The far left-wing groups that organize illegal immigration protests don't go too far out of their way to hide their radicalism.

A group called Power to the People Collective marched in Oxnard (where else) for "solidarity" with other workers across the world on May Day.

According to the Ventura County Star, May Day was established by the International Socialist Congress in 1889. The Star noted that since then, "most of the world observed May 1 as Labor Day, and it was strongly identified with socialism, communism, anarchism and grim faced old duffers atop Lenin's Tomb reviewing endless columns of Soviet weaponry."

The meaning of the day did not seem to be lost on the protesters, who describe themselves as "members of the collective."

John and Mary Tolian of Oxnard were at the rally and march in support of workers. "I think it's important to come out on May Day," John said. "I wish they did more in the city of Oxnard."

The Power to the People Collective doesn't just have a name that seems sketchy, its mission statement sounds like it was copied and pasted from the New Black Panther Party or the KKK.  The group's mission statement calls for "organizing for the self-defense and empowerment of our community as a response toward the escalation of repressive measures aimed at migrants, families, and workers."

Organizing for self-defense?

There's more--the group's website states that "engagement and communication with those forces that oppress and attack our community are inevitable..."

 What are they going to do when they engage the "attackers?"

The website has a contact email address with the domain riseup.net. Riseup is a self-described revolutionary group that states that its purpose is to "aid the creation of a free society...where power is shared equally. We do this by providing communication and computer resources to allies engaged in struggles against capitalism and other forms of oppression."

Riseup also declares that a society's "means of productions should be placed in the hands of the people," the definition of communism.

The word "liberation" is sprinkled throughout Riseup's website, a theory that is central to the Party of Socialism and Liberation, another revolutionary group that organized on May Day for "workers' rights."

The PSL regularly holds workshops on Marxism and calls itself a "militant" group.

To the casual reader flipping through the newspaper, the Power to the People Collective is merely a coalition of concerned citizens. A few minutes of Googling, however, reveals the group is sympathetic to a revolutionary, militant, Marxist ideology. 

Now, let me say at the start that I'm not trying to offend anyone. There are people I love very dearly that are on the far Left and that support socialism.

"I hate it when people say I'm a commie," one such person told me once, about a conversation they had had with a Republican. "There's a big difference between socialism and communism."

I guess, in the way that a Quarter-Pounder differs than a Big Mac. They are called different things, and are priced separately. One has special sauce, but c'mon, they both have a beef patty, cheese, a bun and they both come from one place. Sure, the Big Mac has more patties and 50 percent more buns, but they are both burgers, right?

And don't give me a hamburger and tell me I'm eating a taco. For example, the latest thing now is to call Marxism "state capitalism."

That's like saying, "meet Whiskers, he's my feline dog."

Um, that looks like a cat. It just meowed.

"No, I just told you, it's a feline dog."

Fortunately, we have organizations like the Party for Socialism and Liberation that are so rabid they don't care about hiding the truth. That's the party for Socialism, and Liberation, ok?

What sort of ideas are mulling through the socialists' heads over there?

On Tuesday, maybe I should head down to Los Angeles and stop by the first of a three-part series of classes on "myths and facts and socialism."

There, the Party for Socialism and Liberation will correct the myth that socialism and communism are related, right?

"Living in the world capital of anti-communism, there are a wide variety of misconceptions and distortions about what socialists believe, and the world we fight to build," a PSL ad for the class reads.

Did they just use communism and socialism interchangeably? Maybe I hallucinated that.

Or maybe not--if the description of the second class is any guide.

Nov. 2: The Communist Manifesto--a guide to changing the world: The Communist Manifesto stands as one of the most well-read books of all time. Printed more than 160 years ago, it has been republished in almost every language, and has been a guide to action in the hands of workers and poor people on all over the world. What is it about the Communist Manifesto that has captured the minds of generations of people, and lead them in struggle? Find out why the Manifesto has been studied by workers in China, farmers in Cuba, soldiers in Russia and autoworkers in Detroit--and what we can learn from it today as we struggle for a better world.

Hmm, autoworkers in Detroit? Certainly American unions wouldn't get mixed up in this. You don't think Andy Stern read the manifesto, do you? (Even the MediaMatters rebuttal of the Stern video refers to "communist and socialist dictators"--but aren't they two entirely different things?)

But certainly we wouldn't confuse socialism, communism, AND Marxism, three, totally separate, unrelated ideas.

Unless you go to the PSL's third class, "Making a revolution--the role of a Marxist party."

No, PSL! You are the Socialist Party, not the Marxist party! Get with the program! S stands for socialism, not Marxism or communism. Can't you see they are three completely, separate, wholly independent ideas, with absolutely nothing to do with each other?

What's next, are you going to tell me that "liberal" is just a happy sounding word for the same idea, that liberals are all about sociali, uh...um...<pause>...er...would be about...<pause>...basically...taking over...and the government running everything?

I'm confident that many liberals/socialist/progressive big government types don't want collectivism, or communism or Marxism in the United States. But I don't think that they see that the uninterrupted growth of government eventually leads there. And it's not me saying it; I wish they'd ask themselves why the Socialist Party seems to be saying it.

Uh oh, two phrases that are red flags--no pun intended--for any Constitution-loving capitalist are "globalization" and "social justice." And they're both going to be on display at the Conference on Globalization for the Common Good at California Lutheran University in Thousand Oaks.

*gasp* how can you be against "social justice" for the common good? Those are such nice sounding words!

Of course they are, it's on purpose. Do you think they'd get any support if they told you it was global governance and Marxism?

Is that going too far? Here's one of the conference themes: "Fundamental Defects of the Free Market System."

Hmm...I don't see any fundamental defects of centrally planned economies anywhere on here. Strange. I wonder if they'll mention that real capitalism hasn't been attempted in a hundred years, and had nothing to do with the current global economic meltdown.

OK, enough sarcasm. Let's get down to the nitty gritty. What is globalization exactly? History follows an inevitable pattern. Some humans of any civilization will strike out into the hinterlands to find a competitive edge, whether it be land, resources, trade, etc. These pioneers settle in outposts or create small villages that eventually turn into lawless bustling boomtowns. Picture the Old West. The pioneers are always expanding commercial horizons, leaving government and society behind.

Eventually, though, government always follows the path the traders trailblazed. It provides protection against bandits and fosters a stable environment more conducive to business and population growth, in exchange for taxes.

Fast forward to the 21^st Century, and we see technology has allowed multinational companies to pioneer overseas trade. Commerce has globalized. History will then tell us that globalized government isn't far behind, in fact, it will soon be discussed at CLU.

You may think that's a great idea. Let's have the IMF or UN create laws to get some regulation to protect us. Fine. Call your UN representative and tell him to do it. Maybe go down to the local IMF office and give them some feedback.

What? You don't have any representation there?

Don't you think that's a problem? Our way of life is based on political representation--we vote on lawmakers and if they don't pass laws we like, we remove them from office. You want to give some distant, gigantic global body the power to make laws for you? We can't even get control of our federal government because it's so large and distant, why on earth would we make an even bigger, less responsive bureaucracy?

Because we want social justice!

Unfortunately for us, social justice is a euphemism for the forced redistribution of wealth. Don't take my word for it--here are the words of a special advisor to the British Prime Minister and a professor at the London School of Economics:

Social justice demands that high incomes and large concentrations of wealth be spread more widely, in order to recognise the contribution made by all sections of the community to building the nation's wealth.

Let's say that sounds good to you for the United States. What happens when you combine social justice with globalization--who are the rich people now, the people whose money needs to be redistributed?

You.

All Americans are in the top income bracket if you compare it to the rest of the world.

Still think it's a great idea?