Marxism is Political Violence


I don’t want to share too many details, but last week I had the opportunity to meet a mayor of a Central American town. He was in the United States seeking asylum because his wife and daughter were shot by his political opponents. Luckily, they are still alive, and seem to be recovering well. But it’s become apparent that his political opponents have created an environment where either he has to learn how to fight to protect his simple right to life and liberty, or he has to leave.

What persuasion are his political opponents? What political ideology is there where violence is not only justified, but the preferred method of obtaining your political goals?

If you listen to Marxists and liberals, they will tell you it is the conservatives who believe in violence and regularly use it to further their political goals. This is, of course, an outright lie. The Tea Party movement, the quintessential conservative movement of limited government, had not a single violent issue in its entire history. Yes, there was violence at their rallies, but they were always coming from the Tea Party opponents and directed to the Tea Party supporters. What isolated instances of violence you can find on the Tea Party side are easily attributed to self defense.

In this Central American country, Hugo Chavez is supporting a Marxist movement that believes the path to power lies over the dead body of this mayor’s family. They believe that if they can just intimidate, injure, or kill the right people, they can take control of the cities, provinces, and national government. Since Marxism relies on government force to enforce its ideals (take from those who have, give to those who don’t), it should be hardly surprising to anyone that violence is not its principle method of operation.

Frankly, I detest the Marxists at home and abroad. I believe, by virtue of their political ideology and history, that we shouldn’t feel the slightest intimidated by them. We should stand firm in defense of our homes, our families, our churches, our faith and our governments. We should take up arms and us military tactics, if need be, to protect ourselves.

I hope this mayor will feel like he can return in safety one day. Unfortunately, he will have to tell his political supporters that the way to freedom is going to be through the barrel of guns, pointed at those who threaten their lives and livelihood daily. His mission will be one of training his people to defend themselves and each other. They will have the difficult task of keeping their town free from the influence of violent Marxists.

It’s too bad that we don’t have a president today who stands against Marxism. Those people who desire free markets and freedom from oppression cannot rely on the United States, but instead find themselves fighting against some of our foreign policies, foreign policies that support Marxists and injure freedom seekers everywhere. Had we a firm president, Hugo Chavez would be completely neutralized in South and Central America. His finances would long ago dried up. There would be no Marxist resurgence in our own continent, and countries like Colombia and others who are seeking Independence and liberty would be much closer to finding it. At the same time, those poor people who are struggling to make a life for themselves and their children would be much farther along in their economic situation, because the stability of the region would encourage foreign investments and jobs.


4 Responses to “Marxism is Political Violence”

  1. BikerClimberSocialist Says:

    Violence is always wrong. But when people are kept down by an unfair system for too long, they often lose it. That’s just human nature. Chavez is no saint, but he is the first indigenous descent leader of Venezuela. Like the United States, much of Central/South America is very divided amongst ethic group/class lines people of the lower classes have an extremely difficult time advancing economically due to lack of access to good education and racial/ethnic prejudice against people of indigenous/african descent. Violence is wrong, but when the capitalist system is so unjust, sometimes people burst.

    No “violence” from the right wing? You have got to be kidding me!

    Shawna Forde! Shawna Forde MURDERED two people and was a Minutewoman.

    Undocumented woman raped by police officer

    All of the right-wing Latin American governments of the 1970s/1980s

    Notice how in all three instances the democratically elected LEFT WING groups/leaders are being overthrown by the VIOLENT right-wing military.

    Along with the “Dirty War” in Argentina
    Who were the victims again? People from the left-wing!

    Even Francisco Franco of Spain was a RIGHT WING dictator.

    The reason people consider the right wing to be more “violent” is because they often use the police and military to enforce their beliefs on others.

    Though I cannot find an English translation, Alicia Partnoy’s “La Escuelita” describes the horrors that took place during the “Dirty War” extremely well. She was sent to several torture camps by the RIGHT-WING government of Argentina during that time period.

    While a (most likely) crooked mayor does not deserve to have his family or himself harmed in any manner, its only natural that people would resist when so much inequality and lack of opportunity continue to exist. My sympathy goes to him and his family.

    Violence from all sides is wrong.

    • Jonathan Gardner Says:

      Shawna Forde represented the Minutemen in which way? She was a lunatic, a crazy woman who deserves not to live on the same planet as us. The minutemen were formed as a non-violent group of observers. That’s the message from the top, bottom, and sideways in that organization. Although I never joined, I watched as they formed and I’ve listened to their conversations, internal or otherwise.

      What were the police officers political affiliations? Did that style of politics preach that raping women is just? Or was he another insane lunatic that needs to be locked up for the rest of this life?

      Right-wing is not (necessarily) conservative. Just because you stand opposed to Marxism doesn’t make you a saint. Were these governments trying to build a society where every individual had equal rights under the law, and where the government existed solely to protect their rights? If not, then they were not conservative, and did not share many political ideals with me. Or, put another way, in what ways do I agree with the policies of those governments, and in what ways do I disagree? Since there’s hardly any agreement, labeling them “conservative” is hardly fair.

      My point is that Marxism RELIES on political violence. You can’t execute Marxism without FORCEFULLY taking property from the rich, or denying certain people certain rights to own property and live according to the dictates of their conscience. Oftentimes, because it is impossible to take money from a rich man (since they know so much more about money than the poor do), Marxists, throughout history, end up murdering the rich, or using some other form of physical threat and actual violence to achieve their ends. Communist Russia, North Korea, China, Vietnam, name a Marxist country and you have a country built on violence. Unlike your cherry-picked examples, we can’t even begin to list the names of the people who committed violence in the name of Marxism, according to the teachings of Marxism, because they are so numerous and include practically everyone involved in the movement.

  2. Alicia Partnoy Says:

    thanks BikerClimber for mentioning my book, The Little School. Tales of Disappearance and Survival. The cover that is reproduced in your comment is from another book by another author with a similar title in Spanish. This other Colombian author writes about her life as a teacher, mine is about how they wanted to teach us through torture and death to stop being political dissidents against the military, yes right wing, dictatorship.

    • Jonathan Gardner Says:

      I hope no one believes that Milton Friedman had anything to do with the terror inflicted by that horrible regime you suffered under. That was the result of a government who felt they had the power to violate people’s rights. Perhaps they had noble motives. It does not matter: infringing on the rights of anyone is never to be tolerated.

      Using violence to change people’s ideas is abhorrent to my way of thinking. Words are always enough to convince people, and nothing more can be done to convince anyone to change when all the words are said.

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: