Published on January 2nd, 2015 | by Alexander G. Markovsky4
From Lenin to Obama
In the world of Marxist dialectical materialism, change is the product of a constant conflict between opposites, arising from the internal contradictions inherent in all events, ideas, and movements. Therefore, any significant change in a society, according to Marxism, must be accompanied by a period of upheaval.
"Our task," wrote Lenin in 1902 in What Is to Be Done, "is to utilize every manifestation of discontent, and to collect and utilize every grain of rudimentary protest." Indeed, if you want to change a society, here is Lenin’s script: cause the problem. Spread the misery. Send a cadre of professional community organizers to unite all of the angry and disinherited spirits to fuel an organized revolt. Entice chaos and violence. Exploit chaos for larger political objectives. Blame your political opponents, demonize and criminalize them. Move decisively to request a temporary suspension of civil liberties in exchange for the restoration of law and order. Usurp power before the deceived masses realize that there is nothing more permanent in politics than something temporary.
From Lenin to Obama the political landscape has changed, but the scheme remains assertively consistent.
As an ardent student of Marxism, Obama is acting in a predictable ethical and moral fashion, consistent with Marxist dialectical materialism. First it was the "Occupy Wall Street" movement. Unlike Lenin, who had proletariat-organized masses of working people who, according to Marx, had "nothing to lose but their chains," to be used as a revolutionary force to make fundamental changes in the society, Obama had to settle for non-working people who had "nothing to lose" to stoke street violence and resurrect an appearance of proletarians. Predictably, this premeditated unrest imitating Mao’s Red Guards of the Cultural Revolution failed miserably.
Instead of storming the bulwarks of bourgeois institutions of power such as banks and corporations, as real revolutionaries would be expected to do, they were more interested in drugs and easy sex than presidential politics. After urinating on the streets of American cities and creating riots accompanied by vandalism and confrontations with police, the militant movement became an embarrassment for the Democrats. Subsequently, after spending a great deal of money on police overtime, cleaning the streets, and restoring damaged property, this organized banditry had to be quietly shut down.
The failure of the movement to create a virtuous dynamic that would lead to the socialist revolution in the United Sates became a source of contention among Marxists and socialists. Since 2011 a sizeable body of socialist and communist literature has been published to explore and analyze the failure of the movement from a Marxist-Leninist perspective. The most notable books are those of prominent Marxist Paul Mason, Why It’s Still Kicking Off Everywhere: The New Global Revolution (Verso, 2013), and radical socialists Luke Cooper and Simon Hardy, Beyond Capitalism? The Future of Capitalist Politics (Zero Books, 2012) pinpointed the failure of the movement to the organizers’ disregard of Lenin’s conception of the vanguard party as the inspiration for and organizer of the proletarian revolution. The White House seemed to take notice, and when an opportunity presented itself-the killing of a black teenager by a police officer in Ferguson, Missouri, in August 2014-the president and his party decided to take direct control of events.
They mobilized professional organizer Al Sharpton, a sympathetic media, the Department of Justice and the prestige of the Oval Office to organize a nationwide revolt under the banner of victims of racism.
In the process the administration embraced a system of justice ruled by staged mass demonstrations and introduced its distinct concept of legitimacy based on racial chauvinism. This combination of mob justice and peculiar legitimacy redefines the limits of permissible; it entitles a segment of the population to riot, loot, assault, burn down buildings and otherwise destroy property, and provide false and misleading testimony to a grand jury with impunity, all in the name of defending human rights while viciously disregarding the rights of humans.
The "near" objective of this campaign is to weaken law enforcement, forcing it to choose between security and political posturing. Should law enforcement get overwhelmed, the radical turmoil could gain momentum and expand merging various liberal grievances-social, economic, racial, and gender-and turn them into a broader replay of the 1960s upheavals. Determined not to "allow a crisis to go to waste," the administration is enticing violent rules of conduct and manipulating a multiplicity of divergent political interests, keeping them cohesive enough to support ideological conquest. This potentially explosive combination inevitably leads to a bloody outcome. The recent murder of two New York police officers is a prelude to what’s to expect.
Obama and the Democrats are either impervious to or undaunted by the prospect that the inflamed rhetoric of Al Sharpton and other provocateurs gives a false sense of purpose and an aura of heroism to disturbed souls looking for a motive to unleash their anger, which may result in catastrophic destruction and massive loss of life.
In any event, given the unwavering support the participants are getting from the administration, is an indication that the president is comfortable with the greater level of anarchy if it can bring about his vision of CHANGE.
Hence, we shall not be deceived by Obama, New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, and other Democrats’ morally irrelevant backpedaling on their racist rhetoric and shedding crocodile tears for the slaying police officers.
Motivated by political imperatives, the president and the Democrats will continue to emulate Marxist tactics and ideological oratory, instigating class warfare, civil disobedience, and riots dividing the nation along racial lines and income brackets to implement the CHANGE. A tactic condemned by another former senator from Illinois, who famously said, "A house divided against itself cannot stand." It was true for Lincoln, it was true for Nixon, and it is true for Obama.
As the leader of the nation, the president is expected to govern by constitutional principles and political consensus. Obama, however, unable and unwilling to secure hegemony through consent, has been acting as a Marxist guerrilla leader who hates political opponents and seeks imposition of his agenda by a combination of force, coercion, and emotional mass appeal. As a consequence, instead of being a symbol of national unity, he has fostered a condition of civil war.
*Alexander G. Markovsky is a Russian émigré. He holds degrees in economics and political science from the University of Marxism-Leninism and an MS in structural engineering from Moscow University. He resides in Houston, Texas, with his wife and daughter, where he owns a consulting company specializing in the management of large international projects. Mr. Markovsky is a contributor to FamilySecurityMatters.org, and his essays have appeared on RedState.com, WorldNetDaily, Family Security Matters, Ruthfullyyours and other websites. He can be contacted at email@example.com
Read more: Family Security Matters http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/from-lenin-to-obama#ixzz3NhjKg820
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution