Public Schools, Democracy, and the Destruction of Private Property

I recently posted a question on a Facebook group page asking people to consider why Karl Marx included free public education in his 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto. Someone soon came along and posted this:

“Please attempt to have a discussion about education that does not use comparisons to communism and/or Karl Marx. Attempting to demonize opposing views just shows a complete lack of desire to have civil dialog.”

I replied:

“Who is demonizing…? Are you saying people who discuss education must stick their head in the sand and avoid some of the elephants in the room? Why can’t a person bring up an obvious point and have it considered rationally without being accused of demonizing?”

I thought the purpose of critical thinking skills that educators always talk about is being able to dissect and understand a topic by honest questioning. So why did Karl Marx include free public education as one of his 10 planks?

To understand this, one has to understand the foundation of the Manifesto’s goal. Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto to lay out a plan for the destruction of private property. Only with the destruction of private property can you have a communist way of life. From H. Verlan Anderson’s book, “Many are Called, but Few are Chosen,” we read this explanation:

“Not only does the Manifesto declare its main purpose to be the destruction of private property, but it contains a detailed plan by which this is to be accomplished in a nation such as the United States whose laws and constitutions were designed to protect this right.

The method proposed is not violent and bloody revolution (at least at the outset) but the peaceful and legal process of inducing the citizens of the United States and other nations to destroy the right themselves with their own legislatures, courts, and executives. We are to adopt a series of laws which will inevitably have this result. Listen to the Manifesto as it unfolds its plan:

‘We have seen above that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class, to establish democracy. The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest by degrees all capital from the bourgeoisie (property owners), to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state.’

This naked appeal to the selfishness of the voter to use the government as an instrument of plunder is nothing but a proposal for legalized theft.”

The reason the communists promote Democracy is because once you establish class warfare to the point that the majority vote themselves property from the minority, the destruction of private property is ensured. The people will continue to vote socialist minded people into office to pass laws guaranteeing for themselves anything they desire. This is where we find the quote often attributed to Alexander Tytler so applicable.

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.”

Can anyone argue we don’t have loose fiscal policy and we’re not headed for a dictatorship? If you don’t believe it, you’re not watching the mandates and sidestepping of the legislative process the President is engaged in.

Communists Promote Democracy

So now why did Karl Marx declare free public education in government schools as one of his 10 main objectives to destroy private property? Here are three reasons I can think of.

1) Getting people without children to pay for the education of people with children, via compulsory taxation, takes the personal property of those who may not want to or be able to give, in order to pay for a good or service for someone else. This is a tremendous injustice to those without children. Parents, never having to write a check or make a payment for the service, cease to concern themselves with what their child is being taught or if waste is occurring in the system. There is no competition, just apathy. Some will say that paying for the education of other children is for the benefit of society, however, one could say that about almost anything. It never used to be this way till Marx and Horace Mann came along and got us into this model.

2) In a state school funded with public tax dollars, the lowest common denominator prevails meaning those who believe least (atheism) trump those who believe most (in God). Free government education is a way to destroy public morality and a belief in God, which was one of Marx’s goals to establish atheism. Our Christian founders wanted to have strong morals taught in schools from the Bible. Not sectarian beliefs, but morals grounded in God’s commandments which ultimately lead to the happiness of the people.

3) It removes from parents the authority and responsibility of being the primary educator of their children. The state takes an interest and with government money paying for the education, the government can create mandates on everything in the system including curriculum, testing, standards, teachers, administrators, etc… Parents lose the ability to control their child’s education.

Until parents directly pay for at least a portion of their child’s education, they will never take an interest in how funds are being spent and what their children are being taught.

From the Latter-Day Conservative website I got this excellent quote.

“God finds His glory, as Joseph Smith said, in providing laws by which other beings can come to enjoy the same perfections and glory He possesses. Our view and motivations should be the same. Rather than seeing law as an instrument of domination, it is our mission to use it as an enabling power to help men and women achieve greater independence and ultimate potential. We do so by acting to have our earthly governmental and legal systems mirror as closely as possible the divine order. – ”
(“Law and Becoming”, Elder D. Todd Christoffersons. Fireside presented to the J. Reuben Clark Law Society, February 4, 2011. Published in the Clark Memorandum, Spring 2011.)

What is the divine order? It is founded upon the principle of agency, or choice. One must choose to become educated. One must choose to be charitable. One should be able to choose the educational environment for their children. Government run public schools funded by tax dollars, forcing children to learn what the state tells them and in the manner in which they tell them, is a factory conveyor belt model for things that are to be acted upon like a raw material, not a place for sentient beings that need to learn to act and use choice or agency to put themselves into motion to accomplish great things. When responsibility is removed from people, even in education, apathy sets in and we become nothing more than drones. Parents and children should be active participants in the education process. When they are not, they relinquish their right to agency and personal growth.

What the “Occupy Wall Street” Democracy-lovers would do to us today is destroy private property in the name of immoral corporations. However, the problem isn’t with capitalism, it’s with morality. Our Founders said only a moral and religious people could maintain a free republic. With each action of government in removing God and religion in our daily lives, individuals have lost their moral anchor and believe they can take advantage of their neighbors to get ahead without any consequences. The problems in Wall Street, Washington, and everywhere else won’t be solved by more laws that force people into good behavior. New laws are the result of lost morals because everyone wants to clamp down on bad behavior. The solution to society’s ills can only be found in a return to God-centered morals. Only then will people treat each other with honesty and charity and cease taking advantage of each other through dishonest business practices, or plunder made legal through our process of lawmaking.

Perhaps the best statement I’ve read explaining this is from Howard W. Hunter, a past president of the LDS church, who said:

“What is the real cause of this trend toward the welfare state, toward more socialism? In the last analysis, in my judgment, it is personal unrighteousness. When people do not use their freedoms responsibly and righteously, they will gradually lose these freedoms . . ..
If man will not recognize the inequalities around him and voluntarily, through the gospel plan, come to the aid of his brother, he will find that through “a democratic process” he will be forced to come to the aid of his brother. The government will take from the “haves” and give to the “have nots.” Both have lost their freedom. Those who “have,” lost their freedom to give voluntarily of their own free will and in the way they desire. Those who “have not,” lost their freedom because they did not earn what they received. They got “something for nothing,” and they will neither appreciate the gift nor the giver of the gift.
Under this climate, people gradually become blind to what has happened and to the vital freedoms, which they have lost. (Speeches of the Year 1965-1966, pp. 1-11, “The Law of the Harvest.” Devotional Address, Brigham Young University, 8 March 1966.)”

Every violation of the constitution that provides a socialistic program to the public (yes, including public education), encourages the slide into the destruction of private property. The rallying cry of socialists is “Democracy” because it is through majority votes of the “have nots” that they take from the “haves” and the ongoing, systematic destruction of our economy creates more “have nots.” We must understand, respect, and defend the Constitution of the United States and honor the laws that protect our life, liberty, and property, or Democracy will be the downfall of this nation.

Hopefully this gives new perspective to why there is such a danger in our schools adopting slogans like “Enculturating the Young into a Social and Political Democracy.” This is simply a restatement of the communist goal to establish a democratic welfare state which serves to destroy morality and private property through the votes of a growing immoral majority.

14 Responses to “Public Schools, Democracy, and the Destruction of Private Property”

  • Susie:

    Great post!

  • Marjohna:

    Very good points, Oak.  Way back when I was in school, and that was way back, it was very obvious to me that communism was a powerful force in the institution I attended.  Part of the reason it was obvious was the award-winning teacher who spent summers in communist China, and came back to insist that her students agree that we in the United States should emulate education in China.  She was the most popular teacher in the school and I took a lot of flack when I objected to her coercive, award-winning methods.  Here is a clip from a newspaper article about her.  “…the daughter of a Stanford University economics professor, taught in China,
    Vietnam and what is now Bangladesh before settling in the Washington area in
    1966. She was teaching social studies at Bethesda’s Walt Whitman High School
    when she was honored by Georgetown in 1979 with an honorary doctor of humane
    letters.”  I am sorry if it some find it uncomfortable to hear the facts about these things, but, trust me, for any child in the public school trying to hold on to the values of their God, their family and the Founders’ Constitutional United States Government, things are very uncomfortable, and I would rather disturb complacent adults, than abandon children besieged by their enemies.  By the way, Ms Humane was really quite mean when I (a child at the time) challenged her.

  • Milld7886:

    Thanks for the excellent post.  It really makes things so clear and ties it altogether.  Good job!

  • Brad Thompson:

    Extremely well-stated, Oak! Thanks!

  • Stan Ness:

    So, who wants to start-up a private school!  Too bad we couldn’t get the voucher initiative passed, then maybe middle-income hardworking parents who would like to have God and morality taught along side the three R’s could afford to do so.

  • pleasantgirl:

    Well said. Thanks for your courage to continue to say the truth amid the barrage of hostility if one dares challenge the status quo.

  • Rick:

    Amen Oak.  Clearly something is wrong when it is illegal for us not to pay to educate all the children of the world who manage to move in nearby.  If we refuse to pay, the government will sell our houses out from under us.  Some kind of private property!

  • Jon F:

    Oak for US Senate 2012?

  • Melissa Rasmussen:

    Awesome, Oak!  I love this piece.  Thank you.

  • Scott:

    “The solution to society’s ills can only be found in a return to God-centered morals.”

    These sorts of assertions just cannot be justified given the mountains of data that show the exact opposite.The United States is already far more religious than every other western democracy, which if what you say is true, should correlate with fewer incidences of “society’s ills.” Instead, we are worse off than predominantly atheist nations, such as Norway, as measured by nearly every conceivable metric.  Studies show that in prosperous democracies, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion.

    You’d think the United States would have more to show for its faith.  Food for thought.

  • LOL. I don’t have that level of brain-damage yet Jon. :)

  • Susie Schnell:

    The hidden evil behind vouchers, Stan, is that along with government money being given to your choice of private or home school, Progressive government regulations and restrictions come along too. I used to be an advocate of vouchers until I learned they are actually a Trojan Horse for regulating what goes on in a completely private school. We don’t want anymore unconstitutional intrusion into our children’s education or parent’s rights. Lower taxes, local control and more freedom to choose the best education is a better choice. We need more school choice instead of limiting ourselves to free socialist ed, expensive private schools or home school which does not work for everyone.

  • Ladypoet33:

    I’m so glad I’ve homeschooled for 15 years.  My kids are good.  We still have regular problems…but no biggies.  They understand what communism is and what it is doing to our country.  They understand the Bill of Rights as well as the 10 planks.  It’s interesting to see the 2 along side each other.  Glaring differences.  Thanks Oak for this article/blog.
    Debbi

  • Jim Rawson:

    My youngest two daughters were never required to read, nor study, the U.S. Constitution whilst attending high schools in Utah, but were required to read the Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf.  During my high school years in Utah, we organized anti-Communist clubs and groups.  I’ve studied thoroughly all of the communist dictum for 50 years including the founding of the ACLU (an enemy within our borders) by the Communist party and funded by the same in the 1930’s.  Your article about public education is spot on.  What I see being taught in schools across this country, for the most part, is anti-American and anti-Constitution.  The Socialist/Marxist agenda is alive and well, even in Utah.  Yes, I visit educators at all levels in 350 to 600 high schools and districts each year and feel qualified to make the above statements. Fact is fact!  Thanks again, Oak!