker, or more importantly, on those who are personally motivated to give a greater than average effort in a free market.
11) The "gradual" destruction of the distinctions between town and country, so that every person, regardless of place of birth and nationality, is cast in one mold, with one voice.
12) Free education for all children (which is what we already have in public schools now, except for sports fees, etc.) in schools that teach what the government wants to teach them, regardless of what each family would prefer. Personal ethics and beliefs must take a back seat to whatever the State dictates is acceptable. And historically, communist governments (running on socialist principles) are secular and enforced as such. Which means your dear old grandma who loves Jesus is out of luck.
The Manifesto is basically a drawn out diatribe that facilitates envy and encourages violent revolution by painting the rich as evil, selfish taskmasters, and the working class as honorable, poor, destitute masses who deserve to take all the earned assets of the rich and give them to the State, so everyone can live at the same modest level, regardless of ideas, ambition or drive to succeed.
The tenets of the Manifesto are what gave Stalin in Russia, Mao in China, Pol Pot in Cambodia, all three Kims in North Korea, Castro in Cuba and Chavez in Venezuela the framework with which to create monstrous regimes that slaughtered millions of people collectively. Approximately one hundred million, in fact. There are many today who will simply dismiss the 20th century by saying, "Oh, they just didn't do socialism the way it was intended to be done."
Wrong. They did it exactly as prescribed by Marx and Engels, which is why you hear so many conservatives squawking about the turn toward socialism by some of our current voters, and why the results in each of those countries were all some horrific version of the same.
Those who point at Sweden and say, "See? They're socialists and doing very well!" should be reminded that Sweden isn't actually a socialist country, where the State owns and controls all means of production. Sweden still maintains private ownership of lands, assets and businesses. It's a democracy that uses heavy taxation to increase the scope of public safety net programs, but under the framework of a capitalist economy. Don't believe everything I or Bernie tell you. Look it up.
If you can manage to resist the lazy TLDR ethic that's so popular these days, and you make it to the end of the Manifesto, you'll find these words, which are not subtle nor open to fanciful interpretation:
"The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains."
In America in 2020, apparently chains are identified by the freedom to go where you want, earn what you want if you strive hard enough, think what you want, say what you want, own what you want to work hard enough for, and of course the freedom to complain about all the evils that the "ruling class" are allegedly imposing on you while you live freely in the most prosperous country on Earth.