MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘Karl Marx’

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 »

My Corner by Boyd Cathey-Karl MARX’s Influence on Abraham LINCOLN

Posted by M. C. on March 9, 2020

https://boydcatheyreviewofbooks.blogspot.com/

by Boyd Cathey

Friends,

These columns don’t often cite The Washington Post; however, last summer I ran across an article that I saved for future reference and use. And today I will reproduce it.

For the past century and more there has been lively discussion—and debate—over Abraham Lincoln, his life, his views, and the legacy of his presidency left to us. Writers as diverse as historian David Donald, black writer Lerone Bennett, and Professor Thomas di Lorenzo (in two significant books), have attempted to dissect Lincoln’s life and the revolutionary “new” America he gave birth to. Most recently those Neoconservatives—those “establishment” conservatives whose “conservatism” is actually rooted in a variant of Marxism—have claimed Father Abe for their own, denouncing any and all traditional conservatives or Southern writers who might criticize him or dissent from their virtual canonization of the rail-splitter.

Only consider the watershed “case” of the late Dr. Mel Bradford, the distinguished Southern scholar and writer, who was considered back in 1981 by President Reagan as his appointee to head the National Endowment for the Humanities. Backed by Senators Jesse Helms and John East of North Carolina, and by Democrat Senator Howell Heflin of Alabama, Bradford was viciously attacked by Neocon journalist George Will and other Neocon publicists such as Bill Kristol. In the end Reagan appointed Neocon-favored Democrat William Bennett.

Bradford’s major “crime”?  He had engaged in a long-running, scholarly debate with Dr. Harry Jaffa (Claremont College, California), very critical of Lincoln’s deleterious influence on America. (There is an excellent and full discussion of this extremely significant episode by Scott Trask and Paul Gottfried in the February 2020 issue of CHRONICLES magazine. I highly recommend subscribing to this journal which is by far the best print magazine of opinion, history and culture published in the United States.)

Like Martin Luther King Jr., Lincoln has been boosted to ethereal heights in American history and politics. Despite the ongoing discussion, his virtual triumph as a demi-god and the Founder of a New America who actually implemented the promises of the Declaration of Independence, demonstrate the triumph of one of the most fraudulent and perverse charades in our history.

The article first published in the Post last year raises important questions, but unfortunately those questions will not be seriously considered by Neocon ideologues like historically-challenged Dinesh D’Souza or Ben Shapiro or Jonah Goldberg, who remain mired in what is essentially a Leftwing bog contaminated at its very base by a whole series of progressivist positions and assumptions about civil rights and globalism….

You know who was into Karl Marx? No, not AOC. Abraham Lincoln.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2019/07/27/you-know-who-was-into-karl-marx-no-not-aoc-abraham-lincoln/?outputType=amp

The two men were friendly and influenced each other

By Gillian Brockell

July 27, 2019 at 7:00 AM EDT

It was December 1861, a Tuesday at noon, when President Abraham Lincoln sent his first annual message ⁠ — what later became the State of the Union ⁠— to the House and Senate. By the next day, all 7,000 words of the manuscript were published in newspapers across the country, including the Confederate South. This was Lincoln’s first chance to speak to the nation at length since his inaugural address. He railed against the “disloyal citizens” rebelling against the Union, touted the strength of the Army and Navy, and updated Congress on the budget.

For his eloquent closer, he chose not a soliloquy on unity or freedom but an 800-word meditation on what the Chicago Tribune subtitled “Capital Versus Labor:” “Labor is prior to and independent of capital,” the country’s 16th president said. “Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”

If you think that sounds like something Karl Marx would write, well, that might be because Lincoln was regularly reading Karl Marx.

President Trump has added a new arrow in his quiver of attacks as of late, charging that a vote for “any Democrat” in the next election “is a vote for the rise of radical socialism” and that Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and other congresswomen of color are “a bunch of communists.” Yet the first Republican president, for whom Trump has expressed admiration, was surrounded by socialists and looked to them for counsel.

Of course, Lincoln was not a socialist, nor communist nor Marxist, just as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) aren’t. (Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) identify as “democratic socialists.”) But Lincoln and Marx ⁠— born only nine years apart ⁠— were contemporaries. They had many mutual friends, read each other’s work and, in 1865, exchanged letters.

When Lincoln served his sole term in Congress in the late 1840s, the young lawyer from Illinois became close friends with Horace Greeley, a fellow Whig who served briefly alongside him. Greeley was better known as the founder of the New York Tribune, the newspaper largely responsible for transmitting the ideals and ideas that formed the Republican Party in 1854.

And what were those ideals and ideas? They were anti-slavery, pro-worker and sometimes overtly socialist, according to John Nichols, author of the book “The ‘S’ Word: A Short History of an American Tradition … Socialism.” The New York Tribune championed the redistribution of land in the American West to the poor and the emancipation of slaves.

“Greeley welcomed the disapproval of those who championed free markets over the interests of the working class, a class he recognized as including both the oppressed slaves of the south and the degraded industrial laborers of the north,” Nichols writes.

Across the Atlantic, another man linked the fates of enslaved and wage workers: Marx. Upon publishing “The Communist Manifesto” with Friedrich Engels in 1848, the German philosopher sought refuge in London after a failed uprising in what was then the German Confederation. Hundreds of thousands of German radicals immigrated to the United States in this same period, filling industrial jobs in the North and joining anti-slavery groups. Marx had once considered “going West” himself, to Texas, according to historian Robin Blackburn in his book “An Unfinished Revolution: Karl Marx and Abraham Lincoln.”

Marx was intensely interested in the plight of American slaves. In January 1860, he told Engels that the two biggest things happening in the world were “on the one hand the movement of the slaves in America started by the death of John Brown, and on the other the movement of the serfs in Russia.”

