THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IS HELD HOSTAGE:  Keywords: Elections, Democratic Party, Democratic Socialists of America DSA, communisms, American Marxism, industrial armies, labor unions, factionalism, ideological extremism,

 

 

The Chinese People's National Congress, detail of the delegates.
A large portion are the Communist Party Army representatives

THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IS HELD HOSTAGE

 

The Chinese People's National Congress. Perfect for listening, obeying, and clapping

A Meditation about the Communist Takeover in progress

By Xuan Quen Santos

 

PARTISANSHIP, IDEOLOGY, TRIBALISM, EXTREMISM AND FACTIONALISM

        An open community system in which many voices are heard and taken into account when a decision that has broad community implications is made is not ideological in nature, partisan or divisive. It is a method to arrive at decisions in a large group. This has been an aspiration of human groups since diverse opinions and different perceptions are considered. It is not an easy process even in small groups. Think of a typical family with three children (ages 14, 9 and 5) trying to decide where to go for Sunday lunch in a situation of multiple choices. The larger the family and the increased number of choices adds complexity to the process. There are also other circumstances when a group must urgently arrive at a decision facing limited choices, none of which will satisfy everyone. Think now of a larger group, such as a family reunion. Expand the group to your HOA or club. Move on to the city, county and state… Reaching an agreement is a challenge.

We just entered the final weeks of a mid-term, national election cycle. The noise, the cost, the promises, the accusations, the lies, the choices…are trying the patience of the most patriotic voter and questioning his faith in the system. Most fingers are pointing to what is indistinctly labeled as extreme partisanship, ideological tribalism, and extremism. It may be all three. The Founding Fathers were aware of the dangers the new country would face by not finding ways to agree on how to face and solve the problems of the future. The word they used was “factionalism”. In the XVIII century there were no political organizations in any way similar to today’s political parties. The word ideology did not even exist, and they were convinced the old feuds over blood, ethnicity and religion would soon wane under the fundamental limitations to the power of government established by the Bill of Rights. Of course there were disagreements, but like President Thomas Jefferson described their common goal, “differences of opinion are not differences of principle”.

As I see the problem today, it is precisely because the differences are of fundamental principles; the factions today are split between those that begin their political intentions within the principles established in the constitutional legacy of the United States of America, and those that start by attempting to dismantle its carefully constructed edifice abusing the liberties the constitution they hate provides them. The extreme left is out to destroy the foundations of this country. It is not a foreign attack. It is from within. It is not a matter of opinions.

THE ORIGINAL RIGHT-LEFT MODEL

         The political designation of “right” or “left” is ancient, but its meaning has changed over time. In antiquity, whether Greek or Roman politics, it was the simplest way to vote in an assembly without taking too much time to count. When a final decision was made, whether in the agora or in the forum, the presiding officer would simply call for the voters to physically move in the room. If they voted “yea”, they would move to his right side. If they voted “nay”, they would move to his left. It was seldom necessary to count as the simple observation of the size of the groups would suffice. For high level trials involving public punishments were involved, the system was secret. “Ostracized” and “black-balled” are the remnant terms. The majority of oyster shells or black pebbles in the urn were for punishment, instead of white pebbles. Right or left had no politically ideological or partisan significance of permanent consequence.

POWER POSITIONS FROM THE TOP DOWN

         During Medieval times, small kingdoms began to form in what had been the Roman colonies and provinces, the power structure that emerged was for the ruler (originally a tribal chief or a Roman retired commander) to be owed support (fealty) from his vassals or knights in the equivalent of a military order of ranks. At the bottom were the conquered occupants that became serfs (servants) attached to the land. The realm was distributed in a similar pyramidal structure. The ruler had councils that provided counsel. They evolved into courts, with advisers and obedient executives, and usually a mix of the powerful and religious scholarly prelates, often delegates of the Pope. But the ruler was not bound to the advice or opinions received. Historic precedents, such as the challenge to the king’s power by his knights that produced the Magna Carta turned the operation of the court into a system of rights and laws. The layers of ranks took the form of a rigid “class” or “caste”.

         This gradually changed from the romantic style of the Arthurian legend and the knights of the round table to the elaborate royal court of Louis XIV, the absolutist Sun King. As the kings created permanent bureaucracies and professional armies, the Medieval lords lost power, except for the wealth of their distant estates. The court under the royals was broken into three rigid layers of people. That was the original definition of “a class” of people. An example is the French system of the États Généraux (Estates General) assembly that was seldom convened: the clergy (First Estate), the nobility (Second Estate), and the commoners represented by delegates of the autonomous cities and towns, including the peasantry (Third Estate). Everything had to do with the land and its resources under their control. Each estate counted as one third of the consultation which usually made the Third Estate the least influential regardless of their larger number.

ETHNIC AND RELIGIOUS FACTIONS APPEAR

         In England, the sequence of rebellions by the nobles and Magna Cartas that stopped them, resulted in increasing rights of the “peers”. It eventually evolved into the parliamentary system that became a legislative body. Since the regime of King Henry VIII, the power of the clergy was much diminished after losing most of their lands and the remnant became his personal vassals. Much like the French system, the power of the state was somewhat divided into the hereditary House of Lords and the elected House of Commons. 

House of Commons of the United Kingdom

The English Civil War (1642) resulted in the Catholic king’s loss of his head. Headless King Charles II was supported by his powerful first cousin King Louis XIV. Parliament eventually invited a foreign non-Catholic ruler to assume the throne under the name of “the Glorious Revolution” (1688). Constitutional monarchies were the result. The labels of Whig and Tory began as a conflict between church denominations mixed with the power struggles over the successions between Scotland and England. Gradually, they became voting blocs, similar to the idea of a political party but without a permanent or ideological organization.

THE SEATS ON THE RIGHT ARE THE KING’S SUPPORTERS

Since Henry VIII, tradition in England has it that the supporters of the King -the party in government- sit to the right of the dais or the throne, in both houses. What tradition calls “the loyal opposition” sits on the left side. In this scheme, ideologies can move around, depending on the elections. At the moment in 2026, the Labor (socialist) Party is in government, thus it is on the “right”. During the American Revolution, the Tory party controlled the British government and supported the authoritarian monarchy. The ideas of John Locke, Algernon Sidney and Adam Smith were popular with the Whig party. Those inclinations were reflected in the colonies that debated independence or a share of power in the British parliament without the tag of “right” or “left”.

IDEAS BEGIN TO BECOME POLITICAL IDEOLOGIES

       Up to the XVIII century, elections and voting were not frequent in France. In fact, they were not defining of the king’s final decision; they were “consultations”. They were always concerned about the issues of the moment. Wars, taxes and disputes about succession and power, or religious affiliation were common topics. The century that separates the English Civil War and the French Revolution introduced substantial changes in the political discourse, language and topics.  This is the period of The Enlightenment when the Divine Power of Kings was questioned, when natural rights were assumed as universal, when the idea of a “social contract” opened the door to alternative designs for the political system, when self-determination and independence became a goal of leaders. Up to then, it was not possible to identify political parties with ideologies and defined policy paths towards a future vision that would drive their political activity. It is also the century during which the fundamental ideas that would shape economic science were discussed. The forces of the market and free trade were recognized as the source of wealth creation in opposition to the monopolies created by royal charters and the idea of expansive colonies. The clash of ideologies and policies had its opening forum at the start of the French Revolution. It is also the dawn of political parties, not as a projection of “class” interests but as associations organized to participate in government through their own political conceptions.   

         Already experiencing a severe fiscal and economic crisis, King Louis XVI issued a convocation to the Assembly of the Estates General in 1789 under pressure of growing popular discontent and violent street riots. The Assembly had not met since 1614. Twelve hundred deputies arrived at Versailles on May 4. The representatives of the Third Estate, the Commoners, were the largest number as they filled the room on May 5. The Assembly took place in a warehouse cleared for the occasion that usually stored the props and decorations used for celebrations and performances at the palace. Within the room, too small for the large gathering, the clergy and the landed nobility occupied the seats to the right side of the King who was seated at the center of one end on an elevated dais. The commoners, most of them standing, occupied the space on the left.

       After long winded speeches by the king, his advisors and members of the clergy, it became clear there was a division. The first two estates would support the monarchy, and the commoners wanted reform. The commoner faction became contentious. Many sterile days of debates led the deputies of the commoners to conclude they would be overruled by the two privileged classes. On June 17, the commoners rebelled and formed the revolutionary National Assembly, not as part of the ruling state, but of the people. The revolution began. They moved the meeting to the palace Tennis Courts Hall and obtained the concession that voting would be by majority of delegates, of which they were in control.

The Estates General meeting at the tennis courts in Versailles

       The Estates General ceased to exist. On July 9, the National Assembly transformed itself into the National Constituent Assembly and began to function as a governing body and constitution-drafter. Following the storming of the Bastille on July 14, the assembly of commoners became the de facto government of France. As could be expected, the traditional divisions marked the early days of debate. Factions became clear. Congregated on the right were the conservatives who wanted little change in the system, among them many large farmers and urban merchants. In the center sat those that proposed a constitutional monarchy along the lines of the British system, many of them lawyers and professionals. The revolutionaries sat on the left without a unified plan; some wanted a republic as opposed to a king, others were more radical. Among them were the agitators of the mobs that were already spreading violence and a takeover of the property of the church and the nobility. The right-left model was limited to the discussion of the new form of government, a road to grab the power of the king.

       In August 1789, the revolutionary government abolished the feudal system, including the titles of nobility, their tax exemptions and other privileges. In November, the Assembly suspended the judicial system and confiscated all the property of the church, including land, universities, hospitals, hospices, schools, and of course, monasteries, convents and temples. In other words, the First and Second Estates were eliminated. It implied the monarchy was next, as it happened. The rest of the history of failure of the French revolts is well known and has been rewritten by socialists as a major success. My comments are limited to the ideologies and political parties.

The French reign of terror executes Queen Marie Antoinette Habsburg de Bourbon

     Ideological currents were just forming and differentiating. This is reflected in the names they received, without a clue of ideology, unless you followed the speeches and publications of the leaders and influencers of the time. Some of the names were: Feuillants, Jacobins, Cordeliers, Montagnards, Girondins, and sans-culottes. The “without-culottes” were the origin of the partisan political mob. At the time, knee breeches (culottes in French) were the fancy attire of aristocratic men. Working men wore long pants (pantaloons). Gradually, the radical anti-monarchy, anti-church and anti-nobility took control. The Jacobins, Girondins and Montagnards, who sat on the left, became radicalized and eventually eliminated the conservatives and moderates. The best known leader was Robespierre who became a tyrant leading the Montagnards in creating what historians labelled The Reign of Terror. The sans-culottes became the foot soldiers of the revolution, the urban mob. At the end, nobody sat on the right side. Chaos, anarchy, hyperinflation and scarcity followed the street riots and the vindictive operation of the Committee on Public Safety led by Robespierre. In 1794, Robespierre was tried, condemned and guillotined by the political machinery he created.

       Between 1789 and 1799, France moved through four main revolutionary governments: the National Assembly, the Legislative Assembly, the National Convention, and the Directory. The first French republic ended when the military hero of the Revolution, Napoleon Bonaparte, took over to establish order. The First Republic was over. It did not take long for him to become absolute dictator with the title of Consul, a title of ancient Roman origin. Later he crowned himself Emperor and expanded his control over most of Europe. In 1815, Napoleon was defeated and the monarchy re-established. In 1830, a second French Revolution (revolt) overthrew the new Bourbon king, and a constitutional monarchy under Louis Philippe, a distant relative, was introduced. In 1848, Amid revolutions across Europe, Louis Phillippe was overthrown and the Second Republic was established. A nephew of Napoleon was elected to another constitutional assembly, and eventually was elected President. Not long after, he staged a coup d’etat and became Emperor as Napoleon III. An objective review of France’s political history of the last 250 years does not point to a real historic revolution. It points to a series of revolts that go through cycles of changes. In that sense, it is revolving, going round-and-round, and always returning to the same place. It is like replacing a flat tire with another tire that will also bust. The real revolution in political and economic systems happened across the Atlantic. As I write this note, another round of the Parisian mob violence is beginning to spread to other cities and countries.

IDEOLOGY IS BORN IN JAIL

       Literally, “ideology” was born out of the Reign of Terror during the first French revolt. The term was proposed by a young French aristocrat while he spent the year 1794 as prisoner of the Revolution awaiting to be tried. Antoine Destutt de Tracy was a friend of Lafayette, then in charge of the Civil Guard and prisons during the revolts. Influenced by studying Locke and Condillac, and after the experiences of the times, he became a leading proponent of the idea of a liberal, electoral republic identified with a free market economy. After his release he proposed “the science of ideas” that combined practical as well as philosophical elements. His writings influenced Thomas Jefferson, who edited two of his books in English. Tracy went on to become a respected scholar and professor while maintaining a limited participation in politics.

       The term ideology has acquired a less ambitious and more narrow meaning in political science. At the time Tracy was writing, the seduction of anything science or scientific was captivating the interest of many intellectuals and literati. Marx used it to brand his ideas about socialism/communism. Comte turned the humanities into the social sciences with positivism. Theology was expelled from the universities taken over by the state. Research, science and technology were the focus of the new universities. If his intention was to do away with philosophy, he was not successful. Ideologies are now considered just a specific view of a political idea that is accompanied with policy directives and courses of action. In some circles, the term ideology has a pejorative connotation. Napoleon, a pragmatic politician without principles, used it to insult his critics. Marx did the same. The term caught on regardless of its original intent. It has been useful to identify political currents by distinguishing them by their ultimate objectives and policy proposals.

THE …ISMS APPEAR

 The only significant change the French political revolts contributed to history is the identification of ideologies and parties with significant names. The change happened between the first revolts in 1789 and the third revolt of 1848. Paris was the international battleground of the mobs where Marx and Engels met and trained as agitators, ending exiled in England.

       A good guide to the appearance of ideological currents that have become political parties can be found by reading “The Law” (1850), by Frederic Bastiat. He was elected to the national legislative assembly after the French Revolution of 1848 (The third revolt). Bastiat died not long after and “The Law” is really his posthumous account of the ideas debated at the time on the floor of the assembly, or in the press.

       Bastiat and few others were identified as “liberals” for their defense of free trade, inspired by Adam Smith and Richard Cobden’s calls for the elimination of protectionism and monopolies. Of course, the “monarchists” were still around and they were the “conservatives”. The “ultra-royalists” wanted a return to absolutism. The innovation came from the new “isms”. “Socialism” is mentioned with the names of Blanc, Cabet, Considerant, Fourier, Robert Owen (The English and American investor in cooperative factory towns), and Saint-Simon. “Terrorism” starts with names as Robespierre, by then already recognized as the founding of the Reign of Terror during the first revolt. He is followed by Villaud-Barenne and Saint-Just who was nicknamed the Archangel of Terror. Proudhon completes the list as the self-proclaimed “anarchist”, known for his phrase “property is theft”. Bastiat made a connection with the frequently used policy for “managing” the economy and the new “isms”. “It is to be pointed out, however, that protectionism, socialism, and communism are basically the same plant in three different stages of growth. All that can be said is that legal plunder is more visible in communism because it is complete plunder.” Protectionism is not a political ideology; it is an economic policy that protects national production from foreign competition by establishing trade barriers and tariffs. Monarchism, Republicanism, Conservatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Communism, Terrorism and Anarchism were in the process of establishing their ideological identities while street violence was running rampant as “the mob”.

SOCIALISM, COMMUNISM AND MARXISM

       It was during the same period that agitators from all over Europe flocked to Paris. Among them were young Marx and Engels. Working with English leaders of a coalition of trade unions from different countries, they established The Communist League in 1846. As police persecution increased, many of the radicals left. Marx and Engels moved to London where the Communist League commissioned them to write their launching political platform. 1848 marks the publication of the Communist Manifesto and its 10 policies to destroy capitalism. Much later, their ideological construct began to take form and spread. It was after four decades they proclaimed it a scientific theory. They appropriated for their ideology the name of “scientific socialism”, and threw all the other related “…isms” in a basket to be ridiculed: religious, communitarians, romantic, and utopian socialists, even ideologues. Their own construct clearly indicates that socialism will result in a workers’ paradise called communism. By then, the political brands seemed clear. The ideas promoted by Marx and Engels have become known plainly as Marxism since the “scientific” brand was controversial and questioned from the start.

AMERICAN FACTIONALISM WAS NOT IDEOLOGICAL

       From 1765 to 1776, the British colonies in America were divided as the British king’s abusive troops were arriving and new taxes were imposed. Some wanted a negotiated political participation in Parliament. Others wanted their own king. A few began to call for independence with a new form of government. After 1776, the decision to become independent and establish a new government was firm. The concerns about the future divided the political leaders of the Continental Congress into two main factions. They did not identify with the “isms” appearing in Europe, but promoted the debate about the powers delegated to the new government. The faction of Whigs, called Federalists when debate began, did not propose a true federal system, but wanted a “strong” federal (national) government. Adams, Hamilton and initially Madison were the leaders. On the opposition were the proponents of a federal system that would respect and respond to the sovereignty of the former colonies recognized as equal but separate states. Jefferson, Mason, Henry and later Madison, plus a large number of those who history has vilified as “anti-Federalists”, eventually created the first political organization with a name. They established the Republican party. Historians have re-named them in more recent times as Democratic-Republican, although that combination did not appear until after 1830. The adjective “democratic” was an aspiration of the Republican vision used to describe their aim at a wide popular political participation of a nation mainly of small farmers and business proprietors. They actually despised democracy as a failed system, particularly envisioning a very large country in the near future. To add to the confusion, the initial agreement of all factions to act jointly received the name of “Articles of Confederation”. Ideological “isms” were absent when the agreement was reached in 1789 with the final compromise.

The Second Continental Congress of America meeting in Philadelphia

As any compromise is not definitive, and the line of separation of powers is not clear beyond dispute, it has been a source of friction and review of the terms for 250 years. It was clear that the idea of an all-powerful federal government, even with statutory limitations, always has the risk identified in Lord Acton’s dictum, “power tends to corrupt, but absolute power corrupts absolutely”. True federalism has the risk of dissension and division, as it happened during the American Civil War. The US system is neither one; it is not a compromise of both. It is a new system where the two ideas are balanced by the people delegating specific functions to the different levels of government with considerable independence from each other; a limited degree of sovereignty empowers the government of an incorporated town, county, state and the federal government. Without much specificity, the balancing act is kept together by the constitutional edifice and the judicial review of changes or challenges under the loupe of the guiding principles of the original Constitutional documents. Some friction can always be expected during the process of adjustment, but not dissension and division once settled.

        By the 1830’s, the main issues of debate had been put aside. The old Whig designation disappeared. Western expansion, avoiding another European war, growing concerns about Indian lands and slavery in the south introduced a new faction. The democratic Republicans split. Jackson and the southern politicians took the Democratic emblem, leaving the Republican party with its current designation. It is important to point that the old model of left-right political designations did not apply in the United States. There was a growing concern about the “isms” showing up in the European revolts and their possible importation into the new country. The halls where the government assemblies met did not have established seating or sides and “factionalism” happened about issues, not about the new ideologies. Not having seating arrangements by party or ideology, but rather by region, state and seniority fostered interaction and civil discourse rather than “group think”, party obedience and concentration of power on the party leaders.

       Ideological factionalism did not take its present form until the supermajority voting blocks of the Democratic Party enjoyed the power of managing the country’s economy for four terms, from the Great Depression until post WW II. The “New Economics” of inflation promoted by Lord Keynes provided the tools for vote buying and the growth of the federal government.

       During the same period of the XIX century, the European countries went through the process of political reorganization and redrawing of maps caused by multiple wars and revolutions. Ideologies that had no borders became the foundation of national political parties that adopted similar platforms. It was inevitable that some of them would operate without borders. The names of the many “isms” the French revolts infected the world with did not take hold in the United States until the American country became involved in the European wars. Before then, without political support, odd, exiled or persecuted political European visionaries came to America. They founded many experimental settlements of communitarian-communist groups that did not last very long.  Names such as New Harmony by Robert Owen, the Shakers, the Perfectionists of Oneida, The Amana of Iowa, Cabet’s Icarians, the Phalansteres of Fourier are now just footnotes of history. Massachusetts inherited the failed communal settlement of the early Pilgrims, and replicated the failed idea again in Brooks Farm and The Fruitlands near Harvard.

      The many early revolutionary “isms” did not prosper in America but not because they were prohibited, defeated or attacked. As Chris Jennings explains in The Story of American Utopianism (2016), “As the Republic surged westward, the dream of a transformed, egalitarian social order burned off like mist under the hot rising sun of American Prosperity.”

AN AMERICAN INTERLUDE

The two visions that occupied the early American debate can be exclusionary (A strong national government vs a system of multiple layered governments with specific functions, and a federal government with subservient powers) but they do not have to. In fact, the tension that arises in search of a complementary balance of those two visions is a characteristic of the American political system. Since the “isms” of ideological currents have dominated the language and the debate, it should be obvious that those that support a “strong national federal government” would find it expedient to intrude, limit or simply ignore states and citizens’ rights in order to promote their greater power agenda. Articles 9 and 10 of the Bill of Rights (Ten Amendments to the US Constitution) are the only safeguard if We, The People, remember we have them. The possibility of a single “ism” to dominate all levels of the layered governments exists, but it is unlikely that it would happen again.

IDEOLOGICAL FACTIONALISM TAKES OVER

The growing extreme factionalism we have been observing in American politics is new. The seating arrangement in the houses of the US Congress in left and right factions dates only to the last few years of the Democratic Party led by “moderate socialist” FDR and “radical anti-fascist, anti-imperialist populist” Henry Wallace (These are the descriptors used by the free press and historians to describe their inclinations). Wallace was censured internally for cooperating with the Stalin regime without authorization, and he lost the final nomination for VP to Harry Truman. The language of right and left did not enter the American political arena until the fourth presidential term of FDR. The new seating decision facilitated the partisan control of the elected party members. Since then, the members of the DP sit on the left side of the hall, as viewed from the back (The right side of the presiding officer).

       In the early days of the founding of the republic, in PA, NY and DC, the elected representatives of the states sat by lottery. A few “august” members had been honored with a permanent “desk” that served as their office. This was the case of former President John Quincy Adams. Members of Congress did not have offices until 1908. Civil discourse and personal interaction with opponents were the ambient of the hall. In the XIX century, seating was organized more or less by region, and also by seniority. This kept the representatives of each state in close proximity. Very few had desks. Some sat on stools. After the Civil War and until 1908, the current and former Speakers, Committee Chairmen, and leaders of the parties had assigned seats in the front. Everyone else was seated by lottery. After 1908, when individual offices became available, desk arrangement was kept only in the Senate.

During WW II, the Democratic Party maintained a supermajority in both houses, and they decided to sit as a block on the left side of the halls, as seen from the public (as the public enters from the back). Republican Party members sat on the right side. By forcing this seating arrangement that broke tradition, the Democratic Party became the leftist party in the United States, and joined the leftist organizations of the rest of the world. It also institutionalized tribalism, factionalism, extreme partisanship, and political ideology. The end of the process is what we observe now, in 2026.

THE INTERNATIONAL UNDERGROUND EXTREME LEFT IS HERE

             The grassroots! The lowest level! The disenfranchised! The forgotten! The oppressed! The poor and exploited! The Marxist ideological scheme plainly stated that those would rise from their alienation and create a violent upheaval that would lead to paradise. It did not happen. The free enterprise system they vilified as capitalism ended up raising the level of “the proletariat” all over the world. Rigid classes disappeared and upward mobility characterized the emergence of middle classes that did not exist before, particularly in America. Once socialists accepted that reality, socialism exists only in the minds of twisted intellectuals and their followers. The original labor movement of the late 1800s has disappeared and most of it became disentangled from Marxist-communist influence. Most, not all.

THE INDUSTRIAL WORKERS' ARMIES

             !Workers of the world, unite! So did the 1848 famous phrase of the Communist Manifesto call the workers to action. They aimed at the employees of industrial and large agricultural operations of the developed countries. They labeled them “industrial armies”. They also aimed at the growing numbers of trade guild members and apprentices that were losing their privileges of “closed shop” monopolies and setting prices. The industrial jobs were new, and the farming jobs were ancient. Just a century later, there are no “guilds” left, except for old professions and trades that still require “licenses” controlled by them. The number of industrial workers has been dropping since then as a proportion of total employment. The world has moved from an agricultural economy, and then to an industrial era; the XX century turned into a service economy, and we are now labeled to be an information economy. Competition for qualified workers guarantees mobility and better salaries. In the USA, with the exception of the seasonal horticultural workers, agricultural employees tied to the farms are non-existent; the population living in farming areas is less than 1.5% of the total, when in 1850 was close to 60%.

The Chicago Haymarket Riot of May 1886.
An icon for communists around the world is celebrated as International Labor Day, on May 1

             The promotion of the “industrial armies” was an early objective of socialist agitators. Although Marxist claimed they had forecasted the future, they never saw it coming. In the United States, the growth of labor union employees from 1890 to 1914 multiplied by six, something normal for any startup. From the start of the XX century, union membership rose from an early 3% of the labor force to a top of 26% reached in 1953. This growth is deceiving as it was the result of specific mandates and privileges given to the labor unions by FDR’s government to obtain their political support. The New Deal included the approval in 1933 of the National Industrial Recovery Act guaranteeing to labor the right to collective bargain, a right enlarged by the Wagner Act of 1935. The organization of new labor unions led to a frenzy of strikes organized by the CIO. Many were aimed at specific non-supporter businesses such as the automobile and steel industries. For the unions, aside from the Wagner Act, the two most important victories to their demands in this period were the Social Security Act of 1935 and the Fair Labor Standards Act (Wages and Hours Law) of 1938. Shortly after the war ended, much of the national production began to free its management from the government war powers. The economy grew in new sectors and since 1953, the total number of union workers as proportion of total employment declined. As unionization in the private sector declined, the Democratic Party saw one of its voting blocs shrink. The trend was altered in 1962, when the Kennedy-Johnson issued Executive Order 10988 granting federal employees the right to collective bargaining. Since then, private sector unions have continued to decline at the same time public sector unions have taken control of several sectors of the federal government, particularly in education. The influence over the states’ rights to regulate and manage their educational systems greatly increased when the Carter administration made a last minute concession to the teacher’s unions by creating in 1979, the federal Department of Education at a cabinet level. Does this not explain a lot about the decline in national standards? Does this not explain the virulent ideological infection that has spread to undermine the American legacy of freedom?

Randi Weingarten, President of the American Federation of Teachers (2 million)
Socialist agitator, important figure in the LGBTQ+ movement
Union teachers control the school systems in NY, Chicago and Los Angeles

        The workers’ revolution requires agitation and agitators, creators of crisis and violence. While the laborers enjoy their Fords 150 and a family vacation on their travel trailer, the useful idiots and their managers riot and demand to destroy the US constitution. Saul Alinsky moved from the slaughterhouse unions of Chicago to the suburbs around the university. Pupils like Barack Obama the community organizer, and Hillary Clinton the perennial angry candidate, learned the lesson. The political system has to be attacked from the streets but taken over through the electoral process. Never popular enough, the radical left has been working the grassroots disguising their identities and intentions and taking over the bureaucracy of governments. Just look at the plethora of NGOs, disguised as non-governmental organizations. They have been really used as government contractors by the leftist governments to expand what they could not do within the law. It is only now that they have become visible at the national level as extreme democrats. For several generations now, they have been organizing and winning elections at the low levels: school boards, county and city governments, college boards, professional associations, state houses of representatives and senates…It is obvious that they believe the moment has come to move up. They have to consolidate their brands, and the Democratic Party has become the vehicle.

Norman Thomas, socialist candidate to the US Presidency several times
Listen to what they say and believe them

         It is not true the political system of the United States is a two-party system. At the federal stage, the two-party structure dominates the discussion. There is a lot more going on that has not received enough attention. The gradual takeover of the Democratic Party by radical extremist minorities has been a growing phenomenon. It really responds to the idea of organizing at the base. Just a few agitators can create chaos. Just a few dissenters can swing the majority count one way of the other. The Democratic Party is about to be taken over by hardline ideologues that respond to different visions of the socialist scheme.

Vintage political poster of the 1936 election

        Before the inscriptions for the 2026 election cycle close, there are already 55 political parties qualified to appear in the ballots of the federal elections. Some parties are registered in multiple states. Only the Republican Party and the Democratic Party are registered in all 50 states and Washington, D.C. Three other established parties have been recognized in past elections in more than 10 states. They already have some name recognition and have been able to elect candidates to federal office. They are the Libertarian Party that has qualified in 35 states; the Green Party has qualified in 20 states, and the Constitution Party in 12. The requirements for qualifications vary from state to state. There have been other organizations that existed to promote specific agendas, such as the Christian Coalition, or several promoters of the legalization of marijuana or abortion.

       There are many other small political organizations registered as political parties. Some have existed for many years but often disappear not long after. In many of them it is easy to identify their ideological genealogy in the French revolts. In the federal election of 2024, the following names of parties registered for elections in some states: Socialist, Socialism and Liberation, Socialist Equality, Socialist Workers, Young People’s Socialist League, American Solidarity, Workers, Progressive, and Communist. Their own descriptions and platforms describe their Marxist and revolutionary ideology. Not identified as political parties, there are many college and university chapters of the same organizations that have existed since the dawn of the XX century. The DSA, Democratic Socialists of America, has not been a national party. They appeared in the 1980s out of the fusion of the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee (DSOC) and the New American Movement (NAM). Since then, they have been actively promoting candidates in local elections. They will participate in the federal election in 2026 under the disguise of the Democratic Party.

       There is also an American Independent Party established in California, which is not to be confused with voters registering as “independent”. Independent voters have no party affiliation. What has been a common occurrence is that a few politicians have labeled themselves as independent to hide their true inclination, but they end up joining a major party; Senator Bernie Sanders from Vermont has identified as an Independent that caucuses with the Democratic Party. Earlier in his career, he had declared himself socialist, or social democrat. He now does not conceal his ideology. Since his deal with the Democratic Party by offering his “Bernie Bros” in support of the DP to attain control of the majorities in Congress, he effectively opened the door to DSA candidates that have become national figures and will stand for elections in 2026.

THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISTS OF AMERICA TAKE OVER 

As a bloc with its own specific agenda, they will control the Democratic Party even if they are only a handful. They can prevent their “big tent party” from obtaining a majority vote they would otherwise have by counting the DSA bloc. They will hold the DP hostage.

BOOK TO EXPAND ON THIS TOPIC:

Now available at AMAZON and other online bookstores, in paperback and Kindle

A treatise on communism, its roots and its current status around the world. Provides all the answers needed to the current questions about the new rise of communism in the United States. Chapters on the totalitarian roots of radical Islam and the current situation in China. Marxism is dead, but not buried yet. The last holdout of Marxist devotees are the formerly respectable American colleges. Guess where the daughter of Xi is going to school: Harvard. Guess where DEI spread from: Harvard.