Wednesday, October 10, 2007

Socialism is breaking our society apart

A bit long but a must-read, this article really digs to the core of the problem with socialism/Marxism, and its twin sister, feminism. I'm not Catholic but I found it very insightful and interesting. Thanks to the reader who sent it!

Here are a few highlights:

"Rather than strengthen the family, as some originally intended it to do, the social assistance state has weakened and almost replaced the family."

Of course there can never be true replacement of the family unit – what the state can give us is only a feeble imitation of the security a strong, responsible and committed marriage brings.

"The social benefits must be paid for by high tax rates. Even in America, with low taxes by European standards, the median income earner pays 40% of income in taxes. This means the secondary wage earner in the family, usually the mother, is working to pay the family’s taxes."

… And later they come and tell us we must join the ranks of paid labor because there's no way for a family to make it on one income. Of course, now that you've made it much harder to live on one income, we must go out there and take advantage of the freedom to work two shifts – at home and outside the home – which we have been so kindly given (sarcasm intended).

"The life-time assistance of the state displaces the economic function of the family. Men do not feel like men, able to care for and protect their families. In this environment, children become consumption goods, an optional life-style appendage to acquire only if one happens to enjoys children."

The statement above is so true that anyone who has more than 2 (or, at best, 3) children probably felt this at some point or another: whispers, raised eyebrows, and remarks such as, 'well, you're done, right?' and 'don't you know what causes that?'

"A member of the Dutch Labor Party recently proposed that women who stay at home with children be penalized, because they were wasting the investment society had made in their education."


So much for pretty talk about freedom of choice. How dare we waste our precious education on something as mind-numbing and unimportant as child-rearing? Not to mention that we should have known better than to have children in the first place.

Again – it is a long article, but if you have the time, go ahead and check it out. It's worth reading.

26 comments:

Terry said...

Hi Anna! I took a few moments to scan the article, and will read it in its entirety when I have more time. You've read my blog so you know that I have addressed this issue as it relates to the destruction of families in the black community. You are so right. I have researched this matter thoroughly over the years and socialism/feminism is indeed at war against the family. The welfare state has decimated black families and is on its way, with its sister feminism, to doing the same to all families in America. We must stop this disturbing trend. But how? It appears to be a runaway train. We can pray, vote and teach our children well but I must admit it distubs me the number of Americans who are willing to allow this to happen to our society.

Michelle said...

"The statement above is so true that anyone who has more than 2 (or, at best, 3) children probably felt this at some point or another: whispers, raised eyebrows, and remarks such as, 'well, you're done, right?' and 'don't you know what causes that?'" - UGH - I hate hearing this.
one thing I realized is that society, because of pushing to raise babies and children with attatchment parenting, and without discipline or boundaries, this emotionally makes parents NOT ABLE to have more than 2 children typically. Just an interesting thought

Rebekka said...

Here in Denmark we pay high taxes (38% income tax + 25% sales tax), but wages are also high. Minimum wage is about $16-17 per hour.

For this we are guaranteed that the weakest in society have health care and free education, among other services.

Maternity leave here is 9 months after the birth of the child, and up to several months before the birth, depending on the mother's job. (For example nurses, who have relatively physical jobs, leave work 2 months before.)

Mothers (or fathers) can also choose to be hired by the state to care for their own child in their own home while the child is aged 6 months-3 years. For this they receive wages comparable to those of a day care worker in a child care institution.

It's not impossible for families to live on one income, but they have to choose to do so and make some sacrifices--they will not be able to live in a big house in the middle of Copenhagen, for example. But a family on one income could easily buy a small farm a little over an hour outside the city by train, which is not very far by American standards. Cars are also expensive here--but there's no real reason to have one, because there is extensive public transportation (paid for by our socialist taxes).

While it's true that most women here work (71% of ethnically Danish women, lower for immigrants from non-Western countries), they do so because they want to, or because they want a materialistic lifestyle and/or a career, not because it's *impossible*.

Anna S said...

Rebekka, for a moment I almost wished I lived in Denmark. :)

Though I believe that caring for the weak should be a task of the family and close community, not state. I know, I know - we don't live in an ideal world. But this is how I think it was meant to be.

tales_from_the_crib said...

"more than 2 (or, at best, 3) children" as the oldest of four, my mom frequently got comments about why was her mom doing that to herself (way back in the 80's/90's) her mom was 4th of 7 (back in 60) and she got a lot of this...
people just don't understand or don't want to understand...and they can't help but comment, can they?

PlainCatholic said...

We can change the world, one Christian at a time. Be not afraid of large families and the call to be a woman of God.

Let us pray for the conversion of a new generation to become Godly women, mothers and wives! We are the hands that rock the cradle.

staceyhoff said...

Hi Anna, I will read definately read the article later on and leave a response to it.
So far,I loveone of your final responses to it:" How dare we waste our precious education on something as mind-numbing and unimportant as child-rearing? Not to mention that we should have known better than to have children in the first place...."
I often feel this way, even amongst circles of believers and stay-at-home Mom's who have(mostly) the same convictions as I do. The sentament is(laregly unspoken, but it will be verbalized, if said parties are pressed) that a college education is both a waste of time and money for a young, single, saved woman because her goal in life is to become a home-based wife and mother... as if a collge education will somehow *hinder* her ability to serve her children, husband and home?? I know a lot of people thread it as, well then she will have student loans she will then burden her future husband with. Well, no, if she is industrious and gets as much financial aid, grant, and scholarship money asshe can~ and then does work-study or other work to make up the difference~ then she will not be in debt, or a least not have much debt. And, her education will serve her family as she educates her children or even if she needs to take a job again if her family meets trying times... entirely plauasable. To work less hours for more money, she is gonna want to work at a 9-5 office job,or something close to that,not10-12 at the local gas station. It is all very insulting to me, as a woman. mother and wife, and a saved believer,though maybe some others have differing opinions on it all ...

Thanx 4 starting the convo.

Stacey <3

Anna S said...

Stacey, you bring up some interesting points. Certainly, a wife and mother must be educated, and no education is a waste; and yes, it's possible to come out of college debt-free, if you're careful about your spending habits.

As a fresh college graduate, however, I can tell you from my experience that it also has drawbacks: removing a young lady from the authority and protection of her parents (if she has to move out to attend college); immoral, ungodly environment; ineffective, extremely stressful learning methods... I have written several posts about it in my 'education and training' section.

Word Warrior said...

I haven't read the article, yet, but one of the things that amazes me is the delusion of "intelligent" adults who are completely forgetting that today's children are tomorrow's society. What could be more vital an investment of time and worth than the future of a society?

Or maybe that's the point...if we can keep today's children from thriving, just stick them somewhere out of the way, keep them away from parents who would care enough to instill values and character, then those children will grow to be pliable adults for the state.

Hmmmm...seems to me it's backfiring and those children are growing up to be bitter, angry crime-compelled citizens...now our problem is over-crowded prisons, over-worked psycho-therapists, over-abundance of divorce attorneys, and the beginning of a vicious cycle in each new generation of children.

I didn't mean to write a book...this topic could just go on and on!

Thanks for posting the article, Anna.

Anonymous said...

Pendragon 3 here (sorry I don't have a google handle yet).

I found this bit from Dr. Morse's article fascinating:

Women don’t need a husband to support them if they do have a child. Husbands become a nuisance, because the government will provide financial benefits without the inevitable difficulties of dealing with a flawed human being as a partner.

Dr. Morse apparently thinks it's a GOOD thing if women are forced into entering and staying in marriages they don't want. And this is good for whom exactly? The trapped woman, the unwanted man, or the children of the two miserable parents?

I am also disturbed by her belief that the state should only permit heterosexual marriage because men and women have different parenting styles, and children should have the benefit of both styles. Personally, I don't think the State should have any say over parenting styles, which (absent abuse) are a private family matter. (And I am supposed to be the liberal and Dr. Morse the conservative!)

Anonymous said...

Ooh one more thing from Pendragon 3 on the college education issue:

As a feminist, I couldn't disagree more with the notion that a college education is wasted on women who choose to stay home. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, it was the anti-feminists opposed higher education for women on precisely the ground that college is supposedly unncessary for women who are simply to be wives and mothers.

Higher education should never be viewed as merely a means of becoming marketable, but rather as a means of enhancing one's entire life. Wives and mother blog, vote, raise children, act morally, and live an examined life -- all activities which are enhanced by higher education.

Mrs. Brigham said...

This article is disturbing. I really like PlainCatholic's comment and agree with everything she said. We must fervently pray, pray, pray for our world, and also be role models for the little eyes of the next generation.

neuropoet3 said...

What really disturbs me is that most people do not realize how easily people who are raised by state "institutions" can be manipulated by the "state". They are more likely to believe what the media portrays without much thought on the different biases out there, and they don't have as firm a grasp of the whole concept of "family" either. My mother just began working in a day care center and she can't believe how many hours these very young children are away from their parents. They spend far more time at the center than they do in their own "homes" - so much so, that many cry when they have to go home because their ideas of what is "home" and what is the "care center" are flip-flopped. (When you're barely 3 yrs. old and you leave day care just in time to go home and go to bed, and then go back first the next morning, you're bound to get confused over where you "belong".) The biggest problem is that this means these kids don't grow up with the "attention" that they would have at home - there are at least 20 other kids around all the time - and they're all around the same developmental stage. Mom says that no matter how hard the workers try to spend time with everyone during the day, you can't be everywhere at once - and the "good" kids are often the ones who "fall between the cracks". I worry that we're playing some kind of developmental gambling game with our future generations - and it bothers me that the "state" pushes for things like free "day care" so more of these kids can be put in this kind of situation.

Sorry this is so long, but I'm really concerned about the long term effects of this kind of thing on our society at large...
~Jenny

Anna S said...

"Dr. Morse apparently thinks it's a GOOD thing if women are forced into entering and staying in marriages they don't want."

Pendragon, Dr. Morse said no such thing. The family unit has been historically, and Biblically, inter-dependent, with all members in need of each other, husband incomplete without his wife, the wife relying on her husband for protection. Today's system discourages this beautiful design. No, I'm not saying it was all rosy, but I'd take the Biblical principle over 'each does his own thing' any time.

Also, let's admit it: people just don't take marriages seriously. People don't work on marriages, and get divorced because of things that can be worked on. Examples? I have plenty. A woman I know is getting a divorce... because she wants to get her MSc and have a time-consuming career, while her husband prefers her to spend more time at home. Have those two ever heard of the word 'compromise'?

A good whack on the head would do this couple big favor, but in today's society, they will be encouraged to divorced and pursue 'personal self-fulfillment'.

Anonymous said...

Pendragon 3 : Dr. Morse apparently thinks it's a GOOD thing if women are forced into entering and staying in marriages they don't want.

Incorrect, yet again ! What Dr Morse is trying to say is that women don't need husbands' financial security if the State will protect and provide for them and their children - in simple words, the welfare state weakens marriage. Nowhere does she say that women should be forced into marriages... ? Your interpretation is way off the mark. A correct conclusion is 'Under socialism, women are married to the State, not their husbands.' The State provides them security in return for their votes.

-----

Rebekka : Mothers (or fathers) can also choose to be hired by the state to care for their own child in their own home while the child is aged 6 months-3 years. For this they receive wages comparable to those of a day care worker in a child care institution.

Inspite of this, Denmark, like other welfare states, is facing a low fertility rate. Or maybe this is being done to encourage women to have more children.

Anna S said...

... no welfare programs, bonuses, legislations or campaigns can fix what was broken by rejecting the Biblical model of family structure.

Anonymous said...

Anna,

Dr. Morse apparently thinks it's a GOOD thing if women are forced into entering and staying in marriages they don't want."

I think my interpretation (in italics) of what Dr. Morse is saying is accurate. Her whole thesis is that socialism is causing the breakdown of the family. She says that the breakdown of the family, including the decline of marriage, is a bad thing. She says one reason women are choosing not to marry or stay married is that they do not need men to support them because they can rely on government support instead. I infer from this that she prefers a system by which women often HAVE to marry out of economic necessity. If not, what is her point in bringing up the connection between women's lack of economic reliance on men and the decline of marriage?

I agree with you that marriage is not taken as seriously today. I also believe this is due in part to women's economic independence and economic control. But I don't see the decline in marriage as a bad thing. Marriage should be for people who really want to be bonded to another person for life and who are willing to make it work. I like being married but I don't mind other people doing their own thing. I am glad that I am married by choice rather than necessity.

Pendragon 3

Anonymous said...

From Pendragon 3:

Just to clarify, I think that we married folks have a moral obligation to fulfill our vows. I can't imagine any senario by which I would leave my husband, because I promised him when I got married that I would never leave him. I count on him as well to keep his promise to me.

Where I differ from most of the readers here is that I don't think the State should force us to stay married against our will. It is a matter of personal conscience between the individuals involved (and their God if they are religious).

Terry said...

A hearty amen to Anna's last comment!

Anonymous said...

neuropoet3 :

Karl Marx, in his Communist Manifesto called for the abolition of the family - men and women to work for the State, no marriages, the State will raise the children !

-----

The Left's War on the Family

-----

The government is not caring and compassionate. It cannot replace families and community. The welfare state is unsustainable economically, socially and morally. - From http://www.lindsaymitchell.blogspot.com

Sammybunny said...

Thanks so much for your continued encouragement of my week of skirts fun-icity! I think your post about this article is very intriguing as well.

Rebekka said...

Anonymous:

Yes, Denmark's fertility rate is lower than the US. It is higher than the European Union average (1.5 according to Wikipedia (which I know is not always the best source, but hey)). According to wiki, the Danish fertility rate is 1.74. It's over 2 in the US.

Even the politicians here recognise that this is at least partly because people work so much. There has been a lot of discussion here recently about how to lighten the load on families, and it's not all about giving day care centers "better hours". There has been serious discussion about making it possible for parents to work part-time while their children are young so that they can spend more time together as a family.

Another thing that they've talked about doing is increasing the amount of the "child check" which is paid out to the parents every three months. Depending on the child's age the amount ranges between $450-625 per child per quarter. (Parents of twins+ get extra).

The birth rate in Denmark fell a lot during the 80s, which is going to cause economic problems later. It's been rising for the last couple of years. The number of families with "lots" of kids (more than 3) has also been increasing lately.

However, I'm sure that it doesn't help that the Danish society is largely secular and socially liberal. People start families relatively late in life, abortions are provided by the state at no cost (part of the universal health care), nobody really cares whether parents are married or not. (In spite of this it's actually a child-friendly country, where children are welcome everywhere, nobody bats an eyelash at women breastfeeding in public, and there are many public, cultural activities for children.)

Rebekka (Anna, sorry if I'm overwhelming your blog--it's just that I believe that balanced, democratic socialism (NOT communism) is a *good* way for a society to fulfill its responsibility to all its members. It's just been hijacked by people with no morals.)

Gothelittle Rose said...

Are those of you who rail against 'forcing' women to marry aware that poor households have a lot harder time getting help from the government if the husband stays with the wife and children?

Or that in divorce cases the laws often support sole custody to the mother with child support payments from the father over joint custody with no child support?

Or that the woman, with all this 'ultimate choice' over her own body, is allowed to kill a man's baby before it is even born and he is not allowed to stop her, even if he would be willing to raise the child on his own?

It's not a matter of "She doesn't have to marry because the government can support her". It's a matter of "They can't marry because they can't support the family without the government help that they only receive alone." My husband works with one man who would love to marry his pregnant girlfriend.. they love each other. But if they marry, the government will not pay for her prenatal care, and they can't afford it on their own.

My parents, who did this after no-fault divorce was allowed but before it became 'normal' in this society, chose to marry and stay together. They aren't exactly "the ideal couple", or weren't when they started out. She was just out of highschool... he was frightened by the responsibility. Now, 31 years later, they're inseparable... because they stuck together. Granted, neither of them abuse the other. There's not much else you need for a marriage, despite what people say.

Anna S said...

"Marriage should be for people who really want to be bonded to another person for life and who are willing to make it work."

I would like to add: any person who does not see a life of singleness and celibacy as his or her future is given only one option by the Word of God - marriage.

Marry and stay committed. Or remain single. God doesn't give us another way, but the today's social system sure encourages other options (cohabitation, gay marriages...)

Karen said...

I like what you said about the family being "interdependant". I was bothered by something some feminist said about wives being leaches or some such nonsense, and I asked my husband, "Am I dependant on you?" He said, "Yes." I raised my eyebrows. He then added, "I bring home the paychecks. But I'm just as dependant on you to take care of the children." "And the house." I added. "And the cooking." LOL. Who is more dependant on whom?

Emily said...

"A member of the Dutch Labor Party recently proposed that women who stay at home with children be penalized, because they were wasting the investment society had made in their education." - this quote makes me sick with rage... that is all I can say!