In the old days, pre-1900s, the main way people of means showed their taste and educational development (and thus their social superiority) was to sponsor “get-togethers” and topical lectures conducted by the primary theorists of the day.
The theorists could be social, medical and possibly philosophical based; but they were the social darlings of the age. It was in this manner the speakers and specialists gained notoriety and financial sponsorship from their benefactors. I think of them as Parlor Games.
This is how Marx met Engels. Engels was the son of a wealthy industrialist who became enthralled with the theories espoused by Marx. Engels entered into discussions and developed agreements on many levels as to the proper direction society should be directed and world economic policy should be directed. Engels sponsored Marx’s writing and book publications and became forever attached at the hip to Marxist philosophy and economic theory and speculation. Never was it believed by these gadflies such as Engels that their superiority would be placed in jeopardy. They were wealthy industrialists and had more money than sense; so they naturally believed they would lead the Proletariat (masses) being uplifted from the effects of Bourgeoisie (the wealthy stratum of the middle class) holding them back from realizing the wealth afforded by the Proletariats’ labors.
Communism is Marx’s bastard child developed from the kindling set afire by Marxists theory then delivered as a revolutionary anthem to be accompanied by riots and mayhem in the streets of Moscow, Kiev, Petrograd and Sevastopol as well as other major cities. Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin fed the flames and finally overthrew the Czar. Lenin ruled until a stroke overtook him and the baseness of human nature allowed the government to be controlled by a madman in Joseph Stalin after he had Trotsky assassinated with a pickaxe in Mexico.
But the main reason this is all being brought up is the fact it’s always the well-connected and the overly educated people having been long on posture and short on real presence in the realities of life that sponsor and support theorists having one foot in their postulations and the other in the ozone. They just have NO real concept of what going on in the real world. It’s a lark for them to demand income equality and re-distribution of wealth and financial parity.
They’re rich. They can afford to be Socialists. They give away everybody else’s income and goods and expect the worker to appreciate the fact the sponsors thought of it first. This all is apparent with Obama and his cronies giving tax money to campaign contributors to fund speculative businesses like Solyndra and other major financial debacles noted over the last six years. It is noted in health care operations like the Affordable Care Act where legislation is passed with no one person aware of everything in the legislation.
Socialists and social theorists are always long on thinking and expressing the lofty ambitions they want to be noted for espousing. They have NO real stake in the program. They have no more to show for the effort than speeches and maybe some published pamphlets and possibly a book nobody really reads because the written word costs more in energy expended to read it than it took to write it. Most of it is worthless drivel.
I think the most telling statement ever made was noted as one movie star spoke to another. The first one said: “George, you can afford to be a Socialist. You’re worth a couple of hundred million dollars!” And this has been the history of the Socialist movement since Marx sat his fat acetabulum on the lush brocade of couches financed by the “ill-gotten Gains” of the Bourgeoisie’s efforts to suppress the Proletariat.
The Bourgeoisie elitists of yesterday have been replaced by the Progressive elitists of today. Check your Obamas, your Kennedys, your Clintons, Pelosis, Reids and Schumers. Check your Charlie Rangel and Maxine Waters and Steny Hoyer. Check your John Boehner, Eric Cantor and John McCain and see where the movement has traveled to today. Check your Progressive Democrat Party and your Progressive based Republicans and assess the similarities you find.
Then I dare you to tell me where I’m wrong.
Thanks for listening