He equated Southern slaveholders with European aristocrats, Blackburn writes, and thought ending chattel slavery “would not destroy capitalism, but it would create conditions far more favorable to organizing and elevating labor, whether white or black.”

Marx was also friends with Charles A. Dana, an American socialist fluent in German who was the managing editor of the New York Tribune. In 1852, Dana hired Marx to be the newspaper’s British correspondent.

Over the next decade, Marx wrote nearly 500 articles for the paper. Many of his contributions became unsigned columns appearing on the front page as the publication’s official position. Marx later “borrowed liberally” from his New York Tribune writings for his book “Capital,” according to Nichols.

Like a lot of nascent Republicans, Lincoln was an “avid reader” of the Tribune. It’s nearly guaranteed that, in the 1850s, Lincoln was regularly reading Marx.

In 1860, two major factors helped to propel Lincoln — a one-term congressman and country lawyer most known for losing a Senate campaign — to the Republican nomination for the presidency. First, the support of former German revolutionaries who had become key players in the Republican Party; and second, the support of the party’s newspaper, the Tribune.

Once Lincoln took office, his alliance with socialists didn’t stop. Dana left the Tribune to become Lincoln’s eyes and ears in the War Department, following along with troop movements and telling Lincoln what he thought of his generals. A soldier working in the telegraph office later wrote that “Lincoln waited eagerly” for “Dana’s long d[i]spatches.”

And Greeley continued to urge Lincoln to take a harder line against slavery, to make the Civil War not just about preserving the union but about abolition. Marx did the same in the pages of the Tribune.

In 1863, they got what they wanted when Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation.

In January 1865, Marx wrote to Lincoln on behalf of the International Workingmen’s Association, a group for socialists, communists, anarchists and trade unions, to “congratulate the American people upon your reelection.”

He said “an oligarchy of 300,000 slaveholders” had defiled the republic and that “the workingmen of Europe feel sure that, as the American War of Independence initiated a new era of ascendancy for the middle class, so the American Antislavery War will do for the working class.”

A few weeks later, a reply came via Charles Francis Adams — son of former president John Quincy Adams, grandson of former president John Adams and U.S. ambassador to Britain under Lincoln.

He told Marx that Lincoln had received his message, and it was “accepted by him with a sincere and anxious desire that he may be able to prove himself not unworthy of the confidence which has been recently extended to him by his fellow citizens and by so many of the friends of humanity and progress throughout the world.” Notably, Adams indicated Lincoln considered Marx and company “friends.”

He went on to say that the Union “derive[s] new encouragement to persevere from the testimony of the workingmen of Europe.”

Both letters ran in newspapers across Britain and the United States. Marx was delighted, telling Engels it created “such a sensation” that the “bourgeoisie” in private clubs were “shaking their heads at it.”

Lincoln also met with the New York chapter of the Workingmen’s Association, telling its members in 1864: “The strongest bond of human sympathy, outside of the family relation, should be one uniting all working people, of all nations, and tongues, and kindreds.” Which is perhaps a more eloquent rendering of Marx’s famous rallying cry: “Workers of the world unite!”

Lincoln never took up the mantle of socialism. He believed in the system of wage labor even as he proposed reforms to it; Marx rejected it as another form of slavery. But Lincoln certainly viewed socialists as allies, and Nichols writes, “It is indisputable that the Republican Party had at its founding a red streak.”

Though this fact may be little known now, it hasn’t been a secret to other figures in American history. When the socialist orator and frequent presidential candidate Eugene V. Debs made a campaign stop in Springfield, Ill., in 1908, he told the crowd, “The Republican Party was once red. Lincoln was a revolutionary.”

It was also noted by the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. In February 1968, at a celebration of the life of W.E.B. Du Bois at Carnegie Hall, King brought up that the co-founder of the NAACP became a communist in his later years. “It is worth noting,” King said, “that Abraham Lincoln warmly welcomed the support of Karl Marx during the Civil War and corresponded with him freely. … Our irrational obsessive anti-communism has led us into too many quagmires to be retained as if it were a mode of scientific thinking.”

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

Taking Bernie and the Radical Left Seriously – by Robert Ringer

Posted by M. C. on January 17, 2020


It may be hard for normal people to
comprehend, but envy loves blood even more than it loves free stuff.

Radical Left revolutionaries hate the fact that most people will not cast their ballots for an agenda that calls for them to surrender their money and freedom, which is why they consider violent revolution to be a viable option. 

https://robertringer.com/taking-bernie-and-the-radical-left-seriously/

by Robert Ringer

As you are undoubtedly aware, Uncle Bernie’s minions are threatening to burn down cities if their favorite commie doesn’t get the Democratic nomination.  A Project Veritas undercover video features a man by the name of Kyle Jurek, described by Sanders’ Iowa field director as one of the campaign’s “top tier organizers,” saying, “F…ing cities burn” (if Donald Trump is reelected) and “I mean, we don’t have a lot of time left.  We have to save f…ing human civilization.”

He went on to say that “If Bernie doesn’t get the nomination, or it goes to the second round at the DNC convention, f…ing Milwaukee will burn.  It’ll start in Milwaukee, and then, when the police push back on that, other cities will just f–ing (loud noise).”

Threats and violence from the Radical Left were totally predictable, of course.  A year ago, in Part II of my article evaluating the Democratic presidential candidates, this is what I said about Sanders:

I doubt [Sanders] can win the Democratic nomination — and certainly not the presidency — but this time around I expect him and his rabid supporters to be out for blood now that they realize Horrible Hillary and the Dirty Dems screwed them out of the 2016 nomination.

Now, suddenly, