MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘Communist Manifesto’

The Philosophy of the Pseudoprogressives

Posted by M. C. on August 19, 2022

pseudointellectual

Let us quote one of Anderson’s observations. In commenting upon America’s abandonment of the gold standard he remarks:

There is no need in human life so great as that men should trust one another and should trust their government, should believe in promises, and should keep promises in order that future promises may be believed in and in order that confident cooperation may be possible. Good faith—personal, national, and international—the first prerequisite of decent living, of the steady going on of industry, of governmental financial strength, and of international peace. (pp. 317–318)

Such were the ideas that prompted the self-styled progressives to depreciate Anderson as “orthodox,” “old-fashioned,” “reactionary” and “Victorian.” Sir Stafford Cripps, who twelve times solemnly denied that he would ever change the official relation of the pound against dollars and then, when he had done so, protested that he naturally could not admit such intention, is more to their liking.

https://mises.org/library/philosophy-pseudoprogressives

Ludwig von Mises

1. The Two Lines of Marxian Thought and Policies

In all countries which have not openly adopted a policy of outright and all-around socialization the conduct of government affairs has been for many decades in the hands of statesmen and parties who style themselves “progressives” and scorn their opponents as “reactionaries.” These progressives become sometimes (but not always) very angry if somebody calls them Marxians. In this protest they are right in so far as their tenets and policies are contrary to some of the Marxian doctrines and their application to political action. But they are wrong in so far as they unreservedly endorse the fundamental dogmas of the Marxian creed and act accordingly. While calling in question the ideas of Marx, the champion of integral revolution, they subscribe to piecemeal revolution.

There are in the writings of Marx two distinct sets of theorems incompatible with each other: the line of the integral revolution, as upheld in earlier days by Kautsky and later by Lenin, and the “reformist” line of revolution by installments as vindicated by Sombart in Germany and the Fabians in England.

Common to both lines is the unconditional damnation of capitalism and its political “superstructure,” representative government. Capitalism is described as a ghastly system of exploitation. It heaps riches upon a constantly diminishing number of “expropriators” and condemns the masses to increasing misery, oppression, slavery and degradation. But it is precisely this awkward system which “with the inexorability of a law of nature” finally brings about salvation. The coming of socialism is inevitable. It will appear as the result of the actions of the class-conscious proletarians. The “people” will finally triumph. All machinations of the wicked “bourgeois” are doomed to failure.

But here the two lines diverge.

In the Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels designed a plan for the step-by-step transformation of capitalism into socialism. The proletarians should “win the battle of democracy” and thus raise themselves to the position of the ruling class. Then they should use their political supremacy to wrest, “by degrees,” all capital from the bourgeoisie. Marx and Engels give rather detailed instructions for the various measures to be resorted to. It is unnecessary to quote in extenso their battle plan. Its diverse items are familiar to all Americans who have lived through the years of the New Deal and the Fair Deal.

It is more important to remember that the fathers of Marxism themselves characterized the measures they recommended as “despotic inroads on the rights of property and the conditions of bourgeois production” and as “measures which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which in the course of the movement outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionizing the mode of production.”1

It is obvious that all the “reformers” of the last one hundred years were dedicated to the execution of the scheme drafted by the authors of the Communist Manifesto in 1848. In this sense Bismarck’s Sozialpolitik as well as Roosevelt’s New Deal have a fair claim to the epithet Marxian.

But on the other hand, Marx also conceived a doctrine radically different from that expounded in the Manifesto and absolutely incompatible with it. According to this second doctrine

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Central Banks and Socialism Are Forever Linked Together | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on October 24, 2021

This momentous fact has not escaped the attention of socialist theorists. The Saint-Simonians in France had already grasped it at the beginning of the nineteenth century. They understood that the economy of a country could be controlled particularly easily and safely with the help of the printing press. A few years later, the demand for the “centralization of credit in the hands of the state through a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly” soon also held center stage in the 1848 Communist Manifesto by Marx and Engels.

https://mises.org/wire/central-banks-and-socialism-are-forever-linked-together

Jörg Guido Hülsmann

It is well known that socialism is a shortage economy. It is the economy of inefficiency and corruption, of indifferent workers and of bigwigs, of lacking spare parts, of lacking funds, of failure, of permanent reform needs and of constantly unsuccessful reforms. This concerns in particular total socialism, as it was realized in the Soviet Union or under National Socialism. But it is no less evident in the numerous partial socialisms that are featured in the real existing welfare state, in its numerous state “systems.” Budget deficits year in, year out despite high contributions—that is the reality in the state pension system and in the state health system. The state education system is similar: declining student performance and growing illiteracy despite sky-rocketing expenditure. No private entrepreneur could afford to let the costs get out of hand in such a way. Anyone who is in competition has to keep improving. Only those who have a legal monopoly and can make use of taxpayers’ money if necessary do not need it.

Now there is one partial socialism that stands out from the usual array of failures. Here we see gains instead of losses. Here we often find all the other signs of a successfully run company, from the private legal form to the pinstripe-filled boardroom. We are talking about central banking. The term “central bank” actually refers quite clearly to a centrally planned economy. But when people talk about the Fed, the ECB or other central banks today, hardly anyone thinks that they are talking about an offspring of the socialist spirit. On the contrary, central banks are typically viewed as particularly “capitalist.” After all, what would be more capitalist than money? And what would be more closely related to money than a bank?

Upon closer inspection, however, it appears that this connotation may not be entirely correct. In the unbridled market economy, private property and competition prevail. Central banks, on the other hand, are usually state institutions. Even those central banks that are private-law organizations (as in the United States, Japan, and Switzerland) are subject to special laws and their directors are appointed by national governments. In addition, central banks always and everywhere enjoy a legal monopoly. Their banknotes and their deposit money are largely withdrawn from free competition. The market participants are compelled to use the money of the central banks.

This money is one of a kind. Indeed, it can basically be produced in unlimited quantities. The production of money by the private commercial banks is limited by their equity capital and also by the cash deposits of their customers. But central banks do not need equity or cash deposits. It is they who create cash. They can generate cash out of nothing and practically for free. Certain legal limits are set for them, but in times of crisis, as in 2008–09 and in 2020–21, these limits can be relaxed quickly and dramatically. If necessary, they can also be abolished entirely.

Central banks therefore have potentially tremendous power. If only let loose, they can control all of the economy and society. There is almost no limit to the number of new loans they can issue. The can provide these loans to some and deny them to others. And by implication they can also control the use of all available resources. After all, labour usually moves where it is best paid. Raw materials and capital goods are typically sold to those who offer the highest prices. If you control the printing press, you can also let the real resources flow exactly where you think it is right. Whether this use of funds is also profitable plays a rather subordinate role for central banks (unlike commercial banks). You do not have to work hard and invest well to cover losses. One push of a button is enough.

Central banks are therefore made for do-gooders. He who runs a central bank does not need to do painstaking educational work in order to bring about any social change. The humanitarian with the printing press can finance all changes he wishes for at the push of a button. He can just pay other people to do what he wants. He does not need any savings or capital for this. He does not need a democratic majority either. As long as he has the printing press under control, he could by and large give a damn about what other people think or wish.

This momentous fact has not escaped the attention of socialist theorists. The Saint-Simonians in France had already grasped it at the beginning of the nineteenth century. They understood that the economy of a country could be controlled particularly easily and safely with the help of the printing press. A few years later, the demand for the “centralization of credit in the hands of the state through a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly” soon also held center stage in the 1848 Communist Manifesto by Marx and Engels.

Unsurprisingly, the enormous possibilities of creating money from nothing have been used again and again to finance state industrial policy and socialist experiments. In the 1970s, British historian Antony Sutton reported that some of New York’s Wall Street banks had financed the radical transformation of traditional European societies. They supported Lenin and Stalin as well as Adolf Hitler with billions of dollars. That would not have been possible without the refinancing from the American central bank.

In our day, too, the historical connection between the central banking system and political utopias is being brought back to life. This time it appears in the form of a “green” and egalitarian transformation of the economy and society. The directors of the ECB [European Central Bank] and the Fed have already officially committed to this.

The new humanitarians with the printing press are undoubtedly a great danger to humanity. They threaten everyone’s prosperity by channeling scarce resources into unprofitable (and therefore unsustainable) uses. But they also threaten the free social order as a whole, in that they are preparing to disempower the open competition of all social forces. They want to replace this competition with the rule of a nonelected leadership caste.

However, green central bank policy is not to be condemned primarily because it supposedly pursues ecological goals, but because a central bank comes into its own here. Central banks are by their very nature destructive. Even if they are not led by self-proclaimed ecologists and socialists, they favor the cousin, favoritism and the bigwig economy. The economists of the Austrian school have shown, among other things, that central banks always and everywhere weaken economic growth by undermining the propensity to save; that they are destabilizing the economy by fueling a debt economy; that they incite greed and avarice; and that they create blatant inequalities in income and wealth. Central banks cannot be reformed, they must be abolished.

This article is a translation of an article that has appeared in the German edition of the Epoch Times, in October 2021. Author:

Contact Jörg Guido Hülsmann

Jörg Guido Hülsmann is senior fellow of the Mises Institute where he holds the 2018 Peterson-Luddy Chair and was director of research for Mises Fellows in residence 1999-2004.  He is author of Mises: The Last Knight of Liberalism and The Ethics of Money Production. He teaches in France, at Université d’Angers. His full CV is here.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | 1 Comment »

The Progressivism of the Future Is Really Just the Socialism of the Past | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on October 20, 2020

Beyond that, other demands and programs put forth and realized by the progressive movement have included eugenics, population and birth control, family planning, prohibition, antitrust legislation, public education, central banking, and an income tax.

https://mises.org/wire/progressivism-future-really-just-socialism-past?utm_source=Mises+Institute+Subscriptions&utm_campaign=6eca8feaf2-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_9_21_2018_9_59_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8b52b2e1c0-6eca8feaf2-228343965

Antony P. Mueller

The world is currently in the midst of a newly aggressive drive to bring about a new socialist order through a powerful and “efficient” technocratic state. This new order has been labeled as “progressive,” but it is merely the latest version of the socialist impulse which we have seen before in the form of socialism and communism. 

A War on Private Property

Summed up in a single sentence, the plans of the communists aim at the abolition of private property. From there, the other major demands follow, such as abolishing the family, nation, and countries, and finally, as Marx noted, “communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality.” In as much as the program of liberalism “if condensed into a single word….is private ownership of the means of production” (as described by Ludwig von Mises), the program of the communists is the abolition of private property.

A Promise of Efficiency and Expertise

Yet Marxian socialism—i.e., communism—has not found many followers in the United States. The communist appeal to justice and equality found more resonance in the old world. To have an appeal to the Americans, socialism had to be packaged differently. In the United States, the gospel of socialism appeared under the name of “progressivism” and was preached as bringing society to the highest degree of efficiency.

Under President Woodrow Wilson, progressivism attained its first peak as the dominant philosophy of the state. Society was to these socialists a single organization. The bureaucrats as public administrators found a vivid expression in the political novel Philip Dru: Administrator: A Story of Tomorrow by Edward Mandell House, who was a very close friend of Wilson and who served as the president’s most important political and diplomatic advisor.

This vision of progressivism requires:

  • Government and labor representation on the board of every corporation
  • Sharing the profits of public service companies
  • Government ownership of the means of communication
  • Government ownership of the means of transportation
  • A comprehensive system of old age pension
  • Government ownership of all healthcare
  • Full labor protection and governmental arbitration of industrial disputes

Beyond that, other demands and programs put forth and realized by the progressive movement have included eugenics, population and birth control, family planning, prohibition, antitrust legislation, public education, central banking, and an income tax.

These echo of the planks of the Communist Manifesto, which included demands to

  • Centralize the means of communications and to put the means of transport in the hand of the state
  • Extend the control of the state across the factories and over all land
  • Implement a heavy progressive income tax and abolish the rights of inheritance
  • Centralize credit in the hands of the state and establish a central bank of an exclusive monetary monopoly

Unlike the Communist Manifesto, the progressives did not preach a proletarian revolution but spoke out in the name of efficiency and demanded the bureaucratic rule of expert public administrators. In a specific way, the progressive movement presents an even worse program than Marxism. As Murray Rothbard summarized it, the progressive movement brought about a profound transformation of the American society:

from a roughly free and laissez-faire society of the 19th century, when the economy was free, taxes were low, persons were free in their daily lives, and the government was noninterventionist at home and abroad, the new coalition managed in a short time to transform America into a welfare-warfare imperial State, where people’s daily lives were controlled and regulated to a massive degree.

Socialism in Disguise

Guiding mankind to heaven on earth by transforming society is the quintessential message of socialism, beginning with the “utopian socialism” of the nineteenth century and leading up to our time with the demand for a “concrete utopia.” Yet different from the Marxist mythology that socialism would be the unstoppable successor of capitalism, history shows that the “socialist phenomenon” has appeared time and again throughout history. Instead of being the model of the future, socialism is, de facto, a failed idea of the past.

Socialism is the attempt to create a new social order at will. Yet one cannot construct “order” to one’s wishes. The volitional realization of a socioeconomic system results in establishing society as a single state-dominated organization and as such, it is necessarily hierarchical and must be based on command and obedience instead of the free association of the people as it happens in a spontaneous order.

President Wilson failed in his plan to bring the United States into the League of Nations and establish an organization to promote a new world order in tune with the visions of the progressives. For some time, the Americans resumed the tradition of individualism and isolationism. Yet with the Great Depression and World War II the chance of transforming the society and putting bureaucratic experts at the top came back with a vengeance under the presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. With the end of the world war returned the chance to establish a network of international organizations with the mission of organizing society and the economy under the auspices of bureaucratic experts. This happened with the founding of the United Nations and its several subgroups and sister organizations to become active in finance, education, development, and health.

The International Push

With the launch of the United Nations, progressivism as a program of what James Ostrowski calls “destroying America” has attained a global platform. The main seat of this philosophy has moved into the headquarters of the United Nations Organizations. From its start, the United Nations has been the light bearer of global progressivism.

The protection of the environment and “global health” proved to be the ideal pretexts to move forward the agenda of progressivism. In June 1994, the UN Agenda 2021 was initiated by the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro and called for the imposition of “sustainable development” on a global scale. While Agenda 2021 was still relatively modest in its demands and nonbinding as to its full execution, the later Agenda 2030 let the cat out of the bag. The new agenda was adopted when the heads of state and government and high representatives met at the United Nations Headquarters in New York in September 2015. At this meeting, they approved the adoption of “Global Sustainable Development Goals” about comprehensive and far-reaching universal and transformative goals and targets.

The new agenda describes a program of comprehensive government takeover of almost all aspects of personal life. With no nods to human freedom and market coordination, the document lists seventeen goals that should be met through a bureaucratic takeover of society on a worldwide scale. Behind popular promises such as the end of poverty and hunger, healthy lives, equitable education, and gender equality lurks the agenda to impose global socialism. Demands such as the reduction of income inequality within and among countries, sustainable consumption and production patterns, and building inclusive societies for sustainable development, are parts of an overriding plan to do away with the market economy and to impose comprehensive state planning.

Claiming the “perpetuation of disparities between and within nations, a worsening of poverty, hunger, ill-health and illiteracy, and the continuing deterioration of the ecosystems on which we depend for our well-being” (chapter 1, preamble), the conference calls of a “global partnership for sustainable development.”

Under the heading of “program areas” the agenda stresses “the links between demographic trends and factors and sustainable development.” The growth of the world population combined with “unsustainable consumption patterns” endangers the planet, as they “affect the use of land, water, air, energy and other resources.” Under point 5.17 of its objective, the conference demands: “Full integration of population concerns into national planning, policy and decision-making processes.” Protecting the environment requires the comprehensive regulation of the world population which in turn makes it necessary to control personal behavior.

In short, the adoption of this “new world order” would mean the abolition of private property, or what Mises regarded as the liberal program—a world based on private property. If enacted, this project will fail in the end, but it will bring immense suffering in the meantime. Author:

Antony P. Mueller

Dr. Antony P. Mueller is a German professor of economics who currently teaches in Brazil. Write an email. See his website and blog.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Unholy Trinity and the Total State – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on April 8, 2020

Thus, we must remember that ideas can have powerful consequences and that liberty must be defended with vigilance.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/04/derek-dobalian/the-unholy-trinity-and-the-total-state/

By

The seeds of the Total State were planted by three men in the 19th century. These three men had delusions of grandeur and believed they had the answers to all of mankind’s troubles and questions. They placed themselves above God. The seeds they planted quickly grew roots and sprouted into the Total States of the 20th century. These three men were Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, and Abraham Lincoln. The ideologies and actions of these men complimented each other and ultimately led to a level of death and destruction the world had never seen before.

Charles Darwin and Karl Marx

In 1859, Darwin released “On the Origins of Species by Means of Natural Selection, of the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life,” in which he invented the theory of natural selection. A decade prior to this Karl Marx published “The Communist Manifesto,” which advocated for an authoritarian collectivist society that would abolish individual liberty. This manifesto was so influential that almost every major society put some form of it in place in the 20th century, whether it was a watered-down form of socialism or full-on communism. But this influence was only made possible because of Darwin and his theories. Darwin’s theory of evolution and natural selection discarded God and consequently the idea of objective morality and the inherent worth of every individual. It was Marx himself who said “Darwin’s work is most important and suits my purpose in that it provides a basis in natural science for the historical class struggle.” By destroying the idea that God created us all and granted us natural rights, Darwin gave Marx’s theory a much-needed foundation. This allowed for Marx’s theory to spread, as people began to accept that individuals did not have rights and therefore, that “society” had the right to enforce its will on individuals. After all, if Darwin’s theory is true, then there is no purpose in life and we are all here by chance. And if this is true, then there is no such thing as right and wrong. This thinking, combined with Marx’s idea of a collectivist society centered around an all-powerful state allowed for the creation of the Total State in the next century. Hitler, who was an avowed socialist, stated that “the earth has been acquired on the basis of the right of the stronger.” The German dictator, along with the other leaders of the 20th century Total States, adopted Marx’s theories and Darwin’s “survival of the fittest” concept, thus leading to an all-powerful state deciding who the most “fit” were and who could and should be sacrificed and destroyed.

Abraham Lincoln

If Darwin and Marx were the originators of the Total State throughout the world, Abraham Lincoln fulfilled that role more specifically in the United States and, more importantly, was the initiator of the horrific Total Warfare tactics they would eventually use. In regards to being a forerunner of the Total State, Lincoln not only wrote about it but actually put it into place. Lincoln argued that states had no right to secede and therefore that the national government had the authority to quash any such attempt with the use of overwhelming force. The results of this were obvious: the consolidation of power into one solitary group, the defining feature of the Total States of the 20th century. This centralization of power by Lincoln was later praised by Hitler in “Mein Kampf.” Hitler later would echo Lincoln, promising Germany that he “would totally eliminate states’ rights altogether.” Thus, we see that Lincoln’s vision laid the groundwork for the Total State. But that is not all. He also created the precedent for the Total War tactics that the vicious states of the 20th century would later employ. President Lincoln waged “total war” on the South, laying waste to its land and killing civilians, including children. As Murray Rothbard stated, he “broke the 19th-century rules of war by specifically plundering and slaughtering civilians, by destroying civilian life and institutions.” In fact, Rothbard declares, “by targeting and butchering civilians, Lincoln…paved the way for all the genocidal horrors of the monstrous 20th century.” The Total States’ later use of these tactics, which were unprecedented in Lincoln’s time, would make the 20th century the bloodiest one in history.

Conclusion

The terror of the 20th century did not occur by chance. It was largely the result of the horrific ideologies and actions of three men who lived in the previous century. Thus, we must remember that ideas can have powerful consequences and that liberty must be defended with vigilance.

Be seeing you

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

EconomicPolicyJournal.com: Thanks to AOC: Check Another Box Off on the Attempt to Implement the ‘Communist Manifesto’ in America

Posted by M. C. on May 10, 2019

https://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2019/05/thanks-to-aoc-check-another-box-off-on.html

By Robert Wenzel

Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez introduced legislation on Thursday to cap credit card interest rates at 15%.

This, of course, will do nothing but block credit for low credit score, high-risk individuals.

AOC understands this. Consider this exchange she had on Twitter.

@NahazDota tweeted to AOC:

Her response:

In other words, she knows the damage it will do. Her real goal is to move toward a government loan granting bank. That’s what her “postal banking” line is all about.

The Washington Post explains this is part of the AOC-Sanders Bill:

 It would also allow the U.S. Postal Service to get into the banking business, including offering savings and checking accounts.

AOC is very shrewd in the advance of the commie agenda. She always frames it in a way the masses will go for: “A cap on credit card interest rates.” But anyone who knows basic economics knows that is bad enough but she is going beyond that with her call for turning the U.S. Postal Service into a bank.

Point 5 in the Communist Manifesto calls for this:

Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of the National Bank with the state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

She knows she can’t nationalize the entire banking system, yet, so she is doing an end-around by attempting to turn the U.S. Postal Service into a bank that in no time will be required to be supported by taxes as the loans made will be unprofitable.

Be seeing you

che-guevara_00427261

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Why Do Socialists Hate Families? | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on April 27, 2019

Yet, Marx, Engels, and many of their modern followers are anti-family. Marx and Engels write in The Communist Manifesto:

Abolition of the family! […]

https://mises.org/wire/why-do-socialists-hate-families

…Interestingly, another key tenet of socialism, besides abolishing the ownership of the factors of production, is abolishing the family. This is strange because the traditional nuclear family seems like it could be used in producing convincing socialist rhetoric: it is a good example of social bonds without private property, prices, and “capitalist exploitation.”

Yet, Marx, Engels, and many of their modern followers are anti-family. Marx and Engels write in The Communist Manifesto:

Abolition of the family! […] On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.

The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.

Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.

Marx and Engels make a distinction between bourgeois and proletariat families, but “both will vanish” once communism is realized, apparently because — according ot Marx — bourgeois families are predicated on exploitation. Men exploit their wives and parents exploit their children, all for “private gain.”

Engels writes in Principles of Communism:

What will be the influence of communist society on the family?

It will transform the relations between the sexes into a purely private matter which concerns only the persons involved and into which society has no occasion to intervene. It can do this since it does away with private property and educates children on a communal basis, and in this way removes the two bases of traditional marriage – the dependence rooted in private property, of the women on the man, and of the children on the parents.

The communist society includes the public education of children and a breakdown of social norms on monogamy, family responsibilities, and dependence on any individual. According to ReviseSociology.com:

Marxists argue that the nuclear family performs ideological functions for Capitalism – the family acts as a unit of consumption and teaches passive acceptance of hierarchy. It is also the institution through which the wealthy pass down their private property to their children, thus reproducing class inequality.

Modern Marxists argue that families are just propaganda channels for capitalism. Families instill acceptance of hierarchy and give the bourgeoisie a way to “reproduce class inequality” through inheritances. To this end, Engels approvingly quotes Marx in The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State:

The modern family contains in germ not only slavery (servitus), but also serfdom, since from the beginning it is related to agricultural services. It contains in miniature all the contradictions which later extend throughout society and its state.

For Marx, the family represents a microcosm of capitalism. But why didn’t he identify it as a microcosm of socialism to argue that if socialism is feasible at the family level, then it could be feasible at a larger scale?…

Be seeing you

vene social

Is that Sean Penn?

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Democratic Socialism and Regular Socialism Have the Same Goal | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on January 31, 2019

“the Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things… They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions.”

https://mises.org/wire/democratic-socialism-and-regular-socialism-have-same-goal

The longing for the socialist dream comes in part from the great success of capitalism as an engine of prosperity. From the nineteenth century onwards, the entrepreneurial economy created prosperity on a scale that had never been seen before in history.The socialists, however, believed economic success would become even greater in a society of egalitarian redistribution. The socialists expect that under their rule, the economy would become more productive and society more just.

This illusion of obtaining prosperity and justice under socialism was already evident in the Communist Manifesto of 1848. In their pamphlet, Karl Marx and his sponsor Friedrich Engels enthusiastically praised capitalist achievements:

“The bourgeoisie,” they declared, “has been the first to show what man’s activity can bring about. It has accomplished wonders far surpassing Egyptian pyramids, Roman aqueducts, and Gothic cathedrals; it has conducted expeditions that put in the shade all former Exoduses of nations and crusades.”

During its rule, the bourgeoisie

has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together. Subjection of Nature’s forces to man, machinery, application of chemistry to industry and agriculture, steam-navigation, railways, electric telegraphs, clearing of whole continents for cultivation, canalization of rivers, whole populations conjured out of the ground – what earlier century had even a presentiment that such productive forces slumbered in the lap of social labor?

Yet, according to Marx and Engels, the capitalist system is doomed, and private property stands in the way to a perfect society: “the theory of the communists may be summed up in the single sentence: abolition of private property.” Doing away with private property implies the “abolition of bourgeois individuality, bourgeois independence, and bourgeois freedom…”

For Marx and Engels, the bourgeois family remained a fundamental part of liberal and capitalist. Thus, under communism, the “bourgeois family will vanish along with country, nationality, and religion.”

The Socialist Plan

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Top 10 Goals in the Communist Manifesto, Accomplished in America | The Daily Bell

Posted by M. C. on May 6, 2018

http://www.thedailybell.com/news-analysis/top-10-goals-in-the-communist-manifesto-accomplished-in-america/

By Joe Jarvis

Plenty of stupid ideas kill people. But one man’s stupid ideas have killed over a hundred million people.

Karl Marx was born 200 years ago today. And despite the utter failure of his communist philosophy in practice, the cult lives on. Still people want to try again… this time they will get it right

In America, the goals of the communists have crept their way into society with little fanfare. Many people have no idea that public schools, the graduated income tax, and even a central state-controlled bank (like the Federal Reserve) were tenets of the Communist Manifesto.

The points are boiled down in one section of the manifesto to a list of ten main goals. These are the goals, in Marx and Engels’ own words, followed by an analysis of how deeply they have seeped into the United States governing structure. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »