First, think of the most fundamental and traditional social unit.  Did you think of a family?  Civilization has been structured around the family “unit” since the dawn of man, so I’m guessing you did.  Even animals recognize the value of family-style relationships as they roam in packs, flocks, or even traditional families.  You might say that a family is a basic form of socialism; members share property, responsibility, and often individuals are required to bear the burdens of others in the group.

Political socialism, a more “respectable” version of communism (Friedrich Engels, 1947), requires individuals to bear the burdens of society.  Socialism replaces the family as the basic socioeconomic unit with a vast group of strangers. There is no affinity among these strangers, and indeed, many wouldn’t hesitate to bite the hand that feeds them. Both socialism and the family cannot exist equally because socialism drains the resources of the family by taxing the individuals who contribute to the household.  This “spreading of the wealth” is a stated objective of socialism. The unstated objective is to destroy the family by shifting your personal economic reliance away from the family.

Let’s look at a very hot topic in terms of the family: socialized medicine. The healthcare industry currently centers on the family. There are family doctors, family healthcare plans, and family-oriented facilities. While some individual care exists, a growing number of individuals without families choose not to purchase healthcare insurance and avoid getting medical attention for less than a major event.

Assuming democrats may one day socialize medicine in the U.S., the medical industry’s family-orientation would be gone forever. Each individual would be born with the right to healthcare. Nobody would be dependent on their family for their health and well-being. The government would take over that role of the family, making the family unit substantially less important to individuals.

Let’s look at something that has already been socialized: education. How many parents’ responsibility for parenting is taken over by the schools? Sex is taught by the school. Politics are taught by the school. Schools influence a child’s entire belief system. In the words of Hillary Clinton, “It takes a village to raise a child.” This is the socialist ideal.

Many parents attempt to fight the system but in the end, many parents simply turn their children’s education over to the state. The numbers of children who aren’t raised by the state grow fewer and fewer and adult freethinkers are becoming scarce. The unique ideas that come from the family microcosm have been diminished through nationalized education.

It is no mystery that when social conservatives react strongly when they hear the term, “gay marriage.” Americans that have been raised with strong family values are naturally averse to such a cheapening of the concept of family. While no different in practice, “civil unions” or “domestic partnerships” garner much less resistance simply because they don’t appear to intrude on the endangered institution of marriage.

The most interesting phenomenon is how many Americans are in denial about the advance of socialism. Weakening the family is a concept right out of the Karl Marx handbook, “The Communist Manifesto”. As stated therein, “The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.”

This brings us to our final anti-family concept, “spreading the wealth around” (Barak Obama to Joe “the Plumber”, campaign 2008). The principal of property ownership is a concept that is constantly being threatened by the liberal “progressive movement.” The fruits of your labors should not be yours to keep, but should be shared with the entire country, primarily via a multi-tiered tax system. If someone lacks the talent or ambition to work as hard as you do, then you should work incrementally harder so those less gifted don’t have to. Indeed, no aspect of who you are should be allowed to prosper at the expense of someone else.

The flaw in this liberal belief is that one must ALWAYS prosper at the cost of someone else. Yet in practice, we know that when a man paves a road to benefit himself, it can serve everyone around him as well. When people have money to spend to enhance their own lifestyle, there is always someone selling to them who, in turn, enhance their own lifestyle. Economics is NOT a “zero-sum game.” You CAN enrich your own life while enriching the lives of others as well. The buyer and the seller both gain from a transaction (barring government intervention, of course).

Still, America rushes headlong into socialism – unaware of the forces working to undermine the most fundamental and traditional social unit. Some might say, “Well, it obviously hasn’t happened!” Yet. A pig may be gluttonous, but even a pig will refuse food if it is forced down the pig’s gullet. Democrats are well aware of this principal, and are leading us down the primrose path to the slaughter. I pray that the majority of Americans can see the end of the road before it is too late to turn back.