Elections are supposed to be rigged!

Adapted from my post of October 2016 

The Hill, yesterday after President Biden's two-hour press conference: Biden says elections might not be legitimate if reform bills aren't passed.

President Biden on Wednesday said the legitimacy of the upcoming midterm elections could depend on Democrats passing voting rights legislation. 

“I’m not saying it’s going to be legit. The increase in the prospect of being illegitimate is in direct proportion to us not being able to get these reforms passed,” Biden said during his second solo press conference at the White House, referring to the 2022 election. ...

The president responded that it “depends” earlier in the press conference when asked if he thinks the upcoming election results will be legitimate if voting rights legislation doesn’t pass. 

“Well, it all depends on whether or not we’re able to make the case to the American people that some of this is being set up to try to alter the outcome of the election,” he said.

I have posted to some extent on how American elections are rigged.

Just before the 2016 election, George Will, a solid member of the Political Class, albeit mostly on the Right, saying that rig attempts are well known: "Trump Has Point That Elections Are Rigged If He Would Just Make It More Clearly."

Then there is long-time DNC operative Bob Creamer explaining how any why the Democrats rig elections, on camera (warning, frank language). He clearly says that law and ethics have nothing to do with Democrat campaigns, the only point is to win, period. Nothing more, but absolutely nothing less.

By the way, How deeply in the middle of Democrat party operations is Bob Creamer. Well, he ...

... has visited the White House 342 times since 2009, White House records show.

Robert Creamer, who acted as a middle man between the Clinton campaign, the Democratic National Committee and “protesters” who tried — and succeeded — to provoke violence at Trump rallies met with President Obama 47 times, according to White House records. Creamer’s last visit was in June 2016.

During Obama's entire term until June 30, 2016, there were 2,717 days. That is equal to 388 weeks. That means that Creamer went to the White House almost every week of Obama's entire tenure until the end of last June. And this guy's main mission in life, if not his only one, was to use violence and otherwise corrupt and influence elections outside the law.

But as I have pointed out already, in Marxist, which is to say Democrat, theory, elections are supposed to be rigged.

What is the purpose of this elaborate extravaganza? Marxists have long noted that insofar as its stated purpose is concerned–determining the question of political power in modern society–it is no more than a charade, a political sleight of hand in which the more things seem to change, the more do they remain the same. But Marxists do not deserve any special credit for making such an observation. One hardly has to be a Marxist to grasp the fact that bourgeois elections do not, in any way, impinge upon or alter questions of power. The general cynicism among the masses toward politics and politicians–a cynicism which runs far deeper than can be measured solely by noting the large numbers of people who do not bother to vote in elections–is itself proof that the futility and corruption of bourgeois politics has become a part of U.S. folklore.

(Paul Saba, 1980, "Reaffirming the Marxist Theory of the State")

Here is the George Will transcript:

When Mr. Trump talks about it being rigged, he sweeps all his grievances into one big puddle. He talked about the media. He talked about the primaries. He talked about the polls. Talked about the Republican National Committee. I think when most persons hear that an election is rigged, they think of government action to rig the election. And there Mr. Trump has a point if he would just make it more clearly.

It is hard to think of an innocent reason why Democrats spend so much time, energy and money, scarce resources all, resisting attempts to purge the voter rolls, that is to remove people who are dead or otherwise have left the jurisdiction. It's hard to think of an innocent reason why they fight so tremendously against Voter I.D. laws. They say, well that burdens the exercise of a fundamental right. The Supreme Court has said that travel is a fundamental right and no one thinks that showing an I.D. at the airport burdens that fundamental right.

We know -- we don't surmise -- we know that the 2010, '12 and '14 elections were rigged by the most intrusive and potentially punitive institution of the federal government, the IRS. You can read all about it in Kim Strassel's book Intimidation Game. She's familiar to all Wall Street Journal readers and FOX viewers. This is not a surmise. I have talked to lawyers in a position to know they say it's still going on. The IRS is still intolerantly delaying the granting of tax exempt to conservative advocacy groups to skew the persuasion of this campaign.

In Marxist theory the whole point of elections is to give the proles the illusion that they have a say in the outcome and how the country is run. But they don't and they shouldn't. At least, not by the bourgeois world view.

What Marxists should do about this was debated quite a bit before the Russian Revolution. On the one hand, a faction believed that once the workers had cast off their chains and appropriated the means of production (the industrial plant), then the proletariat would be able to vote truly and well because the capitalist bourgeoisie would not be allowed or able to blinker them and the natural purity of their proletariat hearts. Hence, right away elections could continue to be held and this time, dadgummit, they actually would mean something.

The competing view, held by the Russian Bolsheviks, was that they were the "vanguard of the revolution" and that therefore Marx's instruction of the necessity of a temporary dictatorship of the proletariat -- meaning by Lenin and his gang, not the general proletariat - was the key to bringing forth True Communism.

In Marxism-Leninism, true communism was a state in which material production was so great that all human needs were met without shortage. Greed would therefore disappear and the inherent but capitalist-suppressed natural nobility of men and women would emerge. They would be transformed into true communists - altruists who worked each day for the good of the people, not for crass, selfish profit. 

The vanguard revolutionaries understood that to leap from workers in chains, unaware of how deluded and ignorant they really were, and in political infancy, to the status of the True Communist Man was stupidly unrealistic. So their own dictatorship was a deplorable but critically-important step to bring the long-oppressed and unenlightened proles to political maturity and understanding. Truly fair, honest and meaningful elections certainly would be held - eventually. Just not yet. But trust us, it's right around the corner, any day now. Forever.

Remember, the point of Marxist revolutions is not to empower the people, it is to brings the reins of state power to the Marxist revolutionaries. Which always means the Vanguard because for the proles' own good the vanguard of the revolution (maybe in its fifth generation by now!) must also be the conservators of the revolution. As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end, amen.

Sadly, very sadly, all of this was foretold by American statesmen and observers more than 150 years ago:

"I shall assume the privilege of advancing years in reference to another growing and dangerous evil. In the last age, although our fathers, like ourselves, were divided into political parties which often had severe conflicts with each other, yet we never heard until within a recent period of the employment of money to carry elections. Should this practice increase until the voters and their representatives in the State and National Legislatures shall become infected, the fountain of free government will be poisoned at its source, and we must end, as history proves, in a military despotism. A democratic republic, all agree, cannot long survive unless sustained by public virtue. When this is corrupted, and the people become venal, there is a canker at the root of the tree of liberty which will cause it to wither and to die."

-- Charles Mackay, 1858: “A corrupt republic is tainted in its blood, and bears the seeds of death in every pulsation.” Read the whole thing.

"It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything." -- Joseph Stalin.

Or nowadays, the people who hack the votes decide everything.

The Pew Center says, in masterful understatement, that "America’s Voter Registration System
Needs an Upgrade."

Update:

Watch it here.

Update: Actually, Democrats have a long history of saying the elections they lost are illegitimate: 

Biden Is Not Alone. Democrats Have Been Delegitimizing Elections for Years.

And this:

Lying down with dogs and Marxists holding elections

Daily Caller: "After Crushing Defeat, DNC Quirk Still Gives Hillary More New Hampshire Delegates Than Sanders"

In fact, even though Sanders won the N.H. primary with 60 percent of the Democrat vote, Hillary Clinton was allocated two delegates more than he was.

... thanks to the Democratic Party’s nominating system, he leaves the Granite State with at least 13 delegates while she leaves with at least 15 delegates.

New Hampshire has 24 “pledged” delegates, which are allotted based on the popular vote. Sanders has 13, and Clinton has 9, with 2 currently allotted to neither.

But under Democratic National Committee rules, New Hampshire also has 8 “superdelegates,” party officials who are free to commit to whomever they like, regardless of how their state votes. Their votes count the same as delegates won through the primary.

New Hampshire has 8 superdelegates, 6 of which are committed to Hillary Clinton, giving her a total of 15 delegates from New Hampshire as of Wednesday at 9 a.m.

Neither Sanders nor Clinton can possibly be surprised by this and I hardly see how Sanders could think it "unfair," nor could Hillary were the delegate count the other way round.

Hillary: "You know I stabbed you in the back and robbed you blind on delegates, right?
Sanders: "Of course I know. You are cheating better than I am. But just wait."

Way back in 1980 a Marxist writer explained how elections work - and are supposed to work - in a bourgeoisie country (and the USA is definitely that). After delineating the tedium and manufactured excitement of the primaries and delegate counting and national political conventions and all the rest of American politics, writer Paul Saba explains how the elections were "Reaffirming the Marxist Theory of the State":

What is the purpose of this elaborate extravaganza? Marxists have long noted that insofar as its stated purpose is concerned–determining the question of political power in modern society–it is no more than a charade, a political sleight of hand in which the more things seem to change, the more do they remain the same. But Marxists do not deserve any special credit for making such an observation. One hardly has to be a Marxist to grasp the fact that bourgeois elections do not, in any way, impinge upon or alter questions of power. The general cynicism among the masses toward politics and politicians–a cynicism which runs far deeper than can be measured solely by noting the large numbers of people who do not bother to vote in elections–is itself proof that the futility and corruption of bourgeois politics has become a part of U.S. folklore.

In Marxist theory the whole point of elections is to give the proles the illusion that they have a say in the outcome and how the country is run. But they don't and they shouldn't. At least, not by the bourgeois world view.

What Marxists should do about this was debated quite a bit before the Russian Revolution. On the one hand, a faction believed that once the workers had cast off their chains and appropriated the means of production (the industrial plant), then the proletariat would be able to vote truly and well because the capitalist bourgeoisie would not be allowed or able to blinker them and the natural purity of their proletariat hearts. Hence, right away elections could continue to be hled and this time, dadgummit, they actually would mean something.

The competing view, held by the Russian Bolsheviks, was that they were the "vanguard of the revolution" and that therefore Marx's instruction of the necessity of a temporary dictatorship of the proletariat -- meaning by Lenin and his gang, not the general proletariat - was the key to bringing forth True Communism.

In Marxism-Leninism, true communism was a state in which material production was so great that all human needs were met without shortage. Greed would therefore disappear and the inherent but capitalist-suppressed natural nobility of men and women would emerge. They would be transformed into true communists - altruists who worked each day for the good of the people, not for crass, selfish profit. 

The vanguard revolutionaries understood that to leap from workers in chains, unaware of how deluded and ignorant they really were, and in political infancy, to the status of the True Communist Man was stupidly unrealistic. So their own dictatorship was a deplorable but critically-important step to bring the long-oppressed and unenlightened proles to political maturity and understanding. Truly fair, honest and meaningful elections certainly would be held - eventually. Just not yet. But trust us, it's right around the corner, any day now. Forever.

So Soviet elections - and those of every other socialist country ever -- were a complete sham and were supposed to be a sham. The education and political training of the general proletariat was not quite complete and if we let them have a real say in matters, they will only enchain themselves once again. So for the proles' own good the vanguard of the revolution (maybe in its fourth generation by now!) must also be the conservators of the revolution.

Since the Democrat party is utterly dominated by a Marxist world view, it's no surprise that the system is (a) rigged like this, and (b) Sanders knows it is and says so. But don't think for a minute that he thinks it is unfair.

When you lie down with dogs don't be surprised that you get up with fleas. And when socialists hold elections, don't be surprised that they are the most crooked elections ever.

Here is an explanation of the competing Marxist view of elections, but this view did not prevail:
http://www.isreview.org/issues/13/marxists_elections.shtml

Update: That US elections are rigged has long been a staple of Leftist thought, but now is very solidly established on the far right as well. FOFB just today. Funny how this summarizes what Marxist Saba said 36 years ago.

Update: Heh!

Marxists and headlines you can't make up

Nope, not fake news:

They obviously do not understand the idea of the "Revolutionary Vanguard." Speaking of which, "Eric Holder: ‘Elections are Officially Rigged’ by Republicans, Not Voter Fraud."

These two headlines are linked if you are conversant in Marxist theory. As for Holder's accusation, I will say about him what I said about Bernie Sanders while he was running against Hillary during the 2016 primaries: "Elections are supposed to be rigged." So why was Sander apparently surprised that the DNC and the Clinton campaign were actively colluding to deliver the nomination to her? 

The intersection between the two stories is the Marxist concept of the Revolutionary Vanguard. Here is what I posted then:

In 1980 a Marxist writer explained how elections work - and are supposed to work - in a bourgeoisie country (and the USA is definitely that). After delineating the tedium and manufactured excitement of the primaries and delegate counting and national political conventions and all the rest of American politics, writer Paul Saba explains how the elections were "Reaffirming the Marxist Theory of the State":

What is the purpose of this elaborate extravaganza? Marxists have long noted that insofar as its stated purpose is concerned–determining the question of political power in modern society–it is no more than a charade, a political sleight of hand in which the more things seem to change, the more do they remain the same. But Marxists do not deserve any special credit for making such an observation. One hardly has to be a Marxist to grasp the fact that bourgeois elections do not, in any way, impinge upon or alter questions of power. The general cynicism among the masses toward politics and politicians–a cynicism which runs far deeper than can be measured solely by noting the large numbers of people who do not bother to vote in elections–is itself proof that the futility and corruption of bourgeois politics has become a part of U.S. folklore.

In Marxist theory the whole point of elections is to give the proles the illusion that they have a say in the outcome and how the country is run. But they don't and they shouldn't. At least, not by the bourgeois world view.

What Marxists should do about this was debated quite a bit before the Russian Revolution. On the one hand, a faction believed that once the workers had cast off their chains and appropriated the means of production (the industrial plant), then the proletariat would be able to vote truly and well because the capitalist bourgeoisie would not be allowed or able to blinker them and the natural purity of their proletariat hearts. Hence, right away elections could continue to be held and this time, dadgummit, they actually would mean something.

The competing view, held by the Russian Bolsheviks, was that they were the "vanguard of the revolution" and that therefore Marx's instruction of the necessity of a temporary dictatorship of the proletariat -- meaning by Lenin and his gang, not the general proletariat - was the key to bringing forth True Communism.

In Marxism-Leninism, true communism was a state in which material production was so great that all human needs were met without shortage. Greed would therefore disappear and the inherent but capitalist-suppressed natural nobility of men and women would emerge. They would be transformed into true communists - altruists who worked each day for the good of the people, not for crass, selfish profit. 

The vanguard revolutionaries understood that to leap from workers in chains, unaware of how deluded and ignorant they really were, and in political infancy, to the status of the True Communist Man was stupidly unrealistic. So their own dictatorship was a deplorable but critically-important step to bring the long-oppressed and unenlightened proles to political maturity and understanding. Truly fair, honest and meaningful elections certainly would be held - eventually. Just not yet. But trust us, it's right around the corner, any day now. Forever.

Understand that the only time the Vanguard actually seized power was in the aftermath of the Russian civil war that followed the Russian revolution. And the Vanguard were all of the privileged classes of Russia. In fact, the Vanguard must be of the privileged classes of the society that is overturned, because only the well educated men and women of the non-working classes have the leisure time to study how Marxism works. (Well, it doesn't work, but you get what I mean, I hope).

Remember, the point of Marxist revolutions is not to empower the people, it is to brings the reins of state power to the Marxist revolutionaries. Which always means the Vanguard because for the proles' own good the vanguard of the revolution (maybe in its fifth generation by now!) must also be the conservators of the revolution. As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end, amen.

So it's just as well the Swarthmore College Marxist club disbanded because they sure were lousy Marxists.

Elections are still rigged

In 1980 a Marxist writer explained how elections work - and are supposed to work - in a bourgeoisie country (and the USA is definitely that). After delineating the tedium and manufactured excitement of the primaries and delegate counting and national political conventions and all the rest of American politics, writer Paul Saba explained how the elections were "Reaffirming the Marxist Theory of the State":

What is the purpose of this elaborate extravaganza? Marxists have long noted that insofar as its stated purpose is concerned–determining the question of political power in modern society–it is no more than a charade, a political sleight of hand in which the more things seem to change, the more do they remain the same. But Marxists do not deserve any special credit for making such an observation. One hardly has to be a Marxist to grasp the fact that bourgeois elections do not, in any way, impinge upon or alter questions of power. The general cynicism among the masses toward politics and politicians–a cynicism which runs far deeper than can be measured solely by noting the large numbers of people who do not bother to vote in elections–is itself proof that the futility and corruption of bourgeois politics has become a part of U.S. folklore.

In Marxist theory the whole point of elections is to give the proles the illusion that they have a say in the outcome and how the country is run. But they don't and they shouldn't. At least, not by the bourgeois world view.

What Marxists should do about this was debated quite a bit before the Russian Revolution. On the one hand, a faction believed that once the workers had cast off their chains and appropriated the means of production (the industrial plant), then the proletariat would be able to vote truly and well because the capitalist bourgeoisie would not be allowed or able to blinker them and the natural purity of their proletariat hearts. Hence, right away elections could continue to be held and this time, dadgummit, they actually would mean something.

But in American Democrat party theory, that day is still a long time off.

Levi Tillemann, an author, inventor, and former official with the Obama administration’s Energy Department, moved back home [to Colorado] to make a run against Coffman. He focused his campaign on clean elections, combatting climate change, “Medicare for All,” free community college, and confronting economic inequality and monopoly power. Another candidate for the nomination, Jason Crow, a corporate lawyer at the powerhouse Colorado firm Holland & Hart and an Army veteran, meanwhile, appeared to have the backing of the Democratic establishment, though it wasn’t explicit.

But that was about to change. Steny Hoyer, the No. 2 Democrat in the House of Representatives, went to Denver and met with Tilleman.

Tillemann met the minority whip at the Hilton Denver Downtown to make the case that the party should stay neutral in the primary and that he had a more plausible path to victory than the same centrism that Coffman had already beaten repeatedly. Hoyer, however, had his own message he wanted to convey: Tillemann should drop out. In a frank and wide-ranging conversation, Hoyer laid down the law for Tillemann. The decision, Tillemann was told, had been made long ago. It wasn’t personal, Hoyer insisted, and there was nothing uniquely unfair being done to Tillemann, he explained: This is how the party does it everywhere.

Tilleman recorded the conversation, though, and you can hear it at the link. 

The establishment Democrat party has become the Revolutionary Vanguard of Marxism-Leninism. The Russian Bolsheviks, seeing themselves as the Vanguard, took to heart Marx's instruction that a temporary dictatorship of the proletariat - meaning by Lenin and his gang, not the general proletariat - was the key to bringing forth True Communism.

The vanguard revolutionaries understood that to leap from workers in chains, unaware of how deluded and ignorant they really were, and in political infancy, to the status of the True Communist Man was stupidly unrealistic. So their own dictatorship was a deplorable but critically-important step to bring the long-oppressed and unenlightened proles to political maturity and understanding. Truly fair, honest and meaningful elections certainly would be held - eventually. Just not yet. But trust us, it's right around the corner, any day now. Forever.

Understand that the only time the Vanguard actually seized power was in the aftermath of the Russian civil war that followed the Russian revolution. And the Vanguard were all of the privileged classes of Russia. In fact, the Vanguard must be of the privileged classes of the society that is overturned, because only the well educated men and women of the non-working classes have the leisure time to study how Marxism works. (Well, it doesn't work, but you get what I mean, I hope).

Remember, the point of Marxist revolutions is not to empower the people, it is to brings the reins of state power to the Marxist revolutionaries. Which always means the Vanguard because for the proles' own good the vanguard of the revolution (maybe in its fifth generation by now!) must also be the conservators of the revolution. As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end, amen.

And that is the state of the political establishment in America today. 

Trump has no idea what he's up against

Three years ago I wrote that there would never be another Republican president again:

No one, and I mean absolutely no one, in the Democrat party is in the slightest interested in reining in Obama's expansion of executive diktat because they know what few of the rest of us are awakening to: the Democrats are never going to lose that executive authority again. Let me be clear, with a promise to elucidate another day: there is never going to be another Republican president. Ever.

The media will not examine Obama's imperialist manner because they do not want to. They agree with it. The courts are literally unable to enforce their rulings contra this administration; Obama ignores them at will and without consequence. The Republicans are dominated by the Political Class and lack the numbers, influence, collective will and ideological conviction to rein in the administration even if they had the ability to do so, which they don't.

Obama knows that he does not need to make anyone "happy," that there in fact is no political base that must be appeased or pleased - where else will the base go? The president of the United States is now quite literally a dictate-er: he orders what he wishes and implements what he chooses.

When the Left gets power, they never let go. Trump is the Republican anti-Republican but he has no idea what he's up against. Start here, for instance. Manipulating U.S. Elections: 10 Ways Voting Is Being Hacked by the Left.

Why anyone thinks that this November will feature an honest election is beyond me. In Marxist (which is to say, Democrat) thinking, elections are supposed to be rigged.

What is the purpose of this elaborate extravaganza? Marxists have long noted that insofar as its stated purpose is concerned–determining the question of political power in modern society–it is no more than a charade, a political sleight of hand in which the more things seem to change, the more do they remain the same. But Marxists do not deserve any special credit for making such an observation. One hardly has to be a Marxist to grasp the fact that bourgeois elections do not, in any way, impinge upon or alter questions of power. The general cynicism among the masses toward politics and politicians–a cynicism which runs far deeper than can be measured solely by noting the large numbers of people who do not bother to vote in elections–is itself proof that the futility and corruption of bourgeois politics has become a part of U.S. folklore. (Paul Saba, 1980, "Reaffirming the Marxist Theory of the State".)

The entire orienting point of elections in the Democrat party is not to give the people the power to decide anything, but to make them think they do. Think not? Two names and I rest my case: Sanders, Wasserman-Schulz.

"My grandfather voted Republican til the day he died . . .

... and from then on always voted Democrat."

So goes the old Southerners' joke. Well, no one's laughing now. Investigators for news and law enforcement alike have found dead voters in Colorado. 

And in Virginia. And more in Virginia. 

And in Los Angeles.

And Colorado again.

And nearly two million dead voters in the whole country.

I have said it before, but yet again:

Start here, for instance. Manipulating U.S. Elections: 10 Ways Voting Is Being Hacked by the Left. Why anyone thinks that this November will feature an honest election is beyond me. In Marxist (which is to say, Democrat) thinking, elections are supposed to be rigged.

What is the purpose of this elaborate extravaganza? Marxists have long noted that insofar as its stated purpose is concerned–determining the question of political power in modern society–it is no more than a charade, a political sleight of hand in which the more things seem to change, the more do they remain the same. But Marxists do not deserve any special credit for making such an observation. One hardly has to be a Marxist to grasp the fact that bourgeois elections do not, in any way, impinge upon or alter questions of power. The general cynicism among the masses toward politics and politicians–a cynicism which runs far deeper than can be measured solely by noting the large numbers of people who do not bother to vote in elections–is itself proof that the futility and corruption of bourgeois politics has become a part of U.S. folklore. (Paul Saba, 1980, "Reaffirming the Marxist Theory of the State".) 

The entire orienting point of elections in the Democrat party is not to give the people the power to decide anything, but to make them think they do. Think not? Two names and I rest my case: Sanders, Wasserman-Schulz.

Remember what Stalin said: "It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything."

Communism didn't fail the people, the people failed it

So MIT Press publishes a "Communism for Kids" book,

... written by a German author who specializes in political theory and "queer politics," was released last month. The thesis of the children's book is that communism is "not that hard," but has not been implemented in the right way.

Ah, yes, the oldest apologetic for communism there is: Communism has not been found difficult and lacking, it just has never been tried correctly.

When someone posted a question on Quora, "Why is communism a failed ideology?" it garnered a number of responses, including one that laboriously explained,

Communism is not a failed ideology, people failed to live up to communism. 

However, the writer did go on to call the whole communist ideology "quixotic" and unrealistic. Although he did not say so, communism is in fact a religion based on the ideology of the perfectibility of human beings through controlled economies. As I quoted a conversation between two Soviet army officers in "Why planned economies cannot succeed,"

"And who, in your view, will carry the sewage under communism?"

The question [wrote Suvorov] was so simple and it was put in such a mocking tone, it was like being pole-axed. . . . Before, everything had been absolutely clear: everyone works as he wants and as much as he wants, according to his ability, and he receives whatever he wants and as much as he wants, i.e., according to his needs. . . .

You want to be a teacher? Right then, every kind of work is honored in our society. You want to be a wheat farmer? What work can be more honourable than to provide the people with bread? You want to be a diplomat - the way is open!

But who will be busy in the sewers? Is it possible that there will be anybody who will say, ‘Yes, this is my vocation, this is my place, I am not fit for anything better?’ 

Finally, Suvorov hit upon the answer: "Everyone will clean up after himself!" The other man responded, "Take Kiev, for instance, and see how much of its one and a half million inhabitants arranges his own sewerage system, in his free time, and cleans it and maintains it in good order." He continued,

"Who, under communism, will bury the corpses? Will it be self-service or will amateurs carry out the work in their spare time? There is plenty of dirty work in a society and not everyone is a general or a diplomat. Who will carve up the pig carcasses? And who will sweep the streets and cart off the rubbish? . . . Will there be any waiters under communism? . . .

"And finally, for someone who at present has not the slightest idea about how to set about sewage-cleaning, like Comrade Yakubovskiy himself for instance, has he any personal interest at all in the arrival of that day, when he will have to clean up his own crap all by himself? . . .

"What, exactly, does an ordinary, run-of-the-mill Secretary of the District Party Committee stand to gain from this communism? Eh? Plenty of caviar? But he’s got so much caviar already that he can even eat it through his [rear end] if he wishes. A car? But he has two personal Volga cars and a private one as well. Medical care? Food, women, a country house? But he already has all these things. So our dear Secretary of the most Godforsaken District Party Committee stands to gain bugger-all from communism!  

"And what will he lose? He will lose everything . . . . He will lose his country house, his personal physicians, his hirelings and his guards. [So for party officials] communism has long since ceased to be of any interest to them at all." 

And that is precisely why planned economies -- meaning communism and its precursor, socialism -- cannot work: when the people of the society are serfs to be told what to do (and they have to be, otherwise the economy cannot be "planned") the directors always keep hold of their power. There is no reason to give it up.

In Marxism-Leninism, the directors were called the "dictatorship of the proletariat." The term was Marx's, but the implementation was Lenin's. Not long after Marx's death there arose debates among his disciples on what to do about elections once the worker had driven the bourgeoisie from power. Marx had insisted that bourgeoisie elections were completely rigged so that no matter who "won," the economics and power structure of the country would not change. Elections were a sham designed to do one thing only: deceive the proles that they actually had a real say in the governance of the country.

What to do about this? On the one hand, one Marxist faction believed that once the workers had cast off their chains and appropriated the means of production (the generators of the economy), then the proletariat would be able to vote truly and well because the capitalist bourgeoisie would not be allowed or able to blinker them and spoil the natural purity of their proletariat hearts. Hence, right away elections could continue to be held and this time, dadgummit, they actually would mean something.

The competing view, held by the Russian Bolsheviks, was that they were the "vanguard of the revolution" and that therefore Marx's instruction of the necessity of a temporary dictatorship of the proletariat -- meaning by Lenin and his gang, not the general proletariat - was the key to bringing forth True Communism.

In Marxism-Leninism, true communism was a state in which material production was so great that all human needs were met without shortage. Greed would therefore disappear and the inherent but capitalist-suppressed natural nobility of men and women would emerge. They would be transformed into true communists -- altruists who worked each day for the good of the people, not for crass, selfish profit.

The vanguard revolutionaries understood that to leap from workers in chains, unaware of how deluded and ignorant they really were, and in political infancy, to the status of the True Communist Man was stupidly unrealistic. So their own dictatorship was a deplorable but critically-important step to bring the long-oppressed and unenlightened proles to political maturity and understanding. Truly fair, honest and meaningful elections certainly would be held - eventually. Just not yet. But trust us, it's right around the corner, any day now. Forever.

So Soviet elections -- and those of every other socialist country ever -- were wholly fake and were supposed to be wholly fake. The education and political training of the general proletariat was not quite complete and if they had a real say in matters, they would only enchain themselves once again. So for the proles' own good the vanguard of the revolution (maybe in its fourth generation by now!) must also be the conservators of the revolution.

The people did not fail communism. Communists failed communism. But then, communism was never about the welfare of the people, but the personal enrichment and aggrandizement of the communists.

This is your hospital on communism:

This is your daily commute on communism.

Or maybe this.

This is your first-class apartment home on communism:

These are typical apartment exteriors in North Korea's capital, Pyongyang. Only
the well-connected are allowed to live in the capital. These are the apartments
of the country's elites.

However:

This is your politicians' commute on communism:

Kim Jong Un rides in his personal Mercedes limousine.

This is your politicians' homes on communism:

Former retreat villa of Leonid Brezhnev, general secretary of the Communist
party of the USSR, 1964-1982. Now part of a hotel complex, it is located in Lithuania. 

Any questions?

Pelosi admits Democrat primary system is rigged

Christine Pelosi, that it, daughter of Nancy. Christine is a super-delegate to this year's Democrat convention. She was interviewed on Box Business Network this morning and - surprisingly - spoke stoutly against the way the party chooses delegates and nominees.



(Sometimes the embed code from FBN doesn't work, so if the video is not visible, here is the FBN page with it.)

Later, the network also interviewed a Republican four-time delegate whose name I don't recall. She said that the Republican system is rigged, too, and said explicitly that the Republican primary system and nomination process is not about voters getting their candidate selected, but about the party getting its choice at the convention. And she was quite content with that.

Now, if the parties want to go back to the legendary smoke-filled rooms to select a nominee, I don't care. They could draw straws, cast lots, say chants under a full moon to choose a nominee, all same-o same-o to me.

But don't lie about it. Don't tell me my vote matters when the primary season starts and then tell me later that, just kidding, it doesn't, you're going to do what you want, anyway.

As this gentleman says, "You're going to see a lot more of this":



Related:

In Marxist (which is to say, Democrat) theory, the purpose of elections is to give the voters the illusion that they have a say in how things turn out. 

And now for the Republicans, too, it seems.

Hat tip for the vid and logo to American Digest.

The polls are rigged, too

Donald Trump and Barack Obama have both said that elections are rigged. So what about political polling? Well, that too: "ABC/Wapo Effectively Admit To Poll Tampering."

Some libs see the light

How The DNC—And Media—Conned Us Into Clinton | Mediaite

And the in-the-tank-for-Hillary media figures?

Don’t tell them the Democratic Party didn’t stack the deck in favor of Clinton from day 1—we now have it in writing.

But why this surprises I do not know. After all, as I wrote last February, in socialist (aka Democrat) theory, elections are supposed to be rigged.