Anda di halaman 1dari 67

The Struggle between Capitalism and Socialism

Free-trade vs. Forced-trade 2011 Cameron Rebigsol

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

The Only Two Types of Trading..2 The Manifesto of the Communist Party A Declaration of Absolute Power Monopolization4 Effects of the Two Types of Trading10 Pseudo Values Working for Socialism..17 A Tally Sheet of Loss of the Free(-Trade) World22 The Fairytales of the Communist China..27 The Benign Capitalism and Malign Capitalism...37 Right-wingers, Lefties, Liberals, ConservativesWho Are They?.......................43 A Capitalist Constitution but Escorting Socialism...49 The Genuine Tangible American Values..55 Free-Trade Needs Vanguards from Both Ideology and Tangible Forces.60 Typical Examples of Forced-Trade66

The Only Two Types of Trading

It has been commonly accepted that the essence of capitalism is a free market. Being a most uncompromising document against capitalism and most authoritatively directing the Socialist movement, the Manifesto of the Communist Party so describes this essence:
By freedom is meant, under the present bourgeois conditions of production, free trade, free selling and buying. This talk about free selling and buying, have a meaning, if any, only in contrast with restricted selling and buying, with the fettered traders of the Middle Ages, but have no meaning when opposed to the communist abolition of buying and selling

This quotation confines the activities of trading, if free, to exist under the bourgeois conditions, but not at where the communist abolition exists. No one would dispute that the Manifesto of the Communist Party has led and enabled the strongest political worldwide tornado ever existing in human history. No one would dispute that Socialism must sternly aim at replacing capitalism. Therefore, no one should dispute that this quotation would meet no challenge in describing the free market essence of the capitalism. Selling and buying make up trading; some market, big or small, is thus needed and created. In the market people trade materials, services, notes of value, ideas... Therefore, trading is the essence of a market. The trading is called free, and genuinely free, if, and only if, the will of both the sellers and the buyers in the trading are fully respected. So respected, either a seller or a buyer can withdraw the trading without suffering any undesirable consequences when he finds the trading term unfavorable. Without this respect, no trade can be termed as free. With all these explained, we can define capitalism with more condensed essence: the essence of capitalism is free trade. Free market only means a place, but trading is not necessary happening only in a market. For example, a school is not a market, but it is where knowledge and reward are traded. In any trade, if one of the parties, either as a seller or a buyer, is forced to complete the trade, no one can say this is a free trade. At the presence of some irresistible force, or duress, one party cannot withdraw from the trade when this party found the trading term unfavorable. Contrasting to the free trade, the trade completed under force can only be called forced trade. Besides free trade and forced trade, no other model of behavior can be found existing in any trading. The only thing that can make one force trade different from another is how strong some duress is there to enforce the trade. From here on, for editing purpose, we replace free trade with free-trade and replace forced trade with forced-trade. If a person does not agree with free-trade, he must only favor forced-trade, or if he does not agree with forced-trade, he must look for free-trade. In forced-trade, one party is able to use force to set terms and make the other party to accept. The party setting terms in a forced-trade is a term setter, and the other party unable to resist the terms is a servitude bearer. The term setter

can be either a seller or a buyer, depending on the situation. Upon the completion of a forcedtrade, following some unfavorable terms, the servitude bearer has to surrender what originally belongs to him to the term setter. How much to surrender depends on the intensity of the duress. With a trade so completed, the forced-trade well matches the definition of robbery. Can anyone imagine that a servitude bearer would love force-trade? Of course not! Only the term setters love forced-trade. To have a forced-trade complete, a term setter must reject free-trade. Objecting free-trade is exactly what Socialism chases after and so openly depicted in the Manifesto of the Communist Party. Therefore, the more one demonizes capitalism, or free-trade, the more he loves Socialism, or forced-trade, or robbery. This logic is straightforward, rigidly allowing no other interpretation. The Socialist movement, classic or modern, has one never-tarnished slogan: to pursue fairness among human beings. With its nature of rejecting free-trade, how would Socialism guarantee the fairness between a term setter and the servitude bearer in any forced-trade? Besides bandits logic, what else can we think of the fairness that a forced-trade would bring out? Do we call it fair when a term setter benefits on the sacrifice of a servitude bearer? Exactly because of such a bandits logic but nothing else, some biggest murderers in human history have been intensively glamorized with the topmost loftiness. The list of these murderers includes such names: Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Che, Pol Pot, Nicolae Ceausescu All of them did what they did under the slogan of promoting fairness. All these murderers have died, but the slogan with which they reaped unbound benefit forever remains lucrative to all new generations of forced-trade lovers, or the free-trade loathers. Regardless of how the fairness promoters portray themselves with different shade of colors, ranging from reformism to revolutionary socialism, the only way they promote fairness is to realize a society in which forced-trade is a norm. According to them, free-trade is the source brewing all sickness of unfairness. Anyone who wants to direct a society must access government power. Therefore, all these fairness promoters, classic or modern, must aim at the control of a government so they can shepherd all trades into their barn of fairness. Trades completed under the direction of a power can only be of forced-trade. A power that can govern all trades must be an absolute power, the power for a tyranny, a dictator. Therefore, Socialism is actually one simple idea: to grab absolute government power to enforce force-trade in the name of fairness. Pioneering this idea is exactly the reason why Manifesto of the Communist Party can receive so much reverence from every generation of socialists. Because of time changing, a big part of this document calling on violent revolution seems outdated to some of them, but this document also has another part calling on peaceful arresting of power. Violent or peaceful, it sets up the same goal and lays out the same legitimacy for this goal for all the socialists, classic or modern. No socialist or fairness promoter can deviate from this goal, although each of them may approach the same goal through different political mean, such as gun or ballot, as predicted in Manifesto of the Communist Party. But how much fairness has Manifesto of the Communist Party, the flagship document for the fairness promoters, enabled to the human world since its debut?

2 The Manifesto of the Communist Party A Declaration of Absolute Power Monopolization

The Manifesto of the Communist Party (referred to as MCP from here on) was published in1848. One hundred years later, in 1949, the political movement led by this document ruled over one fifth of the land and one third of the population in the world. Its sweeping power shocked the world and its menacing power continuously appeared unstoppable. Its exclusive slogan of converting the entire suffering proletariat into a ruling class worldwide was the most lucrative promise that people could have ever heard in history. The Manifesto of the Communist Party is so confident what this slogan would help the fairness promoter to achieve: The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims... They have a world to win. Communists or Socialists, they are the same fairness promoters, worshiping the same ideology, and pursuing the same political goal. These two groups of people are indeed indistinguishable even by themselves. (It is also for this reason, this article will use these two terms indistinguishably but interchangeably for illustration.) The biggest crime MCP found the bourgeoisie were committing was setting up a free-market; the most devilish tool serving such crime is the cash in the free market. The bourgeoisie in Marxs time is the same as the nowadays business owners and capital holders, big or small. Through the free market, the bourgeoisie substituted the old naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation with both destruction of a mass of productive forces and the more thorough exploitation of the old ones. The bourgeoisie and its devilish tool, cash, should all together be removed from human society according to MCP. After the removal of the bourgeoisie and cash, the world should so appear, in the words of the MCP: Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable. 1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. 2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. 3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance. 4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. 5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly. 6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state. 7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. 8. Equal obligation of all to work... ...

When, in the course of development all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political poweris merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another. (T)he proletariat, by means of a revolution, makes itself the ruling class Absolute monopolization of power of a state is what these words tell the fairness promoters to go after; exclusive monopoly, shouted the MCP. One of the incurable sicknesses the Communists claim they found with the capitalist society is the monopolization of capital. To correct it, according to the MCPs list of exclusive monopoly, the fairness promoters must get hold of a far more aggressive monopolization, which is an absolute monopolization of power of a state. Naturally, then, capital merely becomes only a tiny item in the hand of the exclusive monopoly. Bandits logic is so candidly displayed without any reservation. If any dictionary needs example to explain the meaning of absurdity, the MCP has offered the most vivid one. Other than a list of exclusive monopoly, the MCP has no word on how this monopolized power is governed and exercised. Neither has it words on who will represent the ruling class to carry out the will in exercising the monopolized powers. For an untold reason, Mr. Marx and Mr. Engels left behind only this vague statement to answer these questions: everything has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character... (T)he proletariat makes itself the ruling class In other words, the MCP virtually leaves the discussion on personal leadership blank. A society without a chief is a typical Utopian society; all Communist can only reject it because of the driving force of their ambition. Therefore, it is impossible for Marx and Engels to have been unaware of this vital point of leadership in a society they were after. However, the positions these two intellects had earned in the Communist Movement did bring them some inconvenience. To openly place themselves in a position to grab power was nevertheless offensive to the rest surrounding them. On the other hand, if what they wrote became a detailed tool with which someone else could grab the power, it would be against their ambition. Thanks to another more candid Communist warrior, Vladimir Lenin, finally disclosed how this leadership should be formed. Lenin proposed dictatorship of the proletariat to fill in the communist leadership. To frame up the leadership, according to his writings, called Leninism, those who were to assert the dictatorship for the proletariat must be those who were the "revolutionary vanguard" in the Communist Party. The party could only achieve this aims through a form of disciplined organization termed democratic centralism. Of course, with the leadership Lenin had grasped in his party, would anyone need to guess who could centralize the democracy inside the revolutionary vanguard? In constructing the communist leadership, he had one famous statement: There are no morals in politics; there is only experience. A scoundrel may be of use to us just because he is a scoundrel. Why did Lenin, one of the most successful communist leaders, with all the loftiness that all the communists can cast at him, feel the need to use scoundrel? The only reason must be, of course, for his success in the Communist Movement! But we have another question here.

Who is more scoundrelly between the bourgeoisie in his list of removal and the scoundrel in the list he planned to use? Logic and experience tell us that a scoundrel can only be submissive to and used by a person with a mentality that is more scoundrelly. Conversely, he who is not scoundrelly enough to realize the leaders will and plan must be eliminated. Then upon his success, this top leading figure can only be swarmed by nobody else but scoundrel subordinators. Wont this qualify the top leading figure as the topmost scoundrel? It is exactly because of such a scoundrelly nature in organizing the dictatorship of the proletariat that Lenin was succeeded by Joseph Stalin. Being unyieldingly submissive to Lenin until Lenins death, Stalin, one of the most infamous murderers in history, praised Lenin with every lofty word he could find until Stalin himself died. Power in hand, taking no moral but experience in politics for granted, every Socialist/Communist fairness promoter would make sure he is the first one to enjoy the fairness. During the Russian Civil War, when Lenin learnt that one of his troops was delayed by a big swarm of prostitutes in a little town, he ordered to have all the prostitutes executed. Killing the prostitutes for his career success on the one hand, Lenin did have official record of contracting syphilis on the other hand. Which group of women fit Lenins list of sufferers? How to promote fairness among sufferers depends on how the sufferers are seen fair to the promoters. Similar things happened to another extraordinary superior leader of the Communist Movement. At the eve of the Chinese Cultural Revolution, when Mao learnt someone acted as a pimp for an underground sexual business in Shanghai, he ordered to execute the pimp. When he was advised by his private doctor that he had contracted with gonorrhea, he laughed: It doesnt matter; I can wash it clean with other womens bodies. No more is clear that, in the name of fairness, the MCP legitimates robbery, murdering. Only those who are scoundrelly enough would be selected by someone like Lenin, Mao to carry out proletariat dictatorship in promoting their fairness. The list of fairness includes raping, adulteryso long as the one commits it has power. Lenin, Stalin, Maothey all portrayed themselves as the MCP followers with the most loyalty. Far surpassing any highway robbery that may aim at anything ranging from materials to cash, jewelry, gold bullions the rubbery the MPC encourages aims at factories, tracts of land, bank, government infrastructure Nakedly, the Manifesto of the Communist Party is a document written for people with scoundrelly mind. With its bandits logic, it encourages these scoundrels to pursue absolute monopolization of power of a state. Finally, only the most scoundrelly few can dominate such power. First time ever in history, human beings created a systematic theory to glamorize robbery, pillage, plundering, all forms of forced-trading. In a society that forced-trade is a norm, a more powerful term setter can aim at anything and everything of any citizen who is less powerful, all the way up to ones life and family. To succeed in a robbery, one must be powerful and merciless. This is precisely the nature of all the force-trade political machines devised according to the MPC. More than one hundred million lives wasted between 1917 and the 1970s no better witnessed this cold blood nature. However, the blood of so many lives does not even slightly tarnish the slogan that the fairness promoters consistently swarm over. Newer generations of those who conceive themselves as

sufferers continue to stare intensely at the lavish slogan, dreaming of quickly converting themselves into a ruling class, at least a class of free enjoyment. With the Soviet Bloc disappearing, Communist Movement seems to have plunged into a valley. However, in less than twenty years after the collapse of the Soviet Communist Empire, the socialist torches rekindle with a more widely spread flames, burning even at the doorstep of America. Governments of the entire West, thought to be capitalist, have all been at least partially reined to cooperate with force-trade, robing one group of citizens so that another group of citizens can reap benefit without proper contribution. Robbing through government power is what the MCP is all about. The Soviet Union died miserably, but the MCPs bandits logic moves on with new life. In the old time, the MCPs goal relies on violence to arrive at; in the new time, the same goal has found a better and more efficient and profitable way to become reality. This better and more efficient and profitable way is actually the second strategy of the MCP found in the following words: the Communists everywhere In all these movements, they bring to the front, as the leading question in each, the property question they labor everywhere for the union and agreement of the democratic parties of all countries. Using the strategy of union and agreement, veiled with human right and civil right, flooding the society with hedonism, the fairness promoters are able to hijack ballot boxes all over with suffrages driven by Communist wish, the so called fair sharing. No, hijacking ballot boxes does not mean that violence has become useless to the fairness promoters. Indeed, violence is always there to pressure the reaching of union and agreement. The Greece crisis beginning in 2010 fully witnessed the employment of both strategies by the fairness promoters. More than consistently, the democratic parties of all countries just tamely buckle their knees at the new wave of Socialist movement. Stand up, damned of the Earth prisoners of hungerenslaved massesThe world is about to change its foundation. We are nothing, let us be all (Lyrics from the International Anthem) The slogan used by the fairness promoters can permanently retain its luster as soon as there are some people feeling they are suffering. Wealth and poverty are always displayed in a relative scale. In any society, there must always be more people feeling poor and unsatisfied than feeling rich and satisfied. This social phenomenon always hatches unhappiness for power hunters to take advantage, in the name of fair sharing and saving the sufferers. This is to say that those who feel unhappy are not necessary the power hunters, while those power hunters can very possibly be someone who feels no suffering at all. The power hunters just use those unhappy guys for a bigger ambition. The entire history of Communist Movement can only display how the power hunters have realized their ambition by ridding on the current of unhappiness they found. Karl Marx was from a family that enabled him to attend a university at the time he claimed that most of the populace struggled at the economic edge of life and death. Fredrick Engels himself was an elated bourgeoisie, whom the Manifesto of the Communist Party that he shared

writing asked to remove. Lenin was from a family so rich that could support him to attend university in a society of which the economic foundation is serfdom. Mao Zedong, another prominent leading figure of the Communist Movement, was from a family that should be the richest in their immediate community. The economic status of Maos family was so good that, after Mao seized the power in China, people displaying equivalent economic condition in any part of the country could easily be executed by Maos government. After the execution, of course, property was confiscated. Maos lifetime second man Zhou Enlai was from a prestige official family of the previous Chink Dynasty. Almost every member in the leading core of the previous Vietcong, North or South, during the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s was from families of well-to-do. So were the members of the leading core of the Cambodia Communist who decimated one quarter of the nations population in three years during the early 1970s. Were any of these who stand up after they grabbed the power the damned of the Earth prisoners of hungerenslaved masses? No! But they were just someone who was able to agitate a big population to sing this song. Clearly, suffering failed to be the reason for those classic communist power hunters to launch all these historical massacres; they just magnified and take advantage others unhappy feeling. In the modern days, however, some celebrated business owners just repeated the same mode of power hunting. Free market is not working. What Chairman Mao said is kind of true: Power comes from the gun barrel, said one businessman in a human right assembly in America. Gun barrel, what a lovely tool that enables someone to become a term setter! Nakedly, a businessman expresses unsatisfactory with what free market can bring to him but aims at what a gun barrel can seize. What amazes people is that this businessman is not alone in the modern society. Many more social programs that would only pave the way to socialism are launched and supported by many who are super rich. How about providing funds to support the legalization of marijuana? How about providing funds to make certain that the American southern border stays irreparable? How about providing funds to make certain that almost every movement made by Christianity in America faces litigation? Why do all these well-to-do people, classical or modern, are willing to risk so much in some movement that worships a mindset declaring eventually to have them removed? If their investment will not enable them to recoup something far more worthwhile but to have them removed, will they still risk what they have invested? History shows that, at least to those classic power hunters, when they finally stand up with satisfaction, they would have held something far surpassing what their original social status can provide them with. Arent all these enough to tell how hypocritical the nature of the Communist/Socialist Movement is? Typically, why was Engels so willingly to join Marx in a perfect political combination, knowing that Marxism must aim at abolishing someone like Engels himself, as well as his familys fortune? The lucrative position of a term setter in a future forced-trade society could be the only answer. We see the same combination similar to that of Marx and Engels more and more often in the contemporary West. When opportunity fits, big capital holders and big labor chiefs do not hesitate to search for the same political representatives in the same government. People should see enough of similar alliance in the process how the national health care act is passed in America. When the Occupy movement happened in 2011, reports indicated some

wealthy men volunteering the subsidizing to this movement. Were these men willing to have their own belonging or somebody elses to be occupied? Occupy, a naked word of forcedtrade, seamlessly meets every socialist sense that the MCP calls on. What wealthy men do is forever investing, investing, and investing. Here came the opportunity that some of them hated to let go of. The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles, said MCP. Marx and Engels were both correct on that. But does it mean that class struggle no longer exists after their proletariats abduct the power of a state? Or, did these two men just hide something untold? Regardless of how one may detail in classifying social members, there are ultimately only two classes: the one that rules and the one that is ruled. Human instinct of dominance must make these two classes impossible to be eliminated from any society. Hiding this fact from people, Marx and Engels, including Lenin, Mao, also hid from people the fact that the ruling of their dictatorship of proletariats needed a class to be ruled. Class struggle must exist between the ruling and the ruled. Why class struggle in any other society must be so openly damned but class struggle under the dictatorship of proletariats needed to be hid? Why must people need to replace one class struggle with another class struggle of far more cruelty at the cost of more than 100 million corpses? Didnt we previously mention how MCP demanded exclusive monopoly of power to remove monopolization of capital if the capital is in someone elses hand? To endorse the replacement of smaller monopoly with a bigger monopoly, to legitimate murdering in scale beyond any limit for a society of no people struggling, arent all these enough to reveal the MCPs nature of bandits logic? Hypocrisy of the Socialist movement is so consistent, beginning even right at its first theoretical debut. Without hypocrisy, however, Socialism cannot promote what it promotes: force-trade, plain robbery, but necessarily termed as fair sharing. Now, at this point, the MCP should have told us enough that not only it is written for those power hunters who have scoundrelly mind, but it is also written without any intention of rescuing the damned of the Earth prisoners of hungerenslaved masses Instead of rescuing, it just created more as shown in some bygone history. Veiled under a dazzling slogan of promoting fairness, the bandits logic found in the MCP surpasses any scheme in human history in wickedness, deception, cruelty, violence, greediness, and hypocrisy. The MCP just pioneered a huge volume of encyclopedia of bandits logics that were later piled up by Lenin, Stalin, Mao Zedong as well as, of course, by the various constitutions enforced in all those socialist/communist countries. The entire MCP only aims at one goal: exclusive monopoly of power of a state.

Effects of the Two Types of Trading

In the animal world forced-trade is nearly the only form of ownership trading, or transferring. The ownership covers prey, mate, and territory. The completion of the ownership trading relies on rules of jungle; blood shedding and life loss are norms in the trading. Ownership trading of anything in such procedure also happens in the human society, and it is called robbery, pillage, plundering He who enforces such changing hand of possession is called a bandit. Depending on the scale of robbery, blood shedding including loss of life constantly happens between the bandit and those resisting the bandit. While trading is necessary to the continuity of a community, more and more people realize that they must avoid blood shedding. Blood shedding only harms the continuity of a community, adding cost to the trading. The only way to avoid blood shedding in the trading is to respect the will of all parties involved in the trading. Will respected, free-trade is born, and the so called civilization begins. The advent of cash gradually replaces bartering in most of the trading. However, no matter forced-trade or free-trade, it appears only because of one reason: Someone wants a better survival (Therefore it is too bad for the loser in the forced-trade). The desire of better survival is to satisfy an animal instinct: animal greed, with which every human is born. Driven by this animal greed, all traders in both types of trading, except the loser in a forced-trade, share one principle in common: seeking maximum benefit at the minimum cost. The loser in a forced-trade is forced to lose profit as much as possible at cost out of his control. To exert forced-trade, all one needs is to have enough violent force just like a stronger animal. On the other hand, to complete a free-trade deal, people generally need a peaceful environment, in which civilized manner, intelligence, experience and education are indispensable. As such, free-trade is a born weaker form of human activity than forced-trade. Any peaceful environment needs forceful protection from wild force, whereas human greed is a good generator of wild force. Without education and wisdom, no human instinct will lead trading to become a free one. Besides external force, forced-trade has another weapon to conquer the world of trading. It is its goal, a principle as well, that the free-trade believers also commonly shared: maximum profit at the lowest cost. If this goal is properly dangled, it can buckle many knees of the free-trade believers who cannot escape from the human instinct. Therefore, free-trade can be compromised externally by outside force and internally by the traders human instinct. All these considered, free-trade is destined far more vulnerable than forced-trade. In the animal world, forced-trade is realized on a one-on-one confrontation most of the time. Usually it is the stronger individual coming out as a victor. Different from the wild animals, people often make themselves strong by ganging up in dealing with the confrontation. Ganging helps them to either win a forced-trade or fend off forced-trade exerted by others. Gangs may be of any size, spanning from small group of only two people to as big as a country, or even alliance of countries. Considering how much more vulnerable free-trade can be compared to forced-trade, we can only conclude that gangs for forced-trade consistently enjoy a more powerful social status than those for free-trade ever since the beginning of history.

No matter how a gang is formed, the social status and benefit of a term setter constantly lures everyone. This is to say that, even inside the gang for free-trade, someone must necessarily more or less dream of being a term setter of certain degree. When opportunity exists, he will access it. The goal and principle of maximum benefit at the lowest cost permanently drives everyone in interest trading. With what is biologically equipped, human beings must be a loser in the wild nature if they do not gang up. However, the force resulted from the ganging up must lead them to exert forcedtrade onto other people besides the environment. In enforcing and resisting forced-trade, freetrade gradually got into shape between gangs of compatible power. As history moves on, gangs favoring free-trade gradually gain strength in all fronts: masses, self-value awareness, education, experience, wealth controlling. Their ever increasing strength slowly forces ruling gangs to reduce their viciousness in exerting forced-trade. Slowly, ruling gangs of more violent nature are replaced by gangs that are mellower toward interest trading. Because only free-trade and forcedtrade are there shaping human interest exchanging, when one rises, the other one must decline. Finally, after the cruel slavery period and the less malignant serfdom or feudal time, human beings bring in a capitalist society. One can demonize capitalism in any way he wants, as what Marx did, no one can find any society in which interest trading can be more freely done than in a capitalist society. By freely we mean the minimal presence of duress in guiding the trading. The trading freedom in a capitalist society is openly admitted by the MCP, the one writing with the most vicious ideology aiming at the removal of such a society. Let us briefly review how free-trade and forced-trade have made difference in a societys prosperity. A feudal society shows more prosperity than a slavery society. Intertwining with this is the fact that the barbarian intensity of forced-trade in the feudal society is lower than in a slavery society. Having evolved from the feudal society, a capitalist society removes the forcedtrade from the society to the fullest extent. Intertwining with such a removal is the fact that a capitalist society shows the unprecedented prosperity in human history. For this, America has provided the best evidence to the world, showing how maximally reducing forced-trade has enabled the birth of the strongest economic country known to human. The formation of America is even free of any historical burden of feudalist influence that many other European countries must inherit. America has the historical opportunity to enjoy the pure sublimation of capitalist practice in her early history. However, the opportunity America once enjoyed is rapidly fading. Some people even suspect if America has been approaching the verge of her last gasp. How could a nation survive a national debt of 14 trillion dollars (figure of mid 2011), which means a debt of 46 thousand dollars to each of her citizen? This would be a debt of nearly $200,000 for a father if he is the only bread winner in a family of four. If Americas prosperity upheaval is a result of the historical opportunity of the most unrestricted free-trade, her downturn must be a result that such freedom has been hampered. This is indeed so exclusively found. If we examine the entire Western world, we will find that all Western governments have pushed forward more and more over-swollen packages of forced-trade. All these forced-trade packages just do one thing, exactly as what the MCP glamorizes: through government power,

one group of citizens can enjoy the wealth of another group of citizens without proper contribution. Examples of these forced-trade packages include (1) big government relying on which someone can reap benefit, such as wage, luxury vacation, retirement fund, far higher than what his contribution deserves, (2) welfare system that raisers a formidable troop of single mothers with their indefinite number of children out of wedlock, (3) payment out of proportion to ones work input but exerted by labor monopolies, (4) abusively extended unemployment benefit, (5) benefit covering education and medical need of the illegal immigrants, (6) flooding loans made without qualification check or collateral binding in the name of anti-discrimination. There are many more. Some of these packages may be uniquely found in one or two nations, some of them may be universal to the entire Western world. Of course, more forced-trade can only mean more intensive stifling on free-trade as well as more relentless evaporation of national wealth. Finally, whatever free-trade can create failed to catch up what forced-trade can devout; the wealth reservoir was depleted. To rescue, someone in power or intending to access power invented more forced-trade packages. Robbery fulfilling desperate need but done through government power is so cost free and so convenient. Then people saw these packages continuously spewed in the 2000s: (1) the cover-all tax refund in the stimulus packages during the early 2000s, (2) the bail-out programs, (3) limitless illegal immigrants or legal immigrants introduced by ill-compromised laws. People allowed to rob include social members of any level. The first two forced-trade packages realize the robbery through the governments printing machine, just simply diluting the value of paper currency. The third package is to provide cheap labor to sustain the continuity of many businesses. The robbery of the third package is neither direct nor obvious in terms of paper money, but its robbery nature hidden underneath is more aggressive. The robbery so hidden targets at the most valuable resource of a country: the land that cannot be reproduced. It is mathematically rigid that one extra immigrant, legal or illegal, must mean one extra share of living space and land carving out of the share from what the original citizens entitle in the country. Politicians from different background release all these forced-trade packages for different political issues. The effete of all these packages is the same: withering free-trade, which must take time, endurance, education to create anything. While the forced-trade packages allow people to rob wealth, the politicians launching all these forced-trade packages rob one thing: suffrages. People used to think that it is illegal for the Western politicians to buy suffrage with private fund. Ironically, however, the Western political arena makes it perfectly legal, or even morally lofty, for the politicians to buy suffrages with public wealth. The more a politician can promise to dig into the government treasure vault for the sufferers, the more he can be successful in his political career. Those sufferers in the politicians helping list may range from a single mother of ten children with different surname to those who are too big to fail. After the Soviet Bloc crashed, Marx and Engels have regained their smile. Of course, those too big to fail may sooner or later become the source to be chased for digging by the politicians, depending on how a robbery scheme is needed and carried out. This is what the MCP and its idealized socialism are all about: find the rich and share!

In contrast to the success ever propelled forward by free-trade in the earlier American history, all socialist countries are unexceptionally barren and desolated. Devastated by dire

poverty for too long but envying what the West, particularly America, can achieve, the Communist China introduced an economic reformation thirty years ago. The reformation is nothing else but just to restore the free-trade that the MCP vows to remove with communist abolition. Coupled with the endeavor and endurance that Chinese revere in their cultural tradition, free-trade invigorates China to surpass the worlds economically powerful countries one after one, from a starting line of dirt poor. Unfortunately, Chinas economic success because of the free-trade reformation is contorted by the Socialism promoters in the West, particularly in American. They purposely leave out the effect of free-trade, but tell people how Socialism has brought success to China, creating reason for more ambitious sharing in the West. What they hide from their audience is that the Communist China never allows her public to share the national wealth while the other way is true: He who is in power can limitlessly share the government treasure vault. We will have more discussion on China in Chapter 6. The contortion from the Socialists is no surprise. They have had a history of nearly two hundred years to prove that they cannot live even one day without lying and hypocrisy. Relying on bandits logic do they live; bandits logic needs lies, hypocrisy and barbarian force to survive. Free-trade encourages competition; competition encourages the elimination of the weak by the strong and thus brings out monopoly. Monopoly of any kind chases after the same goal and principle of the highest profit at the lowest cost. At the absence of competitors, a monopoly sets unidirectional terms for its trading partner to complete a trade. Naturally, a monopoly then becomes a term setter. When it is in a capitalist society, monopoly of a business and the political group holding government power cannot be the exact same group of people. There are many other types of business owners, or capital holders, who may be in monopoly or not yet. They watch closely how aggressively any other business, monopoly or not, has been able to access the government power. They must make sure the government power is balanced between them. Therefore a monopoly of business may be a term setter in the business it is in, people still have freedom to choose whether to become the servitude bearer in that particular business or not. In the socialist countries, as what the MCP models, all businesses are monopolized by the same political group that has monopolized power. Under the control of this power group people have no choice besides becoming the groups servitude bearers in every way. A capitalist society may have many monopolies for various businesses, but there appear only two general types of monopolies in material production: monopoly of capital and monopoly of labor force. There may be some other monopolies, such as pattern and copyright, but they are ideas, not forces pivoting material production. Capital and labor, these are the only two partners needed to enable material production for a society to continue. Neither of the partners can survive without the other. However, both must also constantly compete with each other under the same principle: maximum profit at the lowest cost. The more each partner can aggregate into a monopoly, the more such a partner will intend to assume the role of a term setter to enforce force-trade, pressing the other partner to submit to its term. No one can change this natural tendency unless the monopoly is destructed by a force. Naturally, this destructive force can only be from government. However, the government that can destruct can also escort and protect. So far, history shows that all capitalist governments are more willing to apply such destructive force toward monopolies of capital. All socialist governments must protect the monopolies of both types, because the socialist governments themselves are the owner of all the monopolies.


When each monopoly enforces forced-trade, the force-trade promoted by monopoly of labor force is far more menacing to human beings than the forced-trade promoted by monopoly of capital. Monopoly of capital only means monopolizing materials, but the monopoly of labor means monopolizing live humans. If monopolization means control of ownership, labor monopoly must mean control of ownership of human beings. Ownership of human beings, what an accurate synonym of enslaving! Wasnt the ancient slavery system simple a society in which someone has ownership of some other social members? In a capitalist society, the enslaving effect presented by labor monopoly is not that obvious. It is because the group controlling the government power and the group owning business monopoly or owning labor force monopoly are not the same. People can have choice from more than one monopoly and there exist some power balance between monopolies. In a socialist society, the exclusive monopoly stressed in the MCP leaves people no choice. The group controlling the government power and the group owning all monopolies are identical. Naturally, a person or a group of persons owing the government power owns everything including other humans lives. Then the few in power becomes slave owners in every sense. The enslaving power in the classic slavery society is scattered among many slave owners. The modern enslaving power set up by workers of all land unite is concentrated in the hand of only one or extremely few. A more concentrated enslaving power can only mean a more vicious slavery society. With the power so utterly concentrated, a government enforcing socialism thus also concentrates in its hand all power to commit crimes with unprecedented cruelty. Have we heard of organized human organ harvest in history? It happens in socialist countries, and only socialist countries, so far. Even before labor force monopoly converts the society but still in the capitalist society, such monopoly already effectively imposes forced-trade in the society. All powerful unions try their best to corner the business owners to a single price of labor, which must be as high as possible. On the other hand, when the business owners place the product in the market, the price of the product must be set as low as possible to survive the fierce competition. In fact, it is even the laborers who create the price competition. When each laborer goes to the market, he switches his role from a producer to a consumer. As a unionized producer, he adds the highest possible cost to a product. As a consumer, he only pays the lowest possible price for the same thing. So switching between roles with different price contribution, the laborers enjoy the normal trading principle: the highest possible profit at the lowest possible cost. So exercising this principle, they mathematically victimize the business owners, forcing the business owners to accept a reversed trading principle: the lowest profit at the highest cost. If the business owners want to win in the market he must have good skill and strenuous effort in organizing production. If businesses cannot survive in the scissors of low selling price and high labor cost, the society, mainly consisted of the laborers, will experiences difficulty. Immediately, the labor force monopolies attribute the reason of difficulty to the crime of the capitalists, the business owners, and the capital holders, or the bourgeoisie mentioned in the MCP. Stand up, damned of the Earth prisoners of hungerenslaved masses We are nothing, let us be all


In history, human beings persistently search for some society in which free-trade can be more and more revered. When the capitalist society, the most genuine free-trade society, finally arrives and enables the fullest scale of prosperity, human greed quickly leads a big group of people to swear at the prosperity. They found that they cannot share the prosperity like some others. They cry they have been robbed, regardless how much they have contributed. Human beings, the poor selfish animals! They dont care if they have robbed others, but do care if they themselves have been robbed. Occupy! shouted they. Free-trade can go on only in a peaceful environment. Its vulnerability makes many free-trade believers feel the need to appease the group of people who promote forced-trade. The abusive welfare program found in the capitalist society is one of the typical programs favoring appeasement. Appeasement can temporarily extend the peaceful time. Otherwise, without such programs, riots can burst out with high frequency at any magnitude. Unfortunately, appeasement does not dissolve the forces that revere forced-trade; it just postpones the detonating time of the bomb buried by these forces. To make it even more unfortunate, during the postponing, the party begging for appeasement just stuffs the bomb with more explosive force. When the juice for appeasement runs out, the bomb must explode without mercy. What do people expect when they try to use welfare money to calm a single mother who has ten children out of wedlock? Today, they kneel at one mother; about 20 years later down the road, they must kneel at no less than eleven people! The appease juice must run out sooner or later, at even accelerating pace. Fruit out of free-trade is limited, but human greed can be pushed beyond any bound. Socialism works great until you run out other peoples money, said Prime Minister Margret Thatcher. To make it more accurate, we would like to say Socialism works great in a capitalist society that has money for people to run. But the money must run out unless they can rid of the socialist parasite. The forced-trade lovers have long learnt that criminalizing free-trade, or capitalism, is a profitable business. The criminalization enables them to do what they want to do in the capitalist society, both violently and peacefully. In so criminalizing, all they need to do is to inherit the same tools that have once helped free-trade, or capitalism, to set feet in human history. These tools are nothing else but some political terms that have been long widely loved all over; they are the so called democracy, freedom, human rights, and fairness. Because they are so widely loved, law practice in the capitalist society has endowed these few terms with power superior to laws. For example, in the name of separating church and state, democracy alone can strip off the Christianitys privilege of enjoying defense stipulated in the US Constitution. Ironically, no any part of the Constitution has word to enforce democracy. Any authority personnel said violating any of these few terms can be straitjacketed as inhuman. Any politician in the West will have an uphill battle in his political career if he is so straitjacketed. That these few terms can never be defined in the court of law is where their killing power lurks.


The Political Terms of Pseudo Value

People can find the definition of democracy, freedom, human rights, and fairness in a dictionary. No one can define any of these few terms with accurate words in law. Simply, is abortion a practice of human right or against human right? Is buying votes from the public with government money a process of democracy or against democracy? Between intruding a private organization and the declining the same intrusion by an organization on the base of age, gender, race, social status, which one is the freedom of expression that can enjoy the protection of the law? Or which freedom must sacrifice the grandeur of the law? All these terms bear one value: to remove political restriction, regardless of the source of the restriction. Political restriction must come from political authority. Being able to remove the authority that once fortified the slavery and feudal societies in the West, capitalism gained its dominance by riding on the destructive power of these few terms. Give me liberty, or give me death! Amid such roaring crumbled the former authorities. However, on the ruin the capitalism inherits, these few terms stay, continuing their destructive power indiscriminatingly against any authority. A capitalist society must embolden authority for it to guarantee will respecting between all trading partners. Then, capitalism offers itself as the remained target to intercept the destructive bombardment from these few terms. Bombarding at free-trade can only pave the way for forced-trade, or robbery. There can be no compromise between. As such, when people use these few terms to grill the capitalist authority, they merely force the capitalist society with a yoke to legitimate robbery. Different from the MPC, these few terms legitimates robbery with anesthetic passion that is not found in document. The MPC, on the other hand, is a written document that plucks every nerve of a human in legitimating robbery with duress. The value of a gun is to kill; no user can change this value. When killing, by itself, a gun cannot distinguish between targets. It can be used to kill a thief or a policeman, depending who holds it. With the similar blindness, these few terms, democracy, freedom, human rights, and fairness, can be ideological weapons threatening authority of any type, too. Once in history these few terms enabled people to remove term setters in the older societies. Now, however, they have played the role of enabling someone to remove authority that guarantees free-trade. If the free-trade supporters believe the blind destructive power of these few terms have unidirectional values only favoring them, they just deceive themselves. The result is like a policeman having a hallucination that a gun is only good for his use but not good for the thiefs use. Behind the similar hallucination, any value the free-trade supporters believe positive to them from these few terms can only be fake to them. One quick way to test their value is in military action. Allowing these few terms to prevail must destroy any military force because they destroy authority. If these few terms, democracy, freedom, human rights, and fairness, can carry no value benefiting the continuity of a society promoting free-trade, we can only call them terms of pseudo-value to free-trade.

The precise reason these few terms cannot carry solid value is because no one can define them in terms of law. Law has value, positive or negative.


How much freedom is called freedom? Absolute freedom can only mean absolute absence of restriction from any source. No society could provide such living condition to anyone. When there are two or more people in a gathering, anyones desire of absolute freedom must infringe others desire of absolute freedom. The result can only be one of the two: Each of them compromises his desire of freedom for coexisting with the others, or one of them can powerfully rob the freedom away from the others. Any freedom losing absoluteness can only be a relative freedom under restriction. Restriction on freedom must further mean influence from some authority, which can only reject absolute freedom. Democracy means political power decentralizing and diversifying. Its purpose and function is to allow more people to experience more freedom that can be acceptable between citizens. But what is the standard measurement of the decentralizing and diversifying? If we cannot find absolute freedom, we cannot find absolute democracy. Dont the Communists also call their proletariat dictatorship, with a form of absolute centralization, a democracy? In the US Constitution, no one can find a word of democracy, but in the Communist Chinese constitution, one can find many words of democracy, at least the so called Socialist democracy. Human right is a term whose definition can be as liberal as one would like to supply. Because of this terms liberal nature in definition, some society declaring to have defended human right constantly forces its citizens to accept horrendous consequence of its defending. For example, an innocent citizen can lose his life unexpectedly and helplessly, but his murderer is tightly guarded by the government to make sure no one can jeopardize the murderers human right. To make it even more horrendous, the family of the murdered citizen will have a prolonging period ahead to be repetitively victimized. The torment they would experience includes paying tax to guarantee the murderers human right. A convicted murderer can use such tax money to access the nearly endless appealing right, and to guarantee his living condition and health condition to be acceptable to him. The human right that the convicted enjoys cannot help to make people believe that murdering is what human right stands out to defend. Such defending can be candidly interpreted as that the government grants the right of killing to those who are bad enough to kill. In America, human right protection is abreast with a list of thirty to fifty thousands of gun casualties yearly, but no more than forty convicted murderers need to face execution in the same period. If human right can be defined in terms of law, why cannot it first protect the innocent and law abiding citizens other than criminals? No logic brought out by human right application can be more upside down.

Fairness conventionally means equal enjoyment between people. Far less frequently is this term used to measure contribution between people. With it, anyone can declare the society has been unfair to him when he feels his enjoyment being different from the others. Interestingly, in todays society, those who support evolution in nature and those who demand fairness in human society well synchronize each other. Evolution in nature is an idea that has no room for fairness but survival of the fittest. It stresses the combined result of chance from the environment and an organisms striving effort for a better survival. What glues these two groups of people together is the political hunger of crushing Christianity. How is crushing Christianity related to fairness? So, none of the pseudo-value terms can be rigidly defined in the court of law. As such, it is only natural for these few pseudo-value terms to be defined in any way one wants in serving his interest. The more powerful a person is, the more accurately he can define them. With the

fluidity in their definition, with the lofty people historically attach to them while neglecting the change of eras, these few terms constantly enjoy a legal status superior to law in the West. Being superior to law means the ability to crush existing law and authority. It is so perfectly meeting the need of Socialism! In a society where free-trade is fully protected, will from every social member is naturally respected. In such a society, no one needs to stress freedom, democracy, human right and fairness. They would enjoy all these when respect comes out from each person like an instinct. However, this can only happen in a Utopian society. Human instinct is the animal greed other than will respecting. Animal greed must disallow a Utopian society to become real. This instinct directs everyone to look for interest of the highest possible profit at the lowest cost. With will respecting, free-trade comes to the show, so follow the so-called freedom, democracy, human right and fairness. Without will respecting, forced-trade dominates to the show, making freedom, democracy, human right and fairness just some possible cloaks. Given that forced-trade is so much related to human instinct and so easily herded by violence, the nature of will respecting of free-trade cannot survive without the protection from proper and forceful authority. Given that the pseudo-value terms are so indifferently destructive to all authorities, setting up a goal of reinforcing these pseudo-value terms is therefore a suicidal agenda for capitalism. Clearly, it is. An obvious example is the $16 trillion national debt (2012 figure) that took America less than a decade to accumulate. Encouraged by these pseudo-value terms, human brood parasite multiplies itself with acceleration. The illusive effect of these few terms could always makes the matter even worse. The more political disasters the pseudo-value terms lead a society to plunge into, the more dreadful the citizens feel about their living condition, the more they cry for these pseudo-value terms to be fulfilled. More and more capitalist authority disappears as more and more forced-trade is on the way gaining dominance. Turf after turf, both internationally and domestically, the West is losing. If the Western politicians care to review history, they would find that these pseudo-value terms have made the capitalist world suffer big loss. The loss is expanding. However, the West politicians seem decline to learn from lessons. The anesthetic benevolent tone from these terms continues to make them stay in political coma. It is not benevolence or malignity that decides a governments continuous existence. It is the competence or incompetence that decides its continuous existence. The communist power in China has never been benevolent to people. The record of life loss hurled in since 1921 for its final success is well known. Yet whether one would like to accept or not, Chinese Communist Party is a very competent political organization, and the government governed by this party is very competent in ruling. Regardless of how people feel they have suffered under this power, it is exactly the suffering that the power exerts on people has made all its achievements feasible. Lets review some brief history. It is said that the yearly inflation rate soared to 1,300 percent in the communist military base during the civil war. Yet with this economic figure that must be fatally destructive to any Western government, the communist power pushed the former dominant power to Taiwan. Between the years of 1959 and 1962, the mainland China had a nationwide famine that even Africa may not find a match. However, during those years, China was able to stay untouchable by any outside force. During 1966 to 1976, the so-called Cultural Revolution turned the entire

country upside down. Even the Communist leaders of later generations documented this political event as the biggest national cataclysm in Chinese history. Dire as it was in those years, the Chinese Communist government managed to have two big international events to happen in its favor. (1) The American president devoted a unidirectional effort to visit it, a country with which America had no diplomatic relationship. (2) The American military forces must retreat from the Vietnam battle ground, although the United States seemingly succeeded in blocking the communist scheme from dyeing the entire Southeast Asia red. One can infer that the Chinese Communist rulers have secured the competence of ruling through terrorism. In contrast, the terror mean in maintaining the Wests ruling competence is always lame because the pseudo-value terms have always been there to cripple this mean, both in internal and external affairs. Because of the so called human right, the West military force is severely restricted in using force against the enemies, and law enforce agents may easily face legal punishment stared by criminals. However, when the enemies apply force of cruelty in any extent they want against the agent from the Western force but in their capture, no one from the West would give a damn. No any feeble voice shouting out the pseudo-value terms is heard against the enemies. With the terror force so severely shackled, the West can only rely on wealth to achieve their competence of ruling. However, even this last force, the wealth, has been exhausting big time. Who can imagine that a dirt cheap country takes only 30 years to become the biggest creditor of America, holding 1.2 trillion of debt against the past worlds financial emperor? No businessman with reasonable IQ would lose so flat out! Further losing wealth can only mean further losing competence. Enemies of free-trade have apparently made good use of these pseudo-value terms. Without employing apparent violence, these pseudo-value terms have been luring as well as forcing the capitalist society marching on a seemingly no return path of suicidal mission. Up to and upon the early 1970s, never a bigger quarrel burst out openly inside the Communist Movement worldwide. One side of the communist camp insisted to push the movement forward with violence by all means. The other side of the same camp claimed that they could achieve the same goal by a much less costly mean, just by taking advantage of the ballot boxes in the West. The side for less costly knew too well that ballot boxes in the West are just dominated by the ideology read from the pseudo-value terms. They are perfect poison to capitalism. People in the first camp called those in the second camp revisionists, never stopped regarding them as intolerable traitors. While those who insisted violence did win big in history, their advancement drooped abruptly beginning by the late 1950s. Time seemed coming to a stage telling those violent forerunners that their ambition needed the so-called revisionists to continue. Indeed, as of today, whoever the revisionists have been, they can show their report card to the violent forerunners with immense pride. Revisionists as they are called, their hands have been so successfully penetrating that they can almost feel the heartbeat inside each headquarter of every capitalist country. Their next move is just to regulate the blood jetting, like what happens in Venezuela. From wealth, to brutal force, to ideology, to government administration, the pseudo-value terms have been fully employed in all schemes aiming at paralyzing the society of free-trade. It is time for people to review what loss the few pseudo-value terms have led the capitalist society suffering since capitalism was born.

A Tally Sheet of Loss of the Free World

Roughly, feudalism shared the dominance with serfdom in the more civilized area of the world for a history of less than 2,000 years. Before the feudalism, slavery enjoyed an extensively long history. Before the slavery gained dominance in a wide area, people could only have lived in some more barbarous communities. In the barbaric era, cruelty of any extent can be a norm of life. In the ancient slavery world, the power enforcing forced-trade is not concentered in one or two peoples hand. Many members in the society control this power, although at different level. The simultaneous presence of many slave owners demanded certain power balance between them. Free-trade thus could have plenty space to breathe within some social layers. The feudal society allows more free-trade because it has ridded of the legality of man owning man, the most direct form of forced-trade. Allowing more free-trade, feudalism enables a society to have more prosperity to appear than the slavery society. However, the feudal society seems having a much shorter life span than the slavery society as well. The shorter life span is resulted by the rapid erosion of a more creative society, the capitalism. Compared to all the preceding societies, barbarous or civilized, life span enjoyed by capitalism is so much shorter: still younger than 300 years if counting from the so called industrial revolution. Young as it is, capitalism already faces the uprooting threat from socialism, violently, or peacefully. By any measure, socialism can only be an idea promoting a society that would enforce forced-trade through government. No robber can be more powerful and aggressive than a government if it is set to rob. Respecting private property to a certain extent, both the slavery and feudal societies allow the forced-trade to be carried out by numerous agents being relatively independent to each other. Claiming completely confiscating property, Socialism allows only one agent, the government, to enforce forced-trade, or robbery. The comparison in the preceding paragraph seems to tell us that a society that legitimizes more free-trade can only end up with a shorter life span. Humans pushed forward free-trade to better satisfy their greed. However, the same greed, aiming at the highest profit at the lowest cost, also drives them to over-exploit the mellow nature of free-trade. The extreme end of the highest profit at the lowest cost inspires the dream of being term setters among so many people. To the Socialist, the cost of the dream is even paid from pockets of others. The capitalist production lines were taking shape in Europe before the seventeen century, and further gained ground after the debut of the so called industrial revolution. However, capitalist revolution cannot be considered to have sternly launched before 1776, the year the United States of America appeared. The same revolution proceeds with more maturity only following the storm of Bastille in 1789 and the abolition of the monarchy in France. Unfortunately, human greed will not let free-trade appear so free. The removal of one form of forced-trade just creates vacuum for another form of forced-trade to migrate in. Almost immediately following the beginning hovering of capitalism, Communism propagated its outcries for turf sharing. There came the Manifesto of the Communist Party in 1848, only half century later than the appearance of France Republic. In 1871, the Paris Commune briefly demonstrated a showdown of the

Communist demanding of power. Following that, in less than 50 years, in 1917, Communism successfully told the world of free-trade what it can do with its forced-trade might: to shovel away one eighth of the worlds land and labeled it as the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Marxs confidence was so easily verified with a profitable beginning: they have a world to win. In the scale of history time, it can be said that free-trade loses immediately after it succeeds in time of no more than an eye blinking. More inconceivable profit was on the way for those who enforced forced-trade. In only a little more than twenty years after the birth of Soviet Union, some major capitalist countries felt a desperate need to invite a forced-trade gang chief to form an alliance to defend democracy and freedom during WWII. This gang chief was known to be an uncompromised destroyer of freetrade at all cost; he was no one else but Joseph Stalin, an infamous murderer of millions of people. His victims even included countless of his own dear comrades. For the invitation to look sincere, such a high price tag was even attached: one of the top leaders from the free-trade countries pleaded for excuse from the murderer. This leader felt guilty for an anti-socialism intervention he led twenty years ago. The intervention, if successful, should have been able to stop effectively the spread of force-trade in Europe. No parents with reasonable mind would ever ask a known habitual rapist to give protection to their daughter. But the vulnerability of free-trade can just make people in desperate need so inconceivably out of their mind. Stalin would be damned forever by the communist world if he ever declined this godsend opportunity. The joined decision faithfully incorporated by both sides was brilliantly proven correct, but correct only for the communist side: another half of Europe felt into the pocket of Stalin at the end of the war, rewarding his effort contributed in the defense of democracy and freedom. Watching so much bank-roll shifted side on the table, any gambler must have felt heartbroken. Cheering at its loss can only be from the other side of the table. Incredibly, however, wholeheartedly cheering did also burst out loud from the side having been mercilessly mutilated after the war. When people in modern capitalist countries review this segment of history, both the so called conservative and liberal all hail it as an example of extraordinary victory of democracy and freedom. A clear disastrous loss becomes a gain! The mental damage led by democracy and freedom is even beyond ideology. The drug effect of democracy and freedom just makes a joke out of the common sense in mathematics, enticing people to celebrate 2-1=3. People commonly say that stupidity deserves punishment. If inviting Stalin to form alliance to fight for democracy and freedom had not been a mistake, there should have been all kinds of ecstasy following the victory of democracy and freedom. Unfortunately, however, it is not what history enables. Instead, history imposed hefty punishment on the free(-trade) world. Almost immediately after the victory (take the quotation mark away if you believe in communism), following the vanishing of half Europe, China was converted into another communist country. Now, the country of most land and the country of most population were under the control of communism. Were all these a result displaying how democracy and freedom could conquer for the free(-trade) world, or proving what damage power they could have in dooming the free world? History did not stop her punishment only because mainland China became another liberated country. Instead, history even intensified the punishment immediately after that.

Korean War bursting in 1950 and the prolonging Vietnam War that was not ended until 1975 were all such merciless punishments. Headed by America, the free(-trade) world needed to continue gushing more blood to stop from being further dismembered. Finally, the free world regained its gasp after Vietnam succumbs to communism; the free world must be glad that the loss has not been bigger. The seemingly endless punishment eventually ends, at least so far. Ironically, the force helping the free(-trade) world to gain time to escape from more punishment is forced-trade. Forced-trade is such a political machine that it just smothers prosperity wherever it sweeps across. After the extensively long practice of forced-trade, all socialist countries must only starve their people and thus fail to accumulate national wealth. But both are what must need in any prolonging military arm-wrestling. Lacking the continuous supply of energetic people and ample material support, the communist ambitious advancement had to halt. Their relentless invasion in a wide area of the Southeast Asia led by the Soviet Union and Mainland China suffered badly during the 1960 and early 1970s. At the same time forced-trade desolating the socialist countries economy, free-trade propelled the economy of capitalist countries forward with full impetus. Free-trade was able to provide the capitalist world with an energetic population and ample material supply to resist the communist invasion. With a price of losing only half of the Vietnam plus Cambodia, the free world retained the rest of the Southeast Asia. However, it does not take democracy and freedom too much time to reverse the strategy favoring the capitalist countries. What makes it unbelievable is that both America and the most typical communist country, China, diligently work abreast side by side to have it reversed. On the one hand, America introduces bigger and bigger programs of forced-trade to flood in its society. On the other hand, with a reformation, China fully incites free-trade in its economy. In the reformation, China also exercises care to make certain the Communist Partys exclusive ruling power is not challenged. Declaring no alternation if not Socialism, China discovered how to change the table in the economic contest against the capitalist countries. Now, a dirt-poor country thirty years ago has held a debt of 1.2 trillion dollars against America. The secret China found is to take advantage of the same Achilles Heel that the capitalist countries feel fanatical: democracy and freedom. With the plentiful goods created by cheap labor the West found from China, the capitalists politicians fulfill the near bottomless substance hunger of the Western population. Democracy, freedom, human right and fairness have driven the same population to indulge in hedonism for too long. Only more than enough material supply can quench their burning desire of fair sharing. Helping so fulfilling, China quickly snatched an astronomical debt against the West, particularly America. We will leave this topic for more discussion in the chapter The Fairytales of the Communist China. Instead of stressing democracy and freedom, if the West had given free-trade more priority in the policy making during WWII, how must the war end with a result worse than history shows? If strategy of protecting economic turf had taken more priority, the West may have avoided inviting Stalin to join the ally. If German could have a chance to fully overpower Soviet Union without worrying about the west front, what could have been worse than what the West must be suffering for the next thirty years? Facts had suggested that Soviet Union could not resist German without the unconditional military and other substance supply from the West. Worst to worst, in case German must fail but be overcome by Soviet Union alone, by the time German crumbled, Soviet Union must also have been a paper beast with too many holes. Then, with far

less effort than consumed in WWII, the ally should be able to severely amputate this communist beast. The West had a history of intervening with the Communist Russia anyway, why needed to feel shy for the second time? If not free-trade, it would be forced-trade; all politicians must make one choice out of the only two for the world to continue. The MCP has a statement concerning fairness: we (socialists) shall have an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all. Shortly after the shouting of such fairness, the free-trade world lost one eighth of the worlds land to the power enforcing forced-trade. Defending democracy and freedom in WWII further led the freetrade world to lose a country of one quarter of the worlds population to the power enforcing forced-trade. Today, the free-trade world is preparing another loss. Sadly, if nothing can set up to counter, this time the loss would be more thorough than the previous two but appear more irresistible as well as more peaceful. The loss would be the wealthiest lands, the Western Europe and America; the loss is led by the loss of wealth, the Wests last ruling competence. Noosing the new loss is the same splendid group of terms, i.e., democracy, freedom and fairness but with a new member: human right. The MCP calls for external replacement of the existing government. The pseudo-value terms engineer internal conversion of the modern Western governments. Externally or internally, they all glamorize the robbery that can be enforced with government power. In front of the internal conversion veiled by the pseudo-value terms, the Western politicians act differently. Some are taking advantage of these few terms as moral cloak for personal gaining in power. Some continue fanatically relying on them with a hope to save the West; at least feeling paralyzed even guilty in resisting them. Not only the pseudo-value terms are reining the West to walk on a suicidal path, but they also misled the free-trade world to replenish blood to revive the communist beast each time this beast was in its last gasp. The first big time of blood transfusion was done during WWII, by forming ally with the Soviet Union. The second time was to revive China in 1989, immediately after the Tien- An-Men Gate Slaughtering in Beijing, awarding China with all trading packs that it felt hungry of. The result of the reviving is a noose of $1.2 trillion debts around Uncle Sams neck. The third time is done internally inside all the capitalist countries through ballot boxes, just when people thought Socialism should have vanished into history at the crumbling of the Soviet Union and her satellite countries. This third time appears far more incurable to the capitalist countries. We will discuss more on this topic in the chapter of Typical Examples of Forced-Trade. Many considered that the collapse of the Soviet Bloc should be evidence of the irresistible power of democracy and freedom over the Communism. Was it or wasnt it? But why the same communist regime in China did not collapse when facing the same crisis about the same period of time? Why did the irresistible power of democracy and freedom become so paralyzed in China? Would the Soviet regime necessarily collapse if the then rulers were willing to be more manipulating and less civilized like the Chinese communists? Not only China has avoided collapse, it has also become a monopoly power in the worlds retail market in a short time, presenting tremendous political and economic pressure to the West. In every page of the communist ideology writings, monopolization is the topmost crime that it would say the capitalists committing against the poor. However, the same monopolization is no longer a crime if it is under the Communists control. Of course not! They are the group of

people hunting exclusive monopoly of power; why is the monopolization of only the market a crime under the control of this group? The more the West feel fanatical to democracy and freedom, the more the free-trade world will relinquish to the power hunting of the communists. The socialists/communists are the most active group complaining the absence of democracy and freedom in the capitalist world because of the existence of capital monopolies. Shouldnt the West wake up about the nature of democracy and freedom when the socialists/communists have shown such a perfect hypocrisy on monopoly? If economic success as a political gambling chip is gone, what other bankroll do the freetrade believers still have in defending themselves? The more the capitalist countries sink themselves in economic difficulty, the more outcries of democracy, freedom, human right and fairness must swarm in the society. Simply people just found themselves in more suffering but in a society that is capitalist. They would continue the superstition that these few terms would come for their rescue. As a typical example, a social turmoil burst out in Greece in 2010 in the name of democracy. It burst only because financial help from the EU hesitated to come saving Greece from bankruptcy. However, more democracy and freedom in a crisis only mean more demanding on the concession of some capitalist authority. More concession from the capitalist authority means better chance for Socialism. The Socialists love this kind of social vortex no better. With this vortex, they can launch the hatred of full intensity against capitalism, which, according to them, is the root to bring unfairness to people, the poor people. But more socialism, as history never fails to show, can only devastate the society with more poverty. As the West is descending, contrasted by Chinas economic upheaval, some people feel they have reasons to believe socialism is the way to save the world. Alas, that socialism can only kill the world is forgotten, ignored, disregarded or even not allowed to review.


The Fairytales of the Communist China

There is no need and no possibility to distinguish between the Communists and Socialists. They worship the same mindset glamorized by MCP and struggle for the same political product promoting forced-trade. The only difference between a socialist society and a communist society is the population in each of them. A communist society is a one man society while a socialist society must have more than one, because they all believe a communist society is the only perfect society where no power struggle exists. Only a one man society will not have power struggle. If one reads the Chinese Constitution, he can find for himself that Socialism and Communism are identical. This constitution so stresses: China is a Socialist country, accepting only the leadership, or more directly, dominance, of the Chinese Communist Party. No matter how many social disturbances have rocked China, this Communist Party or this Socialist country declares no acceptance of any doctrine other than that of MCP, Marxism, Leninism, Maos Thought or in one word, forced-trade. Tempted by the Mainland Chinas current economic upheaval, some people in the West speculate that socialism works better than capitalism. While so speculating, they omit how various socialist programs have been mercilessly slaughtering capitalism in the West. While the West indulges with more and more Socialist programs and gets sicker and sicker, China is generously planting capitalism in its economy. The year of 1978 serves as a continental divide in Chinas economic accomplishment. Before 1978, trying capitalism in any form was a high crime, which may easily lead one to death penalty. With the complete absence of capitalism, China was so dirt poor that even human cannibalism happened. The human cannibalism appeared in two waves. The first wave appeared in the early 1960s during some manmade (but who made?) famine. People in some areas even needed to eat their children to survive. The second wave happened in the so called Cultural Revolution between 1966 and 1976, which was a bloody power struggle between the leading Communists within the regime. Hatred incited by class struggle taught by the communist dogma so intensely sublimated that some people felt they needed to eat the class enemies alive to express their royalty to Chairman Mao. With the poverty destined by Socialism, the leaders in all socialist countries feel hopelessly defeated in competing against the capitalist countries. The prosperity showed in the capitalist countries constantly and pitilessly embarrassed them. The Chinese Communists felt they must reform to exit the haunting of the direness. But what could be done? If not forced-trade, it can only be free-trade. Without other choice, the Chinese Communists installed capitalism that they ever deadly criminalized. After they murdered nearly 100 million people only for the removal of capitalism in China, they used the power so seized to restore capitalism. The Communist gangsters in power need capitalism for their rescue! Beginning from 1978, capitalism has chance to put more and more weight in Chinas economy, and prosperity angrily sprouted since. Any introduction of free-trade must disturb the Communists natural instinct of exclusive power controlling. While planting capitalism, the Communists must make certain no one could challenge the Communist Partys exclusive monopoly of power. He who so doing must die! As

what is said before, the Chinese Communist Party is a political organization of high competence in ruling. To guarantee the competence, they efficiently use two prongs that are no more and no less needed by any government that desires to continue. One prong is the terror means, another prong is the propaganda, or in their words, the prongs of pen. Of course, what spell out under a pen directed by bandits logic can only be lies, twisting of common sense. There are two big events that can serve as examples to tell people how willingly and desperately the Communists would flex their terror prong to maintain their exclusive power during the reformation. The first event was the Tian-An-Men Square incident in Jun, 1989. To suppress the student demonstration that requested more personal freedom and punishing corruptive officers, the government launched the out-of-proportion military force against the unarmed citizens. The death toll resulted from the massacre is still unknown today, although popularly estimated over 1000. The official figure is 23. But even if it is only 23, it still dwarfs the figure of 4 that happened in a student demonstration of 1970 in Kent State University in America. For the loss of four lives, the then American President must apologize to the nation. However, up to today, the Chinese Communists still insisted the students being at fault to have caused the Tian-An-Mien Square tragedy. The second event is the campaign they launched in 1999 aiming at crushing a peaceful but loosely organized assembly called Falun Gong. For a complete eradication, the Communist leading group set up an office called 610. This office can apply terror force beyond any bound, with cruelty beyond anyones imagination. Many reports reveal that members of Falun Gong have become a good source of organ harvest. Forced-trade, or robbery, can incite cruelty of any degree. Whether robbery can continue, the cruelty plays a gravely determining role. While all Communists in power can be as cruel as they need to, a Communist called Nikita Khrushchev surprisingly emerged in Soviet Russia during the 1950s. Whatever Khrushchevs incentive may be, when he secured the topmost power, he revealed to the world what a murderer Joseph Stalin had been behind waves of waves of massive massacre. In some later years of the Soviet Union, Boris Yeltsin, a local top leader of Moscow, showed up as a reformist. Many of his practices violated the conventional communist ideas. The then first man in Russia, Mr. Mikhail Gorbachev, only punished Yeltsin by expelling him in a party meeting; brutality was not applied. Being also a communist but in China, Liu Sao-Qi, the second man in the Chinese regime of early 1960's, was less lucky. When released a trace of reformation smell, he was abusively punished with a slow death that lasted for more than three years. When the Moscow's Red Square was swarmed with masses seeking reformation in the late 1980's and early 1990, no blood shed was resulted. In comparison, the Chinese were far more misfortunate. Tian-An-Mein Square, Beijing, was soaked with blood of the reformists on Apr 5, 1976 and soaked more again on June 4, 1989. With less cruelty the Soviet power with all its satellite countries vanished in history. With far more intense cruelty, the Chinese communist dictators have their power lasting. Why can cruelty set sail differently among different populations for the everlasting or ending of the Communism? There is one simple answer: literacy between the two populations was contrastingly different. The standing out of a communist with courage and consciousness comparable to that of Khrushchev, Gorbachev, and Yeltsin needs the support from a formidable mass. This mass has to know how each social member must respect the will of the others in interest trading in order to live in harmony. Illiteracy cannot nurture a mass of this quality.

Illiteracy must lead to low creativity. But lower creativity naturally brings in less prosperity to a population. The less prosperity and lower education a population has, the easier for this people to accept a dream of outstandingly high profit at very low cost. Outstandingly high profit at very low cost is what all term setters can enjoy and that is also what exactly all ambitious crooks use to convince the illiterate people. Thatthey have a world to win put up by Marx in the MCP matches no better with this dream. The other prong for the Socialists to gain ruling, that is, the propaganda, just easily rides on the moving force of this dream. The more people follow this dream, the more political resources the socialists can take advantage. So the socialists love a population that is illiterate. At the same time, an illiterate population loves Socialism, which promises them the dream. Believe or not, illiteracy is what the American government has been madly noosed to create. Affirmative action, the teachers unions, dethroning English from the status of official language, an intentionally broken border for the flooding invasion of illegal immigrants, all serve to multiplying an illiterate mass in America. Similar political procedure also insanely happens in Europe. While the Western politicians decline to learn lessons from history how the pseudo-value terms have destroyed the West, the modern Socialism promoters do learn good lessons from history for profit reaping. To them, the good lesson is how different degree of literacy between two populations, such as that between Soviet Union and China, has allowed different ending of Socialism. Again, forced-trade is a behavior of natural instinct, needing no education to result. Free-trade is not a product of natural instinct, but needs education and arduous contribution to complete. So the socialists decide to expand the illiteracy base in the West as much as they could. China taught them well. Confident on the illiteracy that the nation had been holding on, Chinese Communist Party had a long history of convincing people with dreams of becoming term setters. In 1945, before the Party secured the power of the nation, this party masked itself with the greatest fervent than anyone else toward democracy. It urged all political force it could find to pressure the then government to install populous voting for the people. Beginning 1949, after the communists secured the power, peoples democratic dictatorship is what this party has given to the people. The same term peoples democratic dictatorship persists in their nowadays constitution. He who demands a populous voting institution will be charged with crime no less than treason. Around 1956, the Chinese Communist Party coerced all private business owners to accept overall nationalization of business. With some disproportionally little compensation from the government, every business owner must surrender to the government his business. In the name of forming business partnership with the nation, they all became the most humiliated employees in the original business. They had to apologize constantly and relentlessly for having a history of exploiting the other employees of the pass. Beginning 1960, batches after batches of these business owners were listed as class enemies at various epochs of time, awaiting persecution and dictatorship. Beginning in the early 1950s, completing in 1959, the Party bullied all the peasants to form volunteering corporations, or communes at the later stage of such bullying. The bait for the volunteering from the peasants was a mirage that all their meals, senior care, and health care would be guaranteed at no cost to them. The commune movement enabled the Party to have

monopolized all the lands. Immediately following the completion of the land monopolization was a three year famine with human cannibalism sweeping across this country and shocking the world in the early 1960s. Since the partys armed uprising in 1927, get back our land had been one of the most outstanding slogans from this party to lure the peasants. With this slogan, the party led the peasants to seize land with violence of any extent from the then landlords or those comparatively better doing landowners. When the commune movement completed in 1959, all lands were concentrated in Maos control. Communism eventually enabled Mao to become the biggest land owner, serf owner, enterprises owner, and slave owner that human history can ever show. With no better record to witness what the MCP glamorized, Mao and his party had mercilessly ridiculed and shredded the mask of rescuing the sufferers into pieces. At the beginning of the Cultural Revolution, Mao dangled the bait of government power in front of the innocent young students in the entire country, luring them to form the so called Red Guard movement. The Red Guard movement played an irreplaceable role helping Mao to crush his most intolerable competitor Liu Sao-Qi. After Liu Sao-Qis gang was removed, Mao and his subordinators uprooted all the Red Guards from the government seats and flushed them to some remote barren areas to find their own living. Before the capitalism reformation of 1978, action leading to free-trade can be a capital crime. Today, when the country enjoyed the upheaval of prosperity resulted by the capitalism reformation, the communists in power are themselves bourgeoisie, holding wealth easily reaching the scale of hundreds of millions of dollars. Nothing matters; all slogans are only good for instantaneous use to them. To the communists, whatever enables them to stay on top of the exclusive power goes. So long as the people can stay illiterate, the socialists reckon that they can endlessly knead the population and herd them with any dream. Compared to other Communist parties in the world, the Chinese one has the most outstanding expertise in fabricating dreams. Well, the soil is so rich of illiteracy. With careful political manipulation in tolerating free-trade, taking advantage of some nearly fatal mistakes committed by the West, China has gradually tipped the worlds economy balance toward its side. Currently many reputable financial institutes said that China has become the second most powerful economic body in the world. This leads many people to conclude that China has been a capitalist country, and communism is unable to come back in this country. This view represents a superficial understanding of Communism. The essence of the socialist movement is power, power, and power! In order to get power, all communists dont care in what way they will get to it, although they may insist one way is better than the other. The brief review on the history of the Chinese Communist Party presented in the previous two paragraphs should reveal it all. Removing business owners for the sufferers or becoming bourgeoisie and slave owners they themselves, destroying others monopoly or setting up their own exclusive monopoly, killing class enemies or killing their own beloved comrades, whatever the strategy that can bring them power wins the Communists love. To label a power non-communist/non-socialist, one must show that this power matches the following conditions: (1) it is not an exclusive monopoly in ruling, (2) those in power can be replaced relatively easily, and (3) they do not rob with their power in the name of liberating the others. Otherwise, any power having these characteristic must match what MPC seeks for and be a Communist power, regardless of how it names itself. Comparing to all these, the Chinese

government is a Communist power through and through, in spite of what strategy the communists have employed in their treasure hunting. First, the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party is exclusive; it is so written in the constitution. Second, power transferring is no way easy although the replacement of powerful one in the recent years has become less bloody. To be the few in the leading core, one must be an agent of a powerful group that has enough violent force to balance the others. The general population cannot say anything on that. Power to be transferred to anyone outside of the Communist Party is unimaginable. Third, do those people in power rob but rob in the name of liberating the others? Absolutely, they do. There is a jargon term populating in China: the Prince Party. This term fully reveals how government power is transferred but by inheritance. Power in each officers hand is an asset for negotiating interest with other offices. The negotiation of course includes the exchange of benefit covering ones own offspring. That is how this term Prince Party emerges, although inheritance is not necessarily the only way for each of the officer to get to where he is. Government power inheritance is a brutal power robbing. He who robs power must rob wealth. The fierce interest struggle between different groups always makes one group feel the necessity to expose some corruptive officers in the other group. It is so commonly learnt that those exposed easily have hundreds of million dollar worth of properties and indefinite number of mistresses. It is well known that those still in office or their relatives can also have this scale of enjoyment, but their protecting shield is still strong enough withstanding the other groups attack. Until they are exposed, each of them must tell people he followed the loftiest moral code working for people and asked the others to do the same. America may well also have corruptive officers, but how many of them can reach that scale of wealth acquired through government power? To symbolize how the Communist power robs but robs in the name of liberating the others, the military force defending this power says it all. This military force is so called: The Chinese Peoples Liberation Army. Finally, Chinas constitution emboldens the Communist nature, the forced-trade nature, for this country, allowing no deviation. Here is one quotation from this document: ...under the leadership of the Communist Party of China and the guidance of Marxism-Leninism and Mao Zedong Thought... China will stay in the primary stage of Socialism for a long period of time... building Socialism with Chinese characteristics... Under the leadership of the Communist Party of China and the guidance of MarxismLeninism, Mao Zedong Thought... the Chinese people...will continue to adhere to the people's democratic dictatorship, follow the Socialist road...develop a Socialist market economy... The exploiting classes as such have been eliminated in our country. Almost jargon terms of bandits logic can be found in this quotation. Leadership in politics is a synonym of exclusive dominance. Primary stage of Socialism only means the following of a more intensified and thorough stage of forced-trade. Chinese characteristics or not will not make anything of Socialism deviate from the forced-trade nature, or robbery nature. Marxism, Leninism, Mao Zedong Thought... are all the same broods of MCP. Democratic dictatorship is to tell people to accept a concept of a white color of fully black hue or a breezing comfort of boiling water. Socialist market is a plain term to make robbery done with government power become impeccably noble and moral for the robbery is to be carried out in a market. All bandits logic cannot escape the fate of self-defeating. After all these jargon terms, the

constitution declares that The exploiting classes as such have been eliminated in our country What a bed wetting statement with eyes fully open! Have the exploiting classes been eliminated? Or have the Community Party just bred more? A statement from the MCP would help us to find out: (Bourgeois) has resolved personal worth into exchange value, has set up that single, unconscionable freedomfree-trade. In one word, for exploitationit has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation Obviously, according to Marx, free-trade and bourgeois and the crime of exploitation cannot be free from each other. Now the Chinas constitution needs to clarify with Marx how its capitalism reformation has not restored but eliminated the so called bourgeoisie, or how the bourgeoisie should not be an exploiting class anymore? Will the Communists accept that they themselves, but not the bourgeoisie, now are promoting free-trade, and subsequently promoting exploitation? As a policy for more wealth control, the Chinese Communist Party, a party declared to be of proletariat, nowadays does widely extents invitation to ask bourgeoisie to join the party. The Communist constitution does not find bourgeoisie existing, but the party establishing this constitution finds the same classing existing and invites its joining. Are the constitution and the partys policy playing comedians to each other? Exploitation against the proletariat will not be exploitation if done by the Communist Party! Can communist/socialists survive even one day independent of bandits logic? No one can find a definition for Socialism in the constitution, although such term floods in it. Only the following article in the constitution presents something like a definition: Article 6. The basis of the Socialist economic system of the People's Republic of China is Socialist public ownership of the means of production... The system of Socialist public ownership supersedes the system of exploitation of man by man; it applies the principle of 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his work. How is the Socialist public ownership governed and exercised? Of course, it is understandable that only the few powerful term setters can govern and exercise through democratic centralism and people's democratic dictatorship! Who controls the measurement to scale somebody elses ability then properly applies the principle of 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his work? When somebodys pay is gauged and dictated by someone elses measurement, it must have been gauged and dictated by either a capitalist exploitation or a socialist robbery. Which way do the Communists feel more comfortable to accept, or to confess doing? Ignoring how China must promote socialism, or forced-trade, many Western intellects believe that free-trade inside China must sooner or later tame Socialism in that land. The rapid weakening of the West entices some prominent Western politicians to ask China to show more responsibility to take part in maintaining the world's order. What worlds order do the Western politicians expect? Is it an order for free-trade or for forced-trade? There is no compromise between. Seventy years ago, the Western political forerunners asked the chief of the forced-trade gang in Soviet Russia to help defend democracy

and freedom. It ended up with a loss of one half of Eastern Europe and later China. Today the politicians from the same free-trade bloc asked a political entity of forced-trade to help maintaining a worlds order. A history of enticing a habitual rapist to protect a young lady is repeating but in a different background. Seventy years ago, Uncle Sam strode forward with all vigor like a young man. Today, he must worry about where to find his gasp tomorrow. The history of capitalism is a history of begging appeasement for it to find time to create prosperity. The long term nurturing of those pseudo-value terms, democracy, freedom, human right and fairness further and further reinforces the habit of seeking appeasement. The prolonging complacence in material life brought about by the free-trade has made the West superstitious to those pseudo value terms. When will they be aware that it is those terms that sink them deeper and deeper in the abyss of despair? Begging the Chinese Communists to join maintaining the worlds order is definitely another depth of sinking. "A stronger and thus more responsible China will play an important role in stabilizing the world," the West earnestly believes and hopes. Watching the rapid plummet of their own countrys economy, some American politicians even fantasize a hope that a prosperous China will lead the world to get out of recession. In responding to the naive hope of those Western prodigals, Beijing repetitively sends this nursery rhyme to the West: "China opposes any hegemony, and we will not become a hegemonist." That China is monopolizing the retail market of the West is not mentioned by anyone when the West feels so fanatical to this nursery rhyme. No hegemony? That a stronger power will not exert hegemony to its environment is illogical. Not only the spontaneity of the nature refuses to let it happen, but the entire human history also has shown no such fairytale. Even a country gathering power through free-trade would also show the same tendency of hegemony. However, there is a difference between the hegemony promoted by a power for free-trade and by a power for forced-trade. The hegemony promoted by a power for free-trade must inherit the nature of free-trade, but a hegemony promoted by a power dominated by forced-trade must only reinforce forced-traded. This is inevitably logical, because a free(-trade) countrys hegemony must be limited by the vulnerability of free-trade. By promising no hegemony, the Chinese Communist Party asks people to believe they will bring a Utopian world to everyone. Does this promise of no hegemony match the history of the Chinese Communist Party? History cannot lie. In the year of 1947 and 1948, the then Secretary of State of America, Mr. George Marshall, objected to furnishing the then Chinese government with full scale of aids in resisting the Communist insurrection. (Dear readers, please compare this to the unlimited military supply to Soviet Russia in resisting German Hitler.) Not only he constantly threatened to withdraw the aid to the then Chinese government, but he also disagreed that the success of this government was vital to American interests. Very on time, the Communists Party sent the following nursery rhyme to the West with their official paper New China Daily on July 4 (!), 1947: Ever since our childhood, we had special feeling about the benevolence from the country of America. We believe this is not only because she had never forcefully invaded our land, launched any aggressive war against us; but more fundamentally, the beloved feeling toward America by the Chinese is based on the gracefulness nurtured by the democratic elegance among the American people and their profound generosity.

No more lovely sheep skin can any wolf find. So unbelievably, such a statement came out of the mouth of a group of Communist militia whose only aim was to crush and then replace the "bourgeois society. Wasnt the tone of this statement far more proper to fit in a letter written to Stalin's Soviet Union, which had been supplying them with so much money and military materials? The Chinese Communists did not even seem care if Stalin getting jealous. Of course he wouldnt; the Chinese comrades well-acted as planned. People may even wonder why such statement was unable to be put up by Chang Kai-Sek, the then Chinese president who must be heavily relying on Americas aids. But, what effect would this statement cause if it could be read by those American politicians in power, such as Mr. Marshall, who felt so much need to distance away from the government of Chang Kai-Sek? The political calculation made by these Communists was so accurate that even the timing of publishing was precisely targeted (the Fourth of July)! In only two years, the Chinese Communists secured their power on that land. Good job, Mr. Marshall! Immediately, the communists tone of talking to America changed. ...Leighton Stuart (ambassador to the pre-Communist China) is a symbol of the complete defeat of the U.S. policy of aggression... The war to turn China into a U.S. colony, a war in which the United States of America...slaughter the Chinese people, has been an important component of the U.S. imperialist policy of world-wide aggression since World War II... (Farewell, Leighton Stuart! August 18, 1949, by Mao Tse-Tung) The hostility against America was even further escalated just next year. In 1950, the same Communists, who highly praised America three years ago, dyed the Korean land red with American blood in a three year long war. Their words can be dramatically different before and after they grasp the power. The following statement appeared in the Communists official paper New China Daily, Sept 27, 1945, in the year their power was no comparison to the then Chinese government. In convincing the Chinese people to follow them to build a new country, this paper so said: In a country of democracy, it must be taken for granted and self-evidenced that every individual's sovereignty be in the hands of the people. In a so called democratic country, if each individual's sovereignty is not in the people's hands, the country must have been off track, no longer a democratic country but a deformed one. How can democracy be genuine if people cannot enjoy populous vote, if ruling by unilateral party cannot be ended? Return the right to the people! Wow, did the author ever join to draft the Declaration of Independence of America? Emotionally moving as it showed, however, beginning 1949, the same statement became an invitation to jail or even death execution for numerous Chinese who dear to dream of what this statement proclaimed. In the early 2000s, during a TV interview in America, a Communist Chinese President declared that the overall ethical quality of Chinese was poor. So poor, naturally, in his words, the populous voting was not suitable in China. Why did the Communists find the ethical quality of Chinese was so high that they could demand populous voting during those days around Sept 27, 1945? What has caused the ethical qualification of the same people


to become so low sixty years later in this presidents view? Shouldnt the Chinese people feel that their consanguineous Communists in power owe them an explanation? The same president told America's leaders many times that the world must coexist with multiple poles. However, inside the country he ruled, how many poles has he allowed? The answer is only one pole, the Communist pole. Can we imagine that, once they are powerful enough in the international affairs, they will not continue their habit of trashing promise, but allow the existence of multiple poles? It is not what their history shows, and it is not what logic would allow them to show. Hegemony is not only what the Chinese Communists oppose in the international affair. After their capitalism reformation, they also oppose the so called protectionism. However, their antiprotectionism is genuinely a duplicate of the same behavior of demanding populous voting when their power is not yet strong enough. Lesson of their pursuit of democracy during the years of 1945-1949 is still young. In only four years, their pursuit of anti-dictatorship just entrapped one quarter of the worlds population into a dictatorship unprecedented in human history. But the anesthesia effect of the pseudo-value terms always makes the West forget the pain of amputation. Now, driven but the sweetness of cheap labor from China, the West enthusiastically chases after another value sharing with the communist partners: anti-protectionism. Behind the value of anti-protectionism, two chilling facts have been so obviously standing out: 1) China has dominantly monopolized the Western retail market; 2) China has taken only 30 years to become the biggest creditor with a debt of 1.2 trillion dollars against America. The vulnerability of freetrade seems so stubborn that it is almost incurable to the West. Every temporary comfort resulted from appeasement is a powerful anesthesia to people who can only get used to freetrade. While the Communists ask the West to remove protectionism in every way in the West, has the West been able to ask the Communists to remove the same in every way in the communist country? The answer can only be no. For example, the insurance companies and banking business from the West are still unable to enjoy full business freedom like what they can enjoy in their home country. At least, the West feels a strong pressure from their manipulation of currency exchange rate. At the end of 2010, a permit for selling electric car inside China must link to the revelation of the high tech secret about the cars battery. Arent all these protectionism? But the protectionism so found is still in the economy sector. In the ideology sector, their protectionism is untouchable. On this, the Western people need only to ask Yahoo, Google, and News Cooperation what they have experienced in running business inside the Communist China. Anyone asking to have the ideology protectionism removed must be demonized and doomed. Asking for such removal, the one under their ruling will be convicted as enemy intending to topple the country. The one not under their ruling will be convicted as having intervened with their internal affairs. However, to the West, sacrificing a water melon for a chance to gain a sesame seed from the communists is always a good deal, worth an all-out effort. Appeasement is so addictive to prodigals. The tone and word change of the communists before and after they get the power is just the rigid nature of hegemony but nothing else. How much hegemony they would express or exercise depends on how much power they find in their hands. They sternly oppose hegemony

at where their power cannot reach; they firmly exercise hegemony at where their tentacle of power can wrap. Record only shows that they do this both internationally and domestically. They must so act if we care to review what Lenin, one of the most prominent Communist ancestors, taught: "There are no morals in politics." Forgetting the record of promises made by the Communists but awaiting more nursery rhymes from them, the West can only repeatedly fool themselves to concede endlessly until one day they have nothing to concede anymore. By that time, they would have been tightly in the grip of the communists. Will there be another opportunity for the West to find another Brandenburg Gate, under which a Western leader roars Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall"? With the rapidly disappearing wealth, such opportunity is getting more and more remote from the Western politicians. At the beginning of the Chinese reformation, the West was so earnestly to anticipate that a gigantic Communist devil will be peacefully converted. It turns out that the ones whom is undergone conversion is the West. Socialism has been able to set many programs inside the Western governments for the Western politicians to kneel at. All these socialist programs are invincible so long as they are tagged with the terms of democracy, freedom, human rights, and fairness. Under the extortion of these pseudo-value terms, wealth accumulated through freetrade in the West has been like flood gushing out of a broken dam. So unfortunate to those Western politicians who have only been used to the silver spoon in their mouth, no wealth means no competence. If they do not change their reliance on the pseudo-value terms, they can only become more and more helpless and hopeless. They conventionally limit their judgment on the satisfaction that someone says what they want to hear in the political arena. What a wonderful melody it is, even the Communists oppose protectionism! exclaim they. History has shown that what all Communists actually love is what they openly advocate to oppose before they attain the power. After they control the power, they inevitably kill what they openly say they love before, no exception. When they oppose dictatorship before they get the power, they must establish dictatorship after they get the power. When they say they fight for the sufferers before they get the power, they must end up placing more sufferers under their trampling after they get the power. Now they carry the same habit to tackle protectionism. At where they cannot dominate they would show more effort than anyone else to oppose protectionism. At where they have dominated, they would only intensify protectionism. To prove this author wrong, one only needs to ask the Communists remove their protectionism in the media under their control. With the scoundrel mind in politics that Lenin taught, with power coming from a gun barrel that Mao taught, all Communists believe they would eventually achieve what Marx taught: they will have a world to win. Continuously courting with those who say what one wants to hear but disregarding their history, one must end up losing everything. Unfortunately, this is what the Western politicians have been consistently doing. The West has a motto: Once, shame on you; twice, shame on me. To the Western politicians, it has been too many times. After they invited Stalin to defend democracy and freedom, they now need the Chinese Communists to help maintain the worlds order. They believe helping the Communists succeed would enable them to realize a world of democracy, freedom, human right and fairness. Do not damn history but learn from it, regardless you believe or disbelieve communism!

The Benign Capitalism and Malign Capitalism

Free-trade or forced-trade, both serve the same purpose driven by human greed: the highest possible benefit at the lowest possible cost. The only difference between free-trade and forcedtrade is their behavior. Free-trade allows negotiation, which gives chance to trader of either side to withdraw before the deal is sealed; forced-trade wont. At her young age, capitalism provides the best possible chance of negotiation to all traders. Competition is therefore fierce between people who contribute the similar items for trading. A contributors contribution is not in a trade unless driven to appear by the contributors own need, but his wish to improve his life easily triggers this need. Therefore, people overall forcefully inject to the society with continuous contributions at the lowest possible cost; prosperity blooms. Competition, however, more often than not, produces more losers than winners, who would gradually drift closer and closer to a position of top predator. At the same time a top predator removes losers, it also removes competition. Seeing no competition, the top predator unbridles his human greed with the convenience he has gained, chasing after the highest possible benefit at the lowest possible cost. He then sets up an environment of forced-trade, in which he is the term setter. The predators we here refer to are what people usually call monopolies. When forced-trade gradually becomes more dominant, contribution can no longer come to the society at the lowest cost. It is true that a monopoly can always grasp others contribution at his lowest cost. However, the opposite is also true: the predators victim inevitably receives the lowest benefit from the predator but at the highest possible cost of the victim. This effect of monopoly must strangle the will of creativity, creating more and more stalemate in social production. Because the victims are always far more in number than predators, or monopolies, contribution from the population must gradually suffer; prosperity inevitably droops. Such processing may even gradually speed up itself. As the frequency of stalemate increases, capitalism gradually enters a malignant stage. Its social members agonize with ever increasing anxiety. In contrast to a malign capitalist society, we call a capitalist society at the younger age a benign capitalist society. A benign capitalist society has all the vibrancy propelled forward by competition that no other society can ever encourage. In chapter 3, Effect of the Two Types of Trading, we mentioned that the capitalist society has only two types of monopoly levering the social production. They are the monopoly of capital and the monopoly of labor force. Jealousness caused by human greed has a long history of criminalizing those better doing. This historical habit makes people take it for granted to view the capital monopoly with far more negative images than viewing the monopoly of labor. In reality, which monopoly would bring more agony to the society? As a thumb of rule, any political force that launches a restriction on other force has only one reason to do so: to create opportunity for its own force to get stronger. Labor force, one of the only two partners in social production, must follow this rule, too. Competing against the monopoly of capital under the same principle of maximum profit at minimum cost, labor forces unite, forming their own monopoly, which are the various unions. With the union, the labor

forces can effectively paralyze many controls from the capital holders. The more they can paralyze the controls, the stronger the unions become, and then more able to restrict the capital holders capacity in organizing production. Now, holding one unified price for the same labor in the market, the labor monopoly is in a position of term setter in deciding production. Among the capital holders, most of the time monopoly appears not because unification between business but because the weak having been devoured by the strong. This processing matches the principle of natural selection: survival the fittest. However, no matter how strong the term setter position a monopoly of capital has secured, its continuous survival must depend on its ability of continuing production. If production stops, crisis for its survival looms near. On the other hand, the growth and continuous survival of the monopoly of labor force cannot separate itself from a nature of trick or treatto destroy to get good. If production stops, it is time for them to pressure for better benefit. When the labor forces appear in the production lines and apply the principle of highest benefit at lowest cost, they look for the highest amount of material reward with the least amount of work. . To the entire society, the least amount of work from the labor force naturally means the least amount of social contribution. Not only the contribution has been made less, but the so lessened contribution must also be maximally consumed by them. The consumption so reaches not only because of the increased labor price but also because of their large population. Less contribution with bigger consumption must gradually starve a society; it is only plain mathematics. Then, how can a society escape from stalemate? When monopoly of capital as a term setter promotes forced-trade, it has to provide certain skills of good production management to maintain its position. Failing to do so, it may meet bankruptcy, subsequently losing its term setter position. Good skill in production management means to bring in more production at lower cost for the society; it thus benefits the society. When monopoly of labor force stands as a term setter, it needs no skill for social production management, and it feels no such responsibility anyway. Instead, the skill it devotes to social production is often in violation of good production management. Its trick-or-treat skill may include peacefully minimizing contribution, such as strike, or violently stopping production, or even hijacking production infrastructure to curb production. Mathematically speaking, such skill is to devastate social production. Therefore, a conclusion establishes itself in the next paragraph. If allowed to carry the principle of highest profit at lowest cost to extreme, the monopoly of capital would have a tendency to starve the labor force, but still feeds the society. Carrying the same principle to extreme, the monopoly of labor force would have a tendency to starve the society. The tendency starving labor force by the monopolies of capital has been used as reason by the socialists of many generations to have provoked wave after wave of society conversion. The tendency of starving the society by the monopolies of labor force has written a prolonging bloody history that those dirt poor Socialist countries could ever compose of. No one can find more concentrated capital monopoly than those found around the early twenty centuries in America. Monopolies under the names like Rockefeller, Morgan, Carnegie, rapidly propelled this country into an industrial super power from an ash land with speed never seen on earth, also led the country to get into prosperity still unfound anywhere on earth today. No one can find more concentrated monopoly of labor than those under the names of Stalin, Mao. Neither can

anyone find a country with more corpse with wide spread poverty than those found under these names. Human cannot find any form of society that can bring in prosperity compatible to that of capitalism. For the best interest and coexistence of the entire human beings, to maintain a healthy capitalist society should be at their best interest. For this to happen, a capitalist government must be able to prevent either type of starving from happening. The only way to guarantee this is to timely take apart either type of monopoly when seeing them forming, leaving competition in the society reasonably fierce. Dont expect the government to play even hand between the competitors. No ballot box will allow a government to play even hand; it is either free-trade or forced-trade. Only competition can stimulate the social members will to contribute in striving for highest profit at lowest cost. Failing to stimulate completion can only introduce the shortfall of production, or starving. Without enough production, any play in adjusting tax credit, interest rate, government size, is only to serve adjusting the arrival time of the last gasp of a capitalist government. Worse yet, bringing in the so called stimulus packages is not to reverse the shortfall of the production, but just make the starving spread more evenly. The package cannot stimulate the labor force to compete to contribute more. Instead, the packages just urge them to consume more without worrying about contribution. It is a sleeping pill with cyanide. When capitalism evolves more and more into a malign stage, unhappiness from the society also intensifies. Conventionally, the capitalist societies employ two methods to soothe the agony. Method one is to appease, method two is to make law restricting monopolies. Method one is to nurture a time bomb for it to gain size and power. We already discussed this before. Method two should be a far better method. Unfortunately to capitalism, the lawmaking in restricting monopoly always finds fault in one side, focusing only on monopoly of capital. To monopoly of labor force, law is only to protect or even encourage it. For example, in America, when applying the First Amendment, people can be confident that courts would only consider the unions, not the enterprises, to be peoples peaceful assembly. On the other hand, all anti-trust laws only scrutinize business of production, never any union. All these practices stem from one inherited weakness of capitalism: the vulnerability of free-trade. Driven by this vulnerability, many capitalist politicians habitually develop the fatal pain killer, appeasement. Because one of the only two partners in production, the capital and labor force, gains so much favor over the other, social balance in the capitalist society quickly tilts to one side. In some sense, the capitalist society steers law application to match what the MCP projects and demands big time. As the social balance quickly tilts, nowadays, a third method is found more and more popular: some capital holders buy the cooperation from the monopoly of labor force. Of course, for this kind of people, we cannot even call them capitalist politicians, but proprietors of Socialist enterprises. This is a dangerous development. In the early stage of capitalism, capital holders are not the same one holding government power. The most that people can accuse them of doing is to buy puppet agent in the government. Now, given how monopoly of labor force can influence the ballot boxes with huge population, the power buying will give the capital holders

the convenience of skipping agent buying. Without blood dripping, Socialism is marching on the way to serve some capitalists. If Marx is still alive, he would bang his head on the wall, regretting why he has called on removing the bourgeoisie if realizing Socialism had been his only goal. Legalizing marijuana, removing landmarks of Christianity, expelling Christianity from public schools, liberally expanding welfare coverage, manipulating the media in favor of a candidate of low qualification, ensuring the south border of America to remain irreparable, language replacementare all pushed forward with powerful wealthy groups standing behind. None of this case benefits their immediate interest, but all of them benefit their long term ambitions. When we review the appeasing method, we find the following: abusive welfare system, liberally extended unemployment benefit, fully unbridled hedonism, broken families multiplying because of sensational need, law trampling for maximum concession to violent crimes, enforcing the granting of special favor to people who have less merit in competition. The deluge of appeasement has been so overwhelming that it has pushed capitalism to the verge of bankruptcy not only in the economic front, but also in the moral front and ideological front. The method of appeasing always gains upper hand in peoples debate on issues of moral and ideology in the name of defending the value of those pseudo-value terms. High national debt with almost no hope to repay coupled with rapidly shrinking production lines are only a warning, but an extremely serious warning. If nothing can be done to curb this appeasement flood on time, capitalism must soon reaches its last moment of capsizing because it would have lost all its foundations, moral, ideology, wealth, manpower. Today, benign capitalism has become so remote from people, but so quickly. It will take a miracle for capitalism to restore her youth and vibrancy. If such miracle ever appears, it must include no less than forcefully weakening all kinds of monopolies of labor force. Antitrust law must be applicable to both monopoly of capital and monopoly of labor force. Unidirectional application of antitrust law but only against monopoly of capital is unconstitutional in America. Here is what the First Amendment shows: Congress shall make no lawabridging theright of the people peaceably to assemble Applying antitrust law against business but not monopoly of labor force would have either defined business as being not a peaceful assembly of people or abridged theright of the people (represented by capital monopolies) peaceably to assemble. Another miracle is to reestablish the indisputable authority of laws, and to uproot any chance for those pseudo-value terms to enjoy the superiority over the laws. Because of their lack of rigid definition, these few terms can always direct legal judgment independent of the American laws. Simply, for example, because of the education of the pseudo-value terms, people have long ignored what is stressed in the Thirteen Amendment: except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted The result is that America has the highest incarceration rate in the world. What makes it even more ridiculous is that these few terms make some law workers think that law from other country, such as honor killing in the Islamic world, is applicable in America. With immeasurable cruelty, some posterity has trampled the words of their Founding Fathers: This Constitution and the Laws of the United Statesshall be the supreme law of the Land


To those people who must favor socialism, capitalism never has a state that is benignant. Accepting such a state in theory violates their scheme of limitlessly criminalizing capitalism. To justify their view, one typical fact they love dearly is the killing of the indigenous committed by the colonists in many newfound lands during the worldwide expansion of capitalism few centuries ago. Capitalism is also one of the many types of societies propelled to appear by human greed. It then easily relies on killing for the greed satisfaction. However, which type of society is free of human greed? Before the capitalists colonists arrived, what kind of society had been there in those newfound lands? Record showed that some of them were even still practicing human cannibalism, if not rituals of human sacrifice. It was the arrival of capitalism that enabled the outlaw of these painful practices. While no one should praise murdering, why must the socialists single out the killing involving capitalism as if killing in all other societies had never happened or even had been innocent? It is unfortunate that, with its tool advancement, the lives killed in the capitalist expansion did appear unprecedentedly high. High as it may be, however, the capitalist killing record can never match the killing record created by the Socialist expansion. Cambodia alone already showed a figure of decimation of one quarter of her population in only three years during the Communist aggression in the early 1970s. Besides criminalizing capitalism, the singling out of the killing serves another purpose. It could also criminalize Caucasians/whites, who are mainly the force having pushed forward the capitalist expansion. The target selection is obvious: in the current world, Caucasians/whites hold more wealth than other races per capita. The selection just cut two trees with one saw. The success of criminalizing both would speed up someones socialist ambition. To these people, they seem never have time to review the killing not committed by capitalism and Caucasians/whites. It took less than a year for the world to put the war mongers of WWII in the trial stand. But so far, not one socialist murderer has ever had to face any law judgment from the world even though the victims resulted by the socialist killing is unprecedentedly high since 1917. Efficient killing tools in hand, some modern slaughterers just multiply the cruelty toward their consanguineous indigenous in Rwanda, Sudan, Sierra Leone However, justice only allows the killing involving the capitalist expansions or committed by Caucasians/whites to have the honor stubbornly staying in history. For their purpose, the Socialists can only continue to intensify their cowardice hunt of scapegoat in history to fit in their moral noose. People should not be surprised that one day the noose will have a new tag, on which appears the name of George Washington. Indeed, following the name of Christopher Columbus, the name of Thomas Jefferson has been more and more often seen receiving the summon. Those who live on this land but help tightening the noose are only telling people what kind of human debris they themselves belong to: leeching on what is left behind by scums but accusing the scums of having been leeches. But the scums are just exactly their father or their great grandfathers who endured all the hardship and raised this debris of justice. Well, it fits the mentality bred by todays education that has renounced Christianity.

Right-wingers, Lefties, Liberals, Conservatives Who Are They?

Literally, liberals mean a group of people who dissatisfy with control or authority. Many of them would only dream of living is Utopian society. As such, they can be of high value to the ambition of those people who aim at replacing the existing authority. The lefties are more ambitious people, who can foresee no possibility of Utopia but never hesitate to exploit someone elses desire of living in a Utopia. The lefties are modern liberals with a slogan added: to free the sufferers. A lefty is a socialist/communist if he is highly disciplinary to organized movement. In other words, the lefties bridge the liberals and the communists in the same political spectrum, but their relationship to each other can vary, depending on the historical conditions. Liberals, leftists and socialist/communist in the West are alliances, but would potentially become enemies inside the Socialist Countries with liberals at one side and the lefties/socialist/communists at the other side. The relationship between the liberals, lefties, and communists at different societies can be fully read in a history dominated by Maos ruling. In 1957, less than eight years after Mao secured his power in the mainland, more than five hundred thousand Right Wingers were identified by Mao and be persecuted by his peoples democratic dictatorship. Loss of life and family set no limit for the persecution. Among these Right Wingers, so many of them had been liberals against the old government and actively helped Mao to access the throne of peoples democratic dictatorship during the Chinese Civil War. They did not join the Communist Party, indeed, even felt proud that they did not join in the old days. With the mirage Mao promised, these liberals earnestly hope that Mao would liberate China for them. Similar persecution against liberals existed in other Communists countries like Soviet. Although the scale was less wide spread in population, the cruelty was no less intense. The Gulag Archipelago by Alexander Solzhenitsyn can provide another depiction of the same Communist history. With the scoundrelly nature of communist politics stressed by Lenin, liberals have value to Communists like toilet paper to someone having urgent feeling. He fervently seeks after the paper before problem is taken care of. After used, the toilet paper not only has simply lost value, but it even carried negative value and must be flushed away. All communists must betray their own promise that they made before they secured the power, they cannot leave any chance for others to check them with their previous promise. Intolerably, the liberals may so check. The nature of being against certain authority does not necessarily make all liberals serve the purpose of the lefties or communists. Time makes difference, too. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin can be viewed as liberals in their time. They replaced the old authority with a new authority, with which they installed far higher scale of freedom for freetrade. They established a society in which government power is to guarantee the pursuit of happiness of all men, and to minimize the chance for one group of people to get happiness at the cost of some others. Time has not allowed their idea to become perfect, but they have proposed the best idea of government forming for mankind. Aiming at disintegrating such an authority guarding free-trade, liberals in nowadays America can only help replacing it with something favoring forced-trade. As such, modern liberals are so much in beat with those who promote the socialist enterprise in America.

Different from the liberals who just whine, there are some people whose occupation is to find the existence of sufferers. Any sufferer they can find in a capitalist society is their political asset. The more sufferers they can find the better. With the camouflage of high moral standard of fighting for the sufferers, they rally the sufferers together and demand the society to comfort the sufferers. With their moral standard, they demonize someone who earns handsomely through free-trade as some criminal having exploited the others. Criminalizing free-trade can only promote forced-trade. But they cloak the forced-trade as justice. The trick of wearing a cloak of high moral standard has helped created many haloed heroes of robbery in history like Marx, Engel, Stalin, Mao, Che Today, the same trick have helped many heroic figures to infiltrate into many Churches, organizations and assemblies of human rights in the West, or even some government offices beyond any limit. Indulging sensation enjoyment is one of the commanding agendas that the liberals chase after. Indulging sensation enjoyment is an expression of forced-trade in the moral front. For example, the freedom of drug abuse for a big group of people indirectly forces the government to spend formidable budget to deal with all havoc caused by drug dealers. Or a drunk driver may kill someone on the street but later is allowed to walk away with some punishment so light that it can never match the value of a life he terminated. An unwedded mother on welfare just forces those married mothers to sacrifice for the children out of wedlock resulted by irresponsible sexual behavior. Situation can even be far more gruesome than these examples if we look at the human source of national defense. Overall, the socialists/communists would like to keep themselves away from the sensation abuse before they secure a certain power. A drug dealer would disallow his children or subordinators to get addicted to drug, but others addiction would be the more the better. Hedonism is an aggressive chemical agent of will erosion and is therefore harmful to the ambition to the lefties/socialists/communists. To be disciplinary to diligent organized movement, they must keep a distance from this chemical agent. While so doing, however, they would make sure they would list all liberals in the capitalist society as the sufferers and encourage the sufferers to whine for more hedonism. Accessing the exclusive monopoly of power of a state is their final goal, but generally not the liberals. For that goal, they may take any strategy that can match the scoundrelly politics laid down by Lenins mentoring. Among the socialists/Communists themselves, they may also distinguish between each other by identifying each others strategy with terms like radical, lefties, moderates, rightist, or revisionists. But they cannot distinguish each other by nature. They all aim at exclusive monopoly of power. The only difference put up by these terms is whether to snatch the power with a sword or an ax. Contrasting to the liberals, lefties, Socialists, a label of conservative naturally formulates in peoples political view. But how is a conservative defined? Are they simply all people who show disagreement against a liberal, a lefty and a socialist? Is the person a conservative if he/she insists the legality of ownership of private gun? Currently it is almost daily news that more and more sufferers have been using guns to launch sporadic killings that shock the society. Will those who label themselves as conservative accept those killers as their peers? Those killers, before they committed the crime, would sure say they loved the Second Amendment. But sternly supporting Second Amendment is also what all self-label conservatives take pride with.


Should a person also be labeled as a conservative if he insists to outlaw abortion? Then what will he conserve for the society? Abortion is an effective way to stop the flooding arrival of children resulted by irresponsible sexual behavior. Is irresponsible sexual behavior what his agenda aiming at conserving? Then how is he different from a liberal fond of hedonism? Children out of wedlock in nowadays society are not only the result of immoral sexual activity but most of them also demand the support of an abusive welfare program. Both the moral corruption and the abusive welfare program supporting them menacingly threat the traditional family value of the society. Is providing umbrella for this threat what the word conservative means? What can be sure is that, when the children out of wedlock grow, they will provide a stronger and stronger human supply fighting for the socialisms fair sharing. They can only be hostile to the mutual respect between traders, as it is a capitalist doctrine requiring proper contribution for sharing. On all these issues, the stronger the so called conservative insist, the more social benefit they must provide for the liberals and the Socialists to harvest. If the conservatives must oppose the adversary with policies immeasurably benefiting their opponents, on the day they must meet their extinction, they have no one to blame but their own stupidity. Indeed, such effect has been more and more prominent. In America, Republican Party is labeling itself with major conservatives. It is also well known today that this party is experiencing heavy pressure of disintegration today. Their policy is so short sight that they only limit themselves as a simple entity that is to provide the other side with exact disagreement. However, distinguishing themselves from the common behaviors shown by liberals, lefties and communists, many self-labeled conservatives do share one common believing. They believe more on free-trade, and thus statistically they are more a follower of Christianity, a belief mostly encouraging respect. So believing, they usually cannot let go of the mathematical question can we afford it when they encounter a social demand. The same mathematical consideration is not a factor in the agenda of the liberals or lefties. In chapter 7 we mentioned that monopoly of capital has to have good skill in production management to continue their position. Therefore, conservatives and monopoly of capital naturally come close to each other and share the same mathematical concern when facing social demand, contradicting the mentality of the monopoly of labor. The same mathematical concern can we afford it always causes agony on the liberals, lefties, and Socialist, who must ask the society to satisfy their worry free demand. For a historical coincidence of seat arrangement in some old time European parliament, people call those who demand satisfaction through social order disruption the left wingers. Contrary to their own left stance on how to make the society satisfy demand, the lefties call all those with more mathematical concern right wingers. With the term right winger, the left side demonizes the conservatives and capital holders at ever intensified scale, as if the term right winger equates criminal. To the left side, it is not their abusive demand being immoral, but it is those who balance social demand with sound mathematics being immoral. In their accusation, whoever uses sound mathematics to restrict their liberal demand just intends to make the sufferers suffer more. This upside down logic veiled with moral needs people of illiteracy to believe. Indeed, a rapidly increasing population of illiteracy in the West is exactly what the left side madly creates. Besides the concern of mathematical balance, the so called conservatives feel only confused in policy making. Self-initiated short sighted policies that violate their long term survival such as opposing abortion is not the only strategy fatal to them. They even more and more feel the need to embrace policies creating prosperity for the other side. For example, in order to win in the ballot box competition, they currently plan to bow at illegal immigrants, trashing the law they

conventionally say defending at all cost. The illegal immigrants and their relatives would welcome a conservatives bowing, but will definitely remove him with their future votes if he ever expresses good mathematical concern. The long term political effect of bowing at illegal immigrants is the same as guarding fetus of irresponsible single mothers. The more the conservatives insist on their current policies, the more they would make their original supporters feel confused and lost, the faster the so called conservatives would dwindle in the political arena. There are two major reasons to have entrapped the conservatives in confusion. Reason one is the human greed that is inescapably born with for people both the left and right sides. This reason can generate resonance among people at both sides in many cases. Reason two is of ideological teaching, which the conservatives feel dear but has misinterpreted. As mentioned many times, reason one is the Achilles heel for those who favor free-trade. Not only they feel so easily buckling their knees at the earnest hope for a peaceful environment, but they also tempt so much to get access to a goal of the highest possible benefit at the lowest possible cost. Tempting this goal, the feeling of appeasement easily nooses them. For example, dont we hear that some of them support legalizing illegal drug? Dont they know that whining for such drug is a strong demand from the liberals? Another example is their argument about gun ownership. Gun manufacturing has been one of the important financial pillars for many so called conservatives in America. So unfortunately, insisting on the gun right in escorting the financial pillar, they have to protect hypocrisy in many issues. In many political campaigns, one of the moving slogans from them is we care each life from cradle to grave. When gun killing appears in the news, however, more often than not, the word from them in summarizing the number of the innocent lives thus wasted is only. With the caring attitude of cradle-to-grave, why do they miss the fact that thirty to fifty casualties are related to gun crime in America every year? They constantly subdue the significance of life loss by comparing the life loss caused by car accidents. Why cant they have a sense that life wasted by crime is one too many? With the life value appearing so low in their gun policy, how do they convince people to follow them to pursue a country of liberty, but liberty of what? How is it a liberty if it is filled with fear of unexpected loss of life? Some of the conservatives propose to let everyone carry a gun to stop gun crime from happening. This proposal is just a blank check of preemptive right issued to the bad guys, because before he starts shooting no one can say he is a criminal. This is even the basic understanding of the Fifth Amendment. What kind of free world is it in which the priests and the audience carry gun in the same church; the professors and his students carry gun in the same classroom; a doctor and his patient carry gun in the same clinic? Isnt it a plain scene of war zone? Is this how democracy and liberty to be enjoyed? Can Americans tell the world that this country is the best because people like pastors and doctors must carry enough terror force to survive? Are pastors and doctors representing images that people entrust with the most hope of life? The conservatives may think they have the best argument in protecting their guns. How the voters will accept their argument is quite another matter. To these voters, neither do they want to carry gun everywhere they go, nor do they want to lose life unexpectedly during shopping or watching movie. So unfortunate to the conservatives, such voters increase in number daily. If the conservatives do not respect the sentiment of this group of voters, they can only distance

themselves from their mass base more and more. Given the history of America, complete gun banning may be impractical in this country. However, the conservatives must think harder and smarter to put up better argument and strategy if they do not want to bid farewell to their mass base. To cover up their miss in balancing the value between life and gun, the conservatives indistinguishably rest their hope on fetus to show their benevolence on life. Being church goers among most of them, they object abortion but disregard the fact that a big number of the fetus are brought forward by irresponsible sex. Are they enthusiastic in defending the Bible or showing reluctance and incompetence in defending the Bible? The US Constitution is a document strongly obliging the government to defend Christianity. However, the conservatives seem making people feel that only the Second Amendment is what deserves their all-out energy for a defense. In comparison, their defense on Christianity is feeble and nearly paralyzed as if the Constitution had never been there. If they really have the value of Christianity in their mind, Article VI alone in the original body of the US Constitution would have enabled them all victory over any other faith in America. If they ever put up the same energy in defending the value of Christianity as what they put up for the Second Amendment, they would not have placed themselves a near disintegration position like what they experience today. With all these difficulties they create for themselves in policy making, the more they stress on the mathematical concern in free-trade, they more they allow their opponents to demonize them. Their opponents love to tell people that their mathematical concern in balancing social demand just tries to make the sufferers suffer more. All foregoing analyses tell us that we cannot accurately recognize a persons political stance if we use the terms of left, right, liberal, and conservative. Gun fans straddle across both liberals and conservatives. We must even fail ourselves big time if we identify a persons stance by simply examining if he is for or against democracy, freedom, human rights, or fairness. It is true that a liberal, a lefty and a Socialist must be a liberal, a lefty and a socialist, but a conservative can only be statistically recognized. In many issues, a conservative is an opportunist, making himself look more like genuine liberals. Today a term progressive gradually appears to group those opportunists, who may be motivated by conservative slogans but doing favor for liberals. If the conservatives cannot even defend Christianity that is stressed in the US Constitution, how do people expect them to defend free-trade? The reason for doubt is simple. The US Constitution has strong word obliging protection from the government, while free-trade finds not even one word in any American law for its defense. Unfortunately, the conservatives only seem to demand the protection from the Second Amendment for their gun right, but relinquish themselves from the Constitutional right, as well as obligation, of defending Christianity. Contrast to all the above vague and slimy terms like liberals or conservatives, there is one solid line to separate all people in political preference. All we need to do is to examine whether a person is for or against free-trade or forced-trade. Anyone demanding forced-trade promoted by government force for personal gain is promoting robbery guaranteed by government; no explanation or excuse can be given. Only free-trade can honor honest deal in gaining personal interest. There is no gray area for anyone to slip into between free-trade and forced-trade, regardless of what moral cloak a person may wear.

A Capitalist Constitution but Escorting Socialism

If free-trade is so vulnerable but forced-trade is so aggressive, a society established for freetrade must have strong political means to fend off forced-trade. Sadly, it is not how we find in reality. When the healthcare law passed in the American Congress in 2009, both sides voting for and against should have a feeling of how absolute power monopolization tastes like. With power monopolization, reasoning no longer works, only smearing, accusation, straitjacketing intimidation can set sail. Comparing to Romes history of 2,400 years, the history of America as a capitalist country is not even 240 years yet. However, people already feel the forceful looming of monopolization of power. High concentration of political power must escort enslaving. This is exactly what is progressing in America and many Western countries. In these countries, the various abusive welfare programs just guarantee a big group of people with benefits but without working. Riding on these programs, some politicians rapidly concentrate power. In America, slavery just finds its way back to replace the infamous old one with all kinds of luxury and moral halo. While the old one was enforced by individual but protected by government, the modern luxury one is directly enforced by government. This can only mean that the modern one will have higher potential to develop with more cruelty if not curbed on time. We have seen it all from the by-gone Soviet bloc. Forced-trade enforced by government is the exact goal of the MCP. A supposedly capitalist government is realizing what Marx and Engels dreamed of; isnt it ridiculous? But why is it so? The successful parasitic dwelling of socialism in a capitalist host can only mean that this host has made itself into a safe haven for the parasite. Whatever the law assumed guarding capitalism is failing! Any society that wants to avoid stalemate must be able to provide the society with enough production. If either of the only two partners in production develops into monopoly, it must introduce forced-trade to the society and result in less production and subsequently stalemate. Capitalism, unfortunately, with competition it encourages, must sooner or later allow this state of monopolization to happen, unless certain intervening force could put a brake during the monopoly development. The only force that could apply the brake, of course, comes from the government but nowhere else. Here the antitrust laws come into play. The law may have originated with wisdom and good motivation but the application has been disastrously misguided. All Western governments use the antitrust laws to restrict only the monopoly of capital while let loose the monopoly of labor. The one-sided law application has its historical root. In the old time, the overall social production was meager. The forced-trade promoted by a wealth holder could only force the servitude bearers to live in some even more wretched conditions. Fighting for survival may be a daily struggle for them. In those days, although the government protected forced-trade, the power enforcing forced-trace was often directly exerted by the wealth holder toward the servitude bearers. All these resulted in historical hatred from the public toward the rich but sympathy toward the poor. This historical sentiment easily continued its influence toward peoples thinking when they enacted and applied antitrust laws. Not only the antitrust laws have

set free the monopoly of labor, but the society also applies another set of laws to either glamorize or protect the monopoly of labor. Because of the same sentiment, in America, the First Amendment always entitles the monopoly of labor force as peaceful assembly. At the same time, the same amendment may become invisible in the public for a business, having been monopoly or not. Next to the antitrust laws, people can no longer allow a business to find that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedomor the right of the people peaceably to assemble Politic cannot be guided by emotion although it must respect certain sentiment. Politic is a gravely serious business to settle problem in reality. If people living in capitalism feel they need law to limit the capital monopoly from forming, they have no single reason not to have law to limit the labor monopoly from forming. Otherwise, they just allow the force that may starve the society to expand while clamping down the force that feeds the society. The astronomical debt hovering over the entire West is a strong evidence of this mentality. As to the national debt of America, this can only further tell people that somewhere her doctrine of check and balance in the Constitution has lost its function. Of course it must, if people allow the antitrust law to surpass the Constitution. Here is the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble This amendment immediately presents to us one question concerning the two partners of production. How is a peaceful assembly of people defined? Is any business that lawfully exists in this land a peaceful assembly of people? If the answer is yes, why should it not enjoy the protection of the First Amendment but must be subjected to the destructive force of the antitrust laws? If the answer is no, what makes the various organizations of labor force more qualified as peaceful assembly? Comparing between lawful businesses and various labor organizations, which of the assemblies of people appear more peaceful to the society? Do business owners launch strikes, establish picket lines, and organize noisy rallies and demonstrations or even riots? When the labor organizations show their might, stopping production is what they have as backup for their demand. Do the business owners ever show their might by provoking the society with stopping production? Yes, some does, but not for a purpose of showing might, but for begging last gasp. One of the major aims in the antitrust laws is to outlaw price fixing. With the exemption the labor force found from the law, however, the labor monopoly enjoys full freedom of fixing the labor price. Now, openly and freely discriminating one people assembly over another, the antitrust laws have surpassed the First Amendment in legal authority. Where do these laws gain such power? The preferred application of antitrust laws is not the only unconstitutional practice. In America, right-to-work, right to strike, collective bargaining, and limiting a business owners freedom in hiring or firing are all in conflict with Amendment III and IV. These two amendments so state:


Amendment III: No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches, and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. These two amendments grant the sacred right of resisting invasion to private property in America. If no government agent can infringe such right without probable cause, all civilians, organized or not, must abide to the same law with all due respect. However, in America, similarly in the rest of the capitalist society, hijacking in all forms, ranging from picketing to barricading, lockout, aiming at making the private business succumb to a negotiation is a practice widely employed. When the hijacking happens, a capitalist government normally feels so timid that it often fails to give a business the protection compatible to what it gives to an individual. For an individual who claims facing hostility from other person, he can petition for a restraining order from the court. However, when the business faces hostility from organized labor, similar measure is usually not seen available. Yes, workers should have their own right, such as the right to strike. However, a business owner should have an exclusive right in deciding hiring, too. Conditioning the restoration of a business operation with the terms compromising a business owners right of hiring violates the Amendment III and IV. If the public considers the right of strike should be more dominant, they should make new amendment. But until then, no ones right unfound in the Constitution can disgrace the grandeur of the Constitution. Unfortunately, the vulnerability of free-trade always encroaches upon the dignity of the Constitution. Besides the antitrust laws and openly trashing the right of private property ownership, capitalism has been knotting another noose for self-hanging. It is all those abusive welfare programs. Frankly, all welfare programs are products of appeasement from free-trade to forcedtrade. No welfare program can find room in the US Constitution. By nature, any welfare program is a form of forced-trade, with which someone can enjoy what someone else earns but not what he himself earns. Then, another group of citizens must surrender under the duress of government power part of what he legitimately earns. Human right of one group of citizens is openly trashed in the name of human right of another group. The welfare system nakedly violates the US Constitution when compared to what Amendment XIII says: Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. When some people are made to pay to support those abusive welfare programs, are they paying voluntarily or involuntary? Off course no one would voluntarily pay if it is not because of the government. So when they must involuntarily pay, is the payment a punishment for crime? But what is the crime? What is absurd in todays society is that he who commits crime is free from paying involuntary servitude. But he who succeeds in contributing to the society has

to pay to support the criminal one, as least those less contributing ones. Committing no crime but having to pay what a punishment calls for, a successful citizen is not only subjected to involuntary servitude, but also humiliation. The tendency is even that he who appears more successful needs to pay more. Mathematically, wealth spent on the abusive welfare system is to purchase poverty. Its effect is to buy the recipients not to contribute but to consume. Ideologically, the welfare system raises some slave owners of the modern society with far worse mentality than those in the old slavery society. In the old slavery society, if a slave owner could not properly manage his assets then bankrupted, the government would not come to his rescue. So the slave owner of the old time must have good sense of responsibility to avoid failure. In the modern one that is certified by the welfare system, slave owners do not have to have any sense of responsibility to guarantee the income. All he needs is to whine at the right time at the right office. Having been forced to appropriate social wealth in this way, capitalism is devouring its own feet to cure hunger, mathematically and morally. Its death should not be too far away if nothing can change. Had the supreme law of the capitalist society enthroned free-trade with open words, all these packages of forced-trade would not have stayed in a capitalist society so freely. With the simple nature of free-trade, people can easily judge if a policy or program to be acceptable or not in a capitalist country that stresses respect. They can easily rip off the moral cloak under which a politician declares fighting for the sufferers but actually for his own ambitious personal gain. Yes, some well monitored welfare program may be necessary to stabilize a society, such as to put up financial rescue in disaster like tornado or earthquake. However, the use of such program should have an effect of buying contribution other than buying poverty, encouraging responsibility other than nurturing senseless leisure. Without her motherly document, the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution would not have come to exist. Therefore, those who need the US Constitution for protection cannot get away from the teaching of this motherly document, which so stresses: for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred honor. This topmost supreme document in America tells all her citizens: to enjoy in this land, one must pledge, and the pledge ranges from life, to fortune, to honor. To abusively collect without contribution, one is violating the pledge demanded by the teaching. If every citizen faithfully abides to this teaching, the US Constitution would not have allowed any forced-trade scheme serving personal gain to creep in. Unfortunately, having set aside this teaching for too long, people on this land today have come to a time to decide whether the Constitution should protect her mother document or to protect those who violate the mother documents teaching. If the US Constitution is eventually unable to enthrone free-trade with open words, she can only continue to yield the legal dominance to the pseudo-value terms. Then it is only a matter of time when her authority must vanish to none. The pseudo-value terms match human greed so much better than pledge. With the moral power of the pseudo-values, one in the capitalist society is easily forced to relinquish what belongs to him because of the need of some sufferers. To heighten

the moral power of these terms so they can sideline the US Constitution in their conspiracy, the liberals and lefties have made their best to devalue the Declaration of Independence. This document is only a personal letter to King George, said they. No more skillful but shameless liar can be found in this world. It must earn a heartfelt agreement from Marx, Lenin, and Mao. Using the pseudo-value terms to internally crumble the capitalist society is not the only conspiracy of the liberals, lefties and the socialists. They also use the moral power of the same terms to disarm the capitalist society from defending against external damage. That America, a sovereign country cannot have a sealed border at the south side is a proof how they have successfully taken advantage of the septic effect of these few terms. Why a military superpower like America could not have pulled itself out of the battle fields in Afghanistan and Iraq in a short time but must stay there in decade? The answer is again the same septic effect of the pseudo-value terms. Under the manipulation of the liberals, lefties and Socialists, these few terms are permanently merciful to those external enemies of the capitalist society but meanwhile merciless to those who defend it. The traditional need of appeasement brewed in the free-trade society just gives them all the convenience in such manipulation. The US Constitution seems so powerless in dealing with these schemes. Why? Lacking open words of protecting free-trade creates all fissures for the socialist parasites to infest. In political struggle, there are only two levels for people to stay: conquering or surrendering. Coexisting is only a temporary state for either level to earn time. Among human interests, there are only two choices for people to make: free-trade or forced-trade. It is time for the capitalist society to enthrone free-trade with open words in her supreme law. Guarding free-trade, they could enjoy genuine democracy and freedom. Guarding the so called democracy and freedom without knowing their genuine source, people would only create chance for forced-trade to conquer. It is free-trade or forced-trade, but free-trade is vulnerable in front of force-trade. It can be certain that no one would like to openly identify himself as one who sides with robbery. To side with forced-trade to gain, one must wear a moral cloak. Only a Constitution with open word to defend free-trade can strip off such cloak. Yes, free-trade has been criminalized for too long. Do people have courage to legitimate it with open words?



The Genuine American Values

As if the already popular pseudo-value terms are not yet damaging enough, another passion arousing term, called American dream, has been gaining more and more holiness in American political life. What is American dream? No one can find it in law and no one can define it at all. It has nothing to mean to anyone. However, it is a term with which politicians can agitate mirage of all kinds and ask the public to chase after. Although this term would not call for crushing authority like the pseudo-value terms, it plays the role for a politician to crush his opponent. Together with the pseudo value terms, American dream can enjoy more sacredness than the Constitution. A politician may have freedom to criticize a certain part of the US Constitution without trouble, but no politician dares to challenge American dream or any of the pseudo-value terms. To anyone in the world, what is a better business than being able to sell dream? But competing to sell the best dream to get more votes and thus a better personal career is exactly what the modern politicians train themselves to do. In many cases, the money for a person to buy the dream is even from the government. At the same time the term American dream gets popular, we also hear another term surfacing up with no less might: the American value. It is for certain that value has far more tangible feeling than dream. However, what is it? So far, people seem relate American value more often with the pseudo-value terms than anything else. Since only in something that is measurable can people find value, American value must have nothing to do with the pseudo-value terms or the American dream that no one can rigidly define. While the accuracy in defining the pseudo-value terms depends on power, the accuracy in defining value must be independent of power. A triangle has three angles; no matter it is called by a king or by a street cleaner. Anything that can carry the weight of American value must have been historically so commanding that its absence would inevitably change the nature of America. Its continuing existence, on the other hand, must forcefully guarantee the perpetuity of America. Besides, a term that deserves the title of American value must be simple enough to permeate into each American citizens daily life without his constant reference to political documents or books of law. Comparing to all these, what can carry better value for America than the following few terms?
1. A Citizens pledge to America; 2. Christianity; 3. English; 4. Free-trade in personal interest exchanges.

It is up to the public whether to accept these few terms as American values, but not up to this author. Only for the convenience of discussion in this article, lets call them American values here to contrast the pseudo-value terms. Any reader has his freedom to reject what is suggested here. The four American-value terms suggested here need no definition from anyone but are solidly tangible. The absence of any of these four entries definitely makes America no longer

look the same. If all of them vanish, good luck, Americans, you do need Gods bless! Also, if all of them vanish from the land of America, congratulation, Socialists! Right and obligation come together as a pair to lever a citizens social behavior. It should be more so for the citizens who thought they have established a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. The nonexistence of either one of the behavior pair must disallow any country from forming. The imbalance between this pair must sicken a country even it is founded. The reason that America can be such a magnificent country is because her citizens have a tradition most diligently respecting such balance. This balance is well laid in this countrys topmost motherly document, the Declaration of Independence of America. At the beginning part, this document tells people: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal with certain unalienable Rights However, the same document did not only promise people with rights. She does also ask for fulfillment of obligation from the same people looking for their rights: For the support of the declaration, and firm reliance on the providence, we mutually pledge to each other our life, our fortune, and our sacred honor. Unfortunately, the misguiding of the pseudo-value terms and the bombarding propaganda of demonizing the rich by the socialists have more and more obscured this statement of pledge from peoples faith. In todays America, it would be far easier to find a population fluently citing the statement of the unalienable rights than citing the statement of pledge. Pledge is an obligation, a self-assumed obligation. Obligation alone without pledge may well be a burden, servitude, assigned by someone else. While right and obligation pairing each other in levering a citizens political behavior, each of these two terms brings in opposite effect to a nation. A right is a conditional enjoyment. It must base itself on consumption, mowing creation. Obligation, self-pledged or forced upon, is to create. Therefore, mathematically, right enjoyment alone without the support of obligation fulfillment can only devastate a nation, threatening its survival. On the other hand, obligation fulfilled, a country can have production to rely on for its survival even if it may strip the right enjoyment off its people as much as possible. Exactly for this reason, people cannot see any Utopian country to have ever existed in history but do see Socialist countries to have existed for a relatively long time. People inside all socialist countries have been obliged with the highest cruelty in history. The more genuinely a country enforces Socialism, the more intensely it will oblige its people with cruelty. However, the over tormenting by obligation has not discontinued the socialist movement. From 1917, Socialism has begun its power usurpation for nearly 100 years, although the usurpation continues in different countries with up and down ripples. No sign has shown it is drooping. Instead, fertilized by human greed, its weedy tendency spreads. While the socialist countries make themselves a meat grinder with obligation, the nowadays capitalist countries are nursing people to curse at obligation and whine for abusive rights. More often than not, they consider obligations of a citizen to the nation being anti-democracy,

threatening freedom, and even a plain persecution from a government. Pledging like what the Declaration of Independence asks for has become more and more unimaginably luxurious. An ironclad proof for this mentality is that a candidate proposing more rights would have more chance to win more votes and get into the office he wants. In America, between a candidate proposing welfare cutting to reduce the national debt and a candidate proposing more welfare aid but ignoring the debt, guess who will win. Between a candidate proposing military draft and a candidate proposing voluntary employment in military recruiting, guess who will win. Between a candidate proposing expanding the policemans power in car search to help reducing drug crime and a candidate proposing more privacy right to fend off the policeman, guess who will win. Freedom is not free, but let someone else pay the cost. This is the popular pledge-rejecting mentality in the West today. More and more often we hear someone complain that America is going in the wrong direction but dont know why. The fact is that not only America, but the entire West has also been on the wrong track if they would admit. They seem not knowing the answer while enjoying ignorance on plain mathematics. The effect of losing mathematical balance between right and obligation has kicked in and driven the West for too long. The effect is furiously accelerating itself and has skewed the social compass. While a socialist society can preserve a certain creation, the capitalist countries rapidly scatter their creation with more and more uncontrollable consumption. The pseudo-value terms and the luxuriant material life of long time have made the West more and more dumbfounded. More and more people even have lost courage to face where the political danger comes from. To prove how a socialist country can preserve creation while a capitalist country is wasting creation under the duress of the pseudovalue terms, we have a no better example. Everybody today knows that America has an astronomical and unprecedented national debt, while a big part of it is in the hand of the Communist China. Compared to enjoyment of right, self-assumed obligation, or pledge, is far loftier and far more tangibly significant for a citizen to feel toward a nation. Without the pledge, ones talking about the love to a nation is empty and even fake. Here is how John Kennedy summarized the tradition of pledge: We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty. And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country. If we dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution, we must not allow us to forget the following: The Declaration of Independence of America, which is permeated with the teaching from Christianity, is written and signed all by followers of Christianity, but no one else;

The Articles of Confederation, which emphasized Christianity as what this nation should only defend as a religion, is written and signed all by followers of Christianity, but no one else; The Constitution of the United States of America is written and signed all by followers of Christianity, but no one else. It is this Constitution that defines every US citizen being a Christian. All these must tell us that Christianity is gravely crucial in deciding the continued existence of the United States of America. Separating this teaching from the political life of American citizens is to deplete the soul from this country, making this country a walking dead. What is betrayal? It is to bring death to a benefactor by someone who receives his benefit. Setting aside the crucial gravity of Christianity in political life, the creativity nurtured by Christianity must also have enough to command respect and inspire pride from every citizen so defined as a Christian in this nation by the Constitution. No one can deny that the worlds most important inventions, discoveries and creations are most abundantly springing up from areas where Christianity spiritually dominates. If we dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution, we must also not allow us to forget the following: The Declaration of Independence of America is written and signed with English, but no other language else; The Articles of Confederation is written and signed with English, but no other language else; The Constitution of the United States of America is written and signed with English, but no other language else. English is thus enthroned as an official language by the most prestige documents in America. Any dispute on the contrary must be invalid, groundless, and is only to serve ambition that has found the present look of this country intolerable. For the health of any nation, no one can see it wrong for the nation to follow this principle: One nation, one language. History has shown too many examples how variety of language can powerfully disintegrate a country. Every important document, invention, discovery in America is so far produced with pens under which only English is flowing. Which language has brought value that is even close to what English has brought to this nation during her growth? Walking away from it is to allow betrayal to begin. If Americans do not take free-trade as American value, they can only take forced-trade as American value. Alas! If it ever came true, every Americans should prepare himself to welcome the following name style for his country: Democratic Peoples Republic of America


Only few letters away, each of them would be enjoying all the democracy that people in Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea is enjoying. So, when we talk about American value, lets not forget:
1. A Citizens pledge to America; 2. Christianity; 3. English; 4. Free-trade in personal interest exchanges.


11 Free-Trade Needs Vanguards From Both Ideology and Tangible Forces

In a brief summary, one may feel having been urged to learn from Christianity: For Gods sake, respect! From Islam: For Gods sake, destroy! From Socialism, nothing else but: For peoples sake, destroy! If the socialist sees it proper to direct a society with ideas matching what is found in the Manifesto of Communist Party, Marxism-Leninism, Maos Thought and if Islamic followers see it proper to direct a society with Koran, what teaching should people chasing after democracy follow? Beyond what one would believe or even imagine, the answer is some dogmas that would earn the agreement from the communist! One can find this ironclad answer in the MCP: they (the Communists) labor everywhere for the union and agreement of the democratic parties of all countries. Brilliant! After a so called democratic party earns more agreement from the Communists like Marx, Stalin, would this party have displayed more or less democracy? More, naturally so approve the Communists, who accept only centralized democracy and peoples democratic dictatorship. Simple logic then makes it inescapable that eventual democracy leads to eventual Socialism! Before the communist get the power, they look for agreement from the democratic parties. After they get the power, they force agreement on the democratic parties. Both logic and history show just that. If the communists cannot get the agreement that they want, just two or three lines below the above statement, they declared (the Communists) ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Arent they candid enough? Only what they want can fit in the democratic agreement. If not getting with peaceful labor, they will get it by the forcible overthrow. What will make them stop the forcible overthrow after they get the power dominating over the previous democratic parties? With their own words about love of democracy, the Socialists/Communists have clearly warned people of how dangerous the idea of democracy can be to a society. If people ignore the genuine source of democracy, they only chase after abstract democracy or pseudo-value democracy. People chase after democracy all want to be respected. Only a society guarantees free-trade would guarantee respect between most of the social members. If a society promises not to guarantee free-trade, it must guarantee forced-trade. The respect out of the so called democracy from a forced-trade society must be one-sided and then it must only be dictatorship. In history we find no better teaching than Christianity in stressing respect between people. One may not believe in Christianity, one may even think he can find many faults in this teaching, but no one can deny how this teaching and the widely accepted civilization have ben intertwining in history. So far, all the countries of the most prosperity of long time must also have a long history of spiritual dominance of Christianity in them. In the world, there are many schools of belief. So far, we have not found any other teaching that can play such a role in inspiring civilization like Christianity, not Islam, not Buddhism, not even to mention that

socialism only kills civilization. Are all these coincidence, but coincidence with facts of two thousand years of history? Let alone the prosperity, even the ideas that are summarized as democracy have only come out of the civilization fermented by Christianity. With Christianitys unaltered nourishing, democracy gets a more and more robust look. Unfortunately, though, it has been so robust that some people become blindfold about its source. Some people even develop such haughty and arrogant idea that democracy and freedom alone have enabled them to reveal all secrets of nature in any depth. With their intelligence, they begin their relentless attack on Christianity, accusing Christianity of being unscientific. But how scientific have they been? If these self-inflated people devote all their energy matching the socialists scheme of crushing Christianity, they just enhance the Socialists need in promoting forced-trade, or robbery. Matching the need of robbery gang is not scientific, it is barbarian, regardless whether they themselves are Socialist/Communists or not. While promoting their atheistic view or the so called secular ideas, they expel Christianity from public schools in America, fully exposing themselves being law blind about the defense entitlement of Christianity in the US Constitution. How scientific have they been? With their secular logic, they must lead themselves to believe creationism of Nothingness for the universe. How scientific have they been? When they must ask people to believe evolution with a principle of survival of the fittest covering all living beings, they insist human beings being exceptional but to enjoy fairness across the board. How scientific have they been? Blindfolded by human greed, people following the self-inflated ideology are gaining in number and thus political dominance in the West. Guided by their intelligence that can only introduce confusion, the following is what the nation called America gets: (1) national debt of astronomical figure, with sign to get only worse, (2) governments in many states find no way to increase social contribution but rest their hope on open more casinos, which can never create tangible wealth; (3) the highest rate of incarceration in the world; (4) unable to resist invasion in the south border, armed or not armed. If we relate the problems with numerical data development and time progressing, we can find that the seriousness of the problems well consort with the political harassment exerted on Christianity. Christianity has many teachings. The main teaching is to ask people to be self-disciplinary. Abiding to such teaching, each person should curb their human greed, be thankful, humble and thus respect God and other people, and be no self-inflated. We can find this self-disciplinary teaching in the Ten Commandments as well as in the New Testament, where Jesus teaches people to love your neighbors as yourself. To beware of ones own sin is the main vehicle to deliver this teaching. This teaching powerfully snips off any thirst of enslaving others. It is teaching that enabled the abolition of slavery from this land. To expect anything from others without providing anything compatible in return is to covet, a beginning of a hunger of enslaving, no matter how slightly. Free-trade must only grow in an environment of respect. It thus finds no better spiritual soil anywhere else other than those places that have been soaked with the teaching of Christianity. Unfortunately, respect can be exploited by people who have no any intention of respecting but only obsess to satisfaction of human greed. Seeing opportunity, off they go launching all

kinds of forced-trade agenda with unsound reasons such as human right, fairness, faking their agendas as if they deserved respect, but one-way respect. Their demand can only go wilder and wilder if Christianity followers are unable to set a firm line beyond which concession is unacceptable. But Christianity can set the firm line only if Christians have authority that is supported by a force. In America, such force is provided by the US Constitution. However, so far, this force seems only invisible to the Christians because a leading core of Christianity followers has never existed in America. In this teaching, there are too many heads, both worldwide and in America. In comparison, the leading core of Islam is more obvious. When some powerful Islamic group grabs the country power, it would not have to worry too much about the power balance between different factions embraced by the same ideology. Naturally, they would not stress the separation between church and state. Instead, in many countries, the Muslims see it only legitimate to make the government an administration tool for them to enforce Islamic teaching, just like what the Communists do to make their government enforce their ideology. While being able to command awesome respect to God from the followers, Koran also rejects the doctrine of original sin. Feeling no sin, followers of this teaching have a weaker sense of respecting other people. What Jesus says if any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her does not generate too much resonance from them. Today, Koran has had a population that is surpassing the population of Christianity followers. As it has been so popular, studying what role Koran plays in promoting civilization should be of benefit to ones understand about this world. Islam started from where Arabic people populated. Arabic people enjoyed a long history of glory of profound creativity. A tremendous amount of our mathematical knowledge has come from this creative people. However, history shows that the pace of creativity from them slowed down in the current two thousand years, and the slowing down seems even more dramatic in the recent three or four centuries. Coincident with this period of slowing down is the appearance of Koran, which quickly grasped the spiritual dominance in the Arabic world. There is no doubt that Koran stresses code of conduct. However, it also encourages one person to make personal judgment on someone elses conduct and launch personal correction based on this persons judgment. As such, while it calls for heavy punishment against certain immoral behaviors, such as robbery and stealing, Koran does also contain many ideas that people siding with forced-trade feel convenient to take advantage. Even on the issue of morality, different group of them have different judgment on the same behavior. For example, full face exposure of a woman in some Islamic country is acceptable but in some others may be a crime. Without standard, then, making personal judgment on others appearance must damage the universal significance on code of conduct. Sin may thus have a chance to grasp some peoples behavior. By rejecting original sin, Koran does not ask a follower to be aware of his own arrogance that he may exert onto others. Therefore, forced-trade exerted by one person onto another person would meet one less restrain. Subsequently, it is up to the person at the receiving end whether he can stop the oncoming forced-trade. The weaker the person at the receiving end is, the less

possible this person can resist the oncoming forced-trade. For example, being physically weaker, women seem being destined to a position of servitude bearer to men. Garden of Paradise is for men to receive comfort and enjoyment; waiting there for them are virgin servants (Koran 9:111 & 56:11-24). This idea matches what happens in the real world where Koran dominates. There, a woman must have less right than man, ranging from inheritance to marriage. All this is typical forced-trade practice that is forced onto a weaker human by a stronger human. The enforcing direction is not only oriented by gender, from man to woman, but also from those of more powerful to those of less powerful. Statistically, natural birth rate between woman and man is 1:1. If one man is to marry more than one woman, there must be some man somewhere else suffering without marriage. Needless to say, the one who suffers without a wife can only be the less powerful one. Koran allows a man to have more than one wife, legitimating an uneven privilege of marriage between men of different power. If a Muslim finds someone he does not agree, he can have his own discretion whether to regard the disagreed to be an infidel, a pagan, or disbeliever. He then can hold in his own hand the freedom how to apply the following teaching: ...kill them (the disbelievers) wherever you (Islamic believers) find themIf they do fight you, kill them (Koran 2:191); (Disbelievers, pagans, infidels) should be punished by death, crucifixion, the amputation of an alternate hand and foot, or banishment from the land(Koran 5:33) Prepare against them (disbelievers) whatever forces you (believers) can muster(Koran 8:60) God and His Messenger are released from [treaty} obligations to the idolaters(Koran 9:3) wherever you encounter the idolaters, kill them, seize them, besiege them, wait for them at every lookout post(Koran 9:5) All these quotations liberally legitimate punishment at any level that a Muslim can see fit. If a Muslim feels himself privileged enough in titling himself as an ironclad believer of Koran, he can apply the punishment at his will. The encouragement of a persons liberal discretion over others independence must weaken his sense of respecting. Forced-trade then finds its convenience to gain power in a society. In this sense, with what it legitimates, Koran has some language in common with the MCP, although the liberal weight is different. It is for Gods sake that a Koran follower is to apply punishment toward disagreeing people. However, it is for the sake of people, who mean the political leaders most of the time, the MCP followers apply punishment toward disbelievers. The scale of the punishment can be at any liberal level meeting forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. The liberal communist punishment peaked in China during the Cultural Revolution of 1966-1976. Once defined as a pagan or disbeliever of Communism, a person could be punished in any way someone else saw proper. The one who enforced the punishment may be any person who found himself privileged enough to be titled as a communist warrior or Chairman Maos guard.

Promoting to access an exclusive monopoly of power does not seem being an agenda in Koran. Therefore, with the love from God that Koran tells its followers, free-trade in the Islamic world enjoys far more freedom than in those societies that enforce genuine Socialism. However, the forced-trade Koran encourages does severely wear away the creativity that free-trade enables. That Ottoman Empire disappeared in history was not because the people under its ruling were less able, but because its ruling aligned itself with high proportion of forced-trade ideas. Liberal punishment based on peoples idea can be most damaging to peoples willingness of exploring for new creativity. As such, industrial revolution did not choose to happen in the Islamic world, although people there had inherited brain power that once amazed the world. The choice of happening of industrial revolution was not accidental; it rooted deep historically and socially. Industrial revolution chose only to happen in the area where free-trade had been most freely roaming and creativity thus flourishing. Given how much more vulnerable free-trade is than forced-trade, for being able to stay strong for so many centuries, free-trade must have received ever fortified love, caring and protection from some unusual political might. History can have only identified Christianity as this might for us, no matter in Europe where industrial revolution was debut or in America where capitalist revolution progressed most thoroughly. The key for Christianitys success in advancing free-trade is its exclusive teaching that is unfound in other ideology. With her unique teaching of respecting others, Christianity most movingly convinces people to restrain from ones own human greed and thus mostly subdues the power of forced-trade. The vulnerability of free-trade is widely exposing but the wealth brought forward by freetrade is also eye-catching. Human greed then makes the attack from forced-trade onto free-trade become logically inevitable and incessant. The attack ranges from spiritual erosion to onset of brutal force. The free-trade believers should find themselves inexcusable if they do not organize a firm tangible force to defend off the attack from forced-trade. They will only find themselves fatally mistaken if they rest their hope of universal respect on appeasement and the pseudo-value terms. Only brutal force can withstand and thaw the attack from another brutal force; it is even only the truth from Newtons third law. A capitalist government employing appeasement is to give up brutal force in guarding free-trade. Then it is doing nothing else but escorting forcedtrade against free trade. There is only one choice out of two for people to make, but one of the two is far more vulnerable than the other. Interestingly, the force that free-trade lovers need to rely on for their security must be organized with means of forced-trade. We will leave this topic to the last chapter Some Typical Examples of Force-Trade. Given that free-trade lovers have been blessed by free-trade but freetrade has been blessed by only Christianity, they must defend Christianity without compromise.



Some Typical Examples of Forced-Trade

Human greed does not allow free-trade to stay free without the backup of some force. Freetrade exists only when both the traders as buyer or seller have enough wisdom and intelligence to choose avoiding unfair trading. Unfair trading has potential to trigger costly resistance. If a trader is confident that he can overpower others resistance but worry free, more often than not, free-trade would easily become his secondary choice. So, whether a force is available to only one trader or all the traders on both sides of a trading can decisively influence if a trade to be forced or free. Making this backup force equally available as much as possible to all traders in personal interest exchange is what starts the idea of capitalism. Opposing to this idea, all Socialists try every effort to coerce such force to be available only to them. Exclusive monopoly is what the MCP candidly demanded. Since force must be there to guarantee trading, forced or free, it is impossible to have an ideal society in which only free-trade can exist. Dreaming of such society is to dream of a Utopia society in which no force should exist, but absence of force can only have free-trade vanished. This further tells us that a capitalist society must rely on a force to continue, regardless. This also tells us how fake the so called Communism is. Communists preach that a Communist society can satisfy human greed that can expand beyond any limit while any force setting limit has no need to exist. To establish a social force needs the supply of people and substance support, which means money most of the time. Both can come from nowhere but only from the contribution of the social members. When contributing, the social members must also balance between profit and cost. In most time they would show unwillingness toward the contribution. They reckon the contribution only brings them low return of personal profit but at their high cost, particularly when life is involved. There may be exceptions, such as in a revolution, where people may contribute anything for a cause, but revolution cannot be a daily norm for the society. Indeed, that revolution happens is exactly because someone feels his wish of high profit at low cost has been stripped off for too long. Bidding to get access to office of high pay may be another exception, but this cannot be a norm to everyones life either. So, to make the social members to contribute, someone must play the role of a term setter to exercise forced-trade against the unwillingness, violating peoples profit-and-cost balance. No one can find a more powerful term setter than a government. Power in hand, any government can further draft people and force substance contribution through tax or fees. It is only common sense that the force thus formed and the money thus raised must serve the satisfaction of the term setter. Such privilege for a term setter makes power transferring difficult most of the time, and the term setter would also make sure the government power only favoring some particular group of people. Since a capitalist society is supposedly to have its force equally available to all traders to guarantee free trade, it must have law to make the opportunity of power transferring mostly available to its social members. One of such laws is to allow a big population of less power to decide the power transferring. Assuming no corruption, the smooth power transferring in a capitalist society will then guarantee the benefit resulted by the backup force to cover the general public without preference. The benefit includes something like but not limited to public order and public security, public infrastructure, and public education. When enjoying such benefit, no person can have any part of

the benefit designated only for his personal comfort. For example, a public sewer conduit built with tax money must equally carry off all sewage regardless of whether it has been from a rich family or a poor family. Having any part of such benefit designated for personal enjoyment without corresponding legitimate contribution, either openly or secretly, is corruption. Sadly, human greed can never allow the corruption to be absent in any society. For a purpose or not, many people mistakenly owe the corruption found in the capitalist society to the fault of capitalism without questioning the true culprit source of the corruption. Indeed, while some people intensely focus on the corruption in a capitalist society, they intentionally divert others attention away from the corruption in the socialist countries. Whether one is to accept it or not, corruption is exactly an expression of forced-trade no matter where it happens. Corruption happens in a capitalist society when someone promotes forced-trade with the convenience he gains in an environment that is supposedly only for free-trade. To make it even sadder, the fullest scale of free-trade in the capitalist society exposes the fullest scale of vulnerability of free-trade and then allows the fullest scale of attack of corruption. Some of the corruption is even legalized, such as the abusive welfare programs, which allows an unprecedented corruption in history in two folds. First, it allows a population bigger than in any other society to enjoy without working or even to rely on making more orphans out of wedlock for a living. Second, it encourages political system in which politicians use government money to buy suffrages from those who so enjoy. Of course, all such legal corruption must have a glamorous shield, such as fairness covering all the sufferers. In all societies, it is those who have power that have chance to corrupt. In the capitalist society, people having less official power have a chance to decide who can seat in some higher office. So the less powerful people do not hesitate to use their power to corrupt, appropriating their suffrages to those candidates who can give them more free government money. The lucratively high profit at lowest cost for a term setter in forced-trade always commands peoples will and behavior, no matter where they are. One typical characteristic of forced-trade is that someone must give up what he owns without chance of defending himself. For this to happen, violence must have forced upon the victimized person, although the degree of violence may be different from case to case. With this understanding, we can easily tell that all of the following incidents or acts in daily life belong to forced-trade: lying, cheating, shoplifting, stealing, copyright piracy, burglary, robbery, racketeering, breaking contract, enslaving, embezzlement, bribing, raping, murdering, defacing or graffiti on others property, squatting or encroaching with others property. In theory, no society of acceptable civilization will tolerate any of these acts. They can all be crimes. In practice, however, they can also be called action of justice, depending on the power contrast between the one enforcing the act and the one being victimized. The same incident can be a crime if committed by a person holding no political power, but can be an exercise of justice if committed by people holding imperative power. The more power one has, the more justice he can claim for the act he commits. No one can be better magicians than the socialists/communists in glamorizing a crime as a cause of justice, so long as the crime is at their advantage. Organized crime is an excellent way to gain power. That more power means more justice is what has been impelling them doing what

they do in history. Who can be more powerful than a government? In the old days, they glamorized all violent acts as rescuing the sufferers for their power usurpation. When bloody violation somewhat looks old fashioned nowadays, they launch all entitlement programs in the capitalist society but in the same name of rescuing the sufferers. Getting used to the mentality of appeasement, all capitalist governments are accepting or even initiating more and more such programs, feeling otherwise they cannot do anything else better. Some of these programs are forced in at the bottom of the society through ballot box; some of them are forced in top down from the government. When people talk about corruption in the capitalist society, are they aware of that all these abusive entitlement programs are the biggest corruption? They have most intensely rotted the capitalist society, politically, financially, and morally. The socialist and the spineless capitalist politicians work together to have flooded the entire West with entitlement programs. Each of them must have a tag for the sufferers. Lets follow the sufferers in a few of these programs typical in America. 1. Rent-control is for tenants who are unwilling to pay the rent that matches the property they want to use. They gang up and set up laws to clip off the property owners constitutional right stipulated in the Third and the Fourth Amendment. One major component in deciding if a society being capitalist or socialist is the respect of private property right. Sadly, some law workers abuse their power, doing their best to trash the Constitution but to strengthen the anti-capitalist law. With the power a capitalist society entrusts with them, they incorporate with the ideas that only the MCP would appreciate: Communists everywhere bring to the front, as the leading question in each, the property question 2. Welfare is paid to unwedded single mothers who never want to pull themselves out of the suffering of popping out more children out of wedlock. You mean I can have that three bedroom apartment if I get one more baby? a single mother so asked a social worker showing her apartments. 3. Food stamp cards are wiped at casinos and stripping nightclubs. Have people ever heard of that food stamp money ends up at the pocket of drug dealers? If there is any kind of suffering interpreted here, what kind of suffering is it? 4. Liberally allowed personal bankruptcy and loan that requires no collateral let irresponsible debtors walk away free after their enjoyment. The party suffers damage is not the one who is immorally irresponsible, but the one who has contributed so that a loan can be available. 5. Trespassing across a property without permission is a crime? Not if one can trespass against a country! Indeed, at the success of the act, one can enjoy all of the following: free medical care, tuition lower than that a native student has to pay, easier scholarship, legal power to damage law enforcing agents, language privilege over official language, making the natives look wrongful for the misfortune of the trespassers, only deportation as the worse price for serious crime committed by the trespasser. Who has to suffer from the damage of putting up such cost for their enjoyment? Far worse yet, who has to suffer the loss of land that cannot be reproduced by any nation, but who gains the same? Had anyone relied on only his personal power to gain all these enjoyment, he must either contribute correspondingly or be found committing crime of no less than robbing. With

government power, the same act can immediately be equated with human right, fairness, and justice. All the expense for these enjoyments and for the politicians to buy votes from the sufferers is paid by the government, by the tax payers! If buying suffrage with private fund is a corruption, buying suffrage with government fund can only be a far bigger corruption. However, people in the capitalist countries have allowed the biggest corruption to look most legitimate, honorable, with most justice. Capitalism is noosed on the way to meet death penalty for its kindness to people. In the current decade, people frequently hear of two terms from the government. One is called stimulus package; the other one is called bailout program. In effect, each stimulus package is merely a more thorough cover-all welfare program. They all just add more tourniquets to the economy that has slipped into poor condition, worsening what the already existing welfare programs cannot yet do. Thank God, it is not a routine operation like the existing welfare programs but just happens once in a while. If it is ever a good thing, why dont we do it every day? Unfortunately, it quickly shows its evil power of stimulating the national debt to a soaring high. The so called bailout package means to use government money to save some businesses from complete failure. The reason of the failure of these businesses can be many, such as mismanagement or high labor cost, but some of the failure is caused by the immoral abusive management by some top executives. In so abusing, some top executors reap huge personal benefit far beyond what their positions allow. Their immoral reaping is of course a robbery, one of the forms of forced-trade. However, that they are able to rob is not the fault of capitalism; their act bears no nature of freetrade. It is the fault of those top executives. They exploited the vulnerability of free-trade with the convenience they have gained. Immoral as they can get, though, they provoke far less danger to the capitalism than the abusive but popular welfare programs. First, compared with the number of welfare recipients, their population is almost negligible. Their voting influence at the ballot box is trivial. Second, their practice can occur only tentatively, but cannot be of high frequency of long lasting. Third, once exposed, their activity will be under the scrutiny of morality, laws, and public opinion, unable to enjoy legal immunization or even glamorization like the welfare programs. Since those top executors wrongful doing must meet punishment when caught and must stop one way or the other, they cannot bring in socialism to the society like what the welfare recipients can do. While not bringing in socialism, their wrongful doing does speed up a capitalist society to enter the malign state. The socialism promoters now claim that those top executives have given them more reasons to strengthen their socialist movement. The Occupy movement quickly launched. In summary, there are three types of forced-trade existing in the capitalist society. Some are legitimate, and some are just corruption. The first type is what a government would enforce. Under it, there are two different kinds of enforcement. The first kind is all the duties that every citizen must take as an honor to fulfill. They are for the common security and well-being that every citizen wants to share. Typical examples of this kind of forced-trade are tax and military draft. The second kind is the punishment against criminals. To make everything legal and genuinely fair, the benefit produced out of all these forced-trading should not have any part appointed to any particular individual as a free recipient. A highway built with tax money must make itself available to every citizen. The second type of forced-trade is not enforced by

government. It is all those actions that existing laws would describe as crimes. Once caught, the one committed such act must meet decision from courts and prepare to pay back. The third type is the anti-capitalism handout. This type of forced-trade most dangerously threats capitalism. The handout just leeches on the first type of force-trade and usually appoints someone as a free recipient. Once received, the share so carved out from the public wealth becomes the personal property of the appointed recipient. The carrying out of the third type of forced-trade needs upside down logic and in turn reinforces the same. First, to squeeze money out of the donors, or the tax payers, the society must demonize them to make them feel guilty, as if they had been nothing else but heartless parasite or even exploiter of criminal mind in the society. The richer a donor is the more negative his image may become. At least, according to such image, the society says they all have sinfully hid away the fair share from the society until a new higher tax rate hits them. On the other hand, the recipients of the handout are always at the side of justice, even though they have relied on a force, but not contribution, to get what they want. Glorifying robbery is an upside down logic. Noosing a government to honor and enforce robbery is an officially legitimated upside down logic, matching exactly what the MCP promotes with all its enthusiasm. The upside down logic does not stop at forcing handout. The same logic makes someone pay the cost for someone else to become the biggest profit reaper, too. The biggest profit reapers are not the welfare recipients, but the socialists/communists. The people paying the cost are the tax payers who must also receive incessant demonization from those who use their tax money. With the money the socialist so squeezing out and showering at the welfare recipients, they play the role of moral guardians. Someone elses money so conveniently enables them to recruit followers from the handout recipients, expanding the power base for the socialists further ambition. No one else can do better job than the socialists/communists in realizing the principle of highest possible profit at lowest possible cost. If the rich must bear the image as what the socialists have demonized, at least the rich get what they want with the cost from their own pocket. The socialists, however, get what they want with the cost from someone elses pocket. Do we always hear of a strategy in negotiation called double winning for both sides? The socialists/communists are always such double winners, winner on profit and winner on cost. Their winning is a natural outcome of the habitual appeasement of those capitalist politicians. If the capitalist society cannot find a way to stop appeasement, all what it does is to raise its own grave diggers as what the MCP predicted. Lunacy deserves punishment; history is never mistaken on that. The socialists power hunting goes deep in all fronts of political life in the West. Besides gaining government money to buy suffrages, their tentacles reach wherever there is power guarding capitalism. Unfortunately, the nearly spineless capitalist politicians do allow their opponents to create as many Achilles heels as they want in the capitalist society. Lets list a few of such heels that the socialist already create in America. In law, lies from the socialists have successfully obscured the nature of Christianity emboldened in the US Constitution. All those bold statements enthroning Christianity in the Constitution seem just invisible to the capitalist politicians. The socialists brutal contortion on the First Amendment about respect of religion faces no challenge, so far. The contortion on the

same amendment drives the antitrust law to be applicable to only capital monopoly. This utter disturbance on the balance between the only two partners in production adds unlimited favor to the socialists agenda. The socialists victory in law has been immeasurable. So ironically and so inconceivable, the steering wheel of the capitalist law body is under socialist control. Upon their success in slighting Christianity in the Constitution, the socialists immediately replace Christianity in the public education with evolution. No ideology can legitimate power grabbing better than evolution, which only takes survival of the fittest for grant. Christianity, with its teaching of respect, can only be an obstacle to power grabbing. It then becomes so intolerable to the socialists. While shaming in evolution, they feel careless about how many irreparable pitfalls evolution actually has. They even nakedly ignore how survival of the fittest contradicts to their demanding of fairness. Expelling Christianity is the top priority to them, regardless. They figure that their moral cloak decorated by the pseudo-value terms can take good care of the fairness issue in other ideological flank. Deluge of immoral practice appears in the society after evolution takes over the schools, but this is exactly what they want. Forced-trade scheme promoted in education does not limit to expelling Christianity, but also aggressively extends to expelling people of being more able. Affirmative action is a menacing weapon serving this expelling. With affirmative action, more people of lower quality can be advanced to key employment positions, helping the socialists to build more strongholds in power usurpation. Expelling people of better ability also creates better environment for promoting illiteracy. A population of more illiteracy can have a more fanatical passion toward socialism. However, besides affirmative action, they know where to unplug for an even far stronger vortex of illiteracy. It is the unlimited introduction of illegal immigrants. In their propaganda for such a purpose, it is not the illegal immigrants that are illegitimate to the nation; it is the border of a nation that is illegitimate. The border, an instrument symbolizing a nations sovereignty, is the source of violation of human right in their accusation against a capitalist country. The influx of illegal immigrants serves them as another miracle in power grabbing: to increase their source of suffrage. To clamp down other peoples freedom in expressing disagreement against them, the socialists apply the word racist in any abusive way they want. For anything, any organization, or any person they disagree, they just call them racist. The liberals and the socialists have been so successful in driving the current law application that this word can convict anyone without due process of court procedure. Someone can easily lose job or opportunity of self-defense only because he is so called. Big government is also one of the socialists forced-trade practices in getting more government power to serve their conspiracy. Big government is merely a less abusive version of entitlement program for many people who are less willing to match what they get with compatible contribution. Controlling the government would have controlled the best tool in promoting forced-trade. One prominent socialist in the mainstream media revealed the socialists ambition no better by saying: Small government is to make the poor suffer more. So, only bigger government can care for more poor. More poor supporting her bigger government can only mean more power to her scheme of forced-trade promotion. True, no one can find a sharp line to define the size of a government. The best way in deciding how big the

government should be for a capitalist society is to see how effective and how diligent it can be in serving free-trade (but not people). Some people feel puzzled why most media in the West launch propaganda so much in key with socialist ideas, but owners of such media are usually wealthy men. Wouldnt it be more logical that the wealthy men should side more with capitalism as how all socialists have accused? Promoting socialism has no class line; Engels, Lenin, Mao are all from rich families. Anything that brings them more power works. The increasing number of left oriented audience is their source of money, which means power. Whoevers breast has milk is mommy! We have mentioned enough that only a fool believes that he who promotes socialism is for the poor. The socialism promoters are always too many steps ahead in IQ level than their believers. Facing their seemingly irreversible defeat since 1917, capitalism believers continue to rely on the pseudo-value terms in hope of reviving their turfs of free-trade. Just like opium, the more they rely on these pseudo-value terms, the more they will beg for their mercy. If the appeasement cannot stop, the final defeat of capitalism is only a matter of time. To stop appeasement, all free-trade believers must prepare to endure hardship, because they have handed too much to the forced-trade promoters to lever, in law, in education, in ideology understanding, in power. If they do not prepare for this, they must prepare a hell for their future generations. There is no third choice for them, as no one can find a third choice between free-trade and forced-trade. But forced-trade is so much more forceful. Hope for the free-trade lovers to revive capitalism is still there, but time left for them is not much anymore. The US Constitution still enjoys some symbolic reverence in America. Christianity in this law body should still have the exclusive ideological throne if the capitalism lovers recognize it. Whether America will continue as a bright paradise or become a dark hell depends on how quickly the younger generation can wake up to defend Christianity enthroned in the US Constitution. The danger to them is that some once major social pillar exalting free-trade is approaching extinction. What makes the extinction ghastly is that everybody welcomes the extinction with a big smile, even so does the pillar as if it had a desperate need to catch the moment of honor. How would a person imagine that his collar bone is strung with others so that somebody else can prevent them from escaping? Or how would one want his offspring to be in such a string? If he wants, please do join the country where the ruler worships the Manifesto of the Communist Party. The ruler there announces that people under his ruling are the happiest people and that he is a no better warrior fighting for the poor in the world. Although we do not yet see such human string in America, we do find some TV anchorpersons and radio talk show hosts already so portray themselves as the best warriors for the poor. They are confident of what they are doing: stunning a bigger and bigger bunch of fools with promise at the cost of others, telling the fools that these warriors and the politicians they support always have in their mind the best interest of the sufferers. Promoting the Socialist movement, are they really as lofty in moral as what they portray themselves? On the exact contrary! The movement they ask the sufferers to support has all the following qualities: 1. It is a movement that cannot succeed unless led by scoundrels (Lenins words, Chapter 2)

2. The final goal of this movement is to establish an exclusive monopoly of power of a state. (Words from the MPC, chapter 2) 3. The movement is to satisfy a group of people who aim at the highest profit at the lowest possible cost (or even the cost paid by others) but must force others to accept the lowest profit at the highest cost. (Chapter 3 Effects of the Two Types of Trading) 4. Led by scoundrels, based on scoundrelly strategies, this movement relies on starving the society to get good (Chapter 7 Benign Capitalism and Malign Capitalism), and the ultimate effect of this movement is also to starve the society (overwhelmingly proven by history). Simply, will all these warriors promoting such movement stand on the scoundrels side to get the highest profit at the lowest possible cost or will they choose to be placed under the exclusive monopoly and be starved? People can find no better caricature of fake gentleman from these warriors. Brutal force alone can have forced-trade complete. It is what happens in the animal world. Free-trade needs wisdom, intelligence to complete while backup force is indispensable. However, it is only wisdom and intelligence that can bring out civilization, not brutal force. Relying on wisdom and intelligence, civilization makes itself inseparable from freetrade; it can come from no other way. Accompanied with the names of the capital monopoly like William Vanderbilt, J. P. Morgan, John Rockefeller, and Andrew Carnegie, America created a history of prosperity unprecedented in human history. Accompanied with the names of the power monopoly of Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Ceausescu, all socialist countries created a record of murdering also unprecedented in human history. While the capital monopolies droop in America, capital monopolies are gaining size in China today. Accompanied with this location shift of capital monopoly is also the location shift of leading momentum of prosperity. American people, make your choice! The West, make your choice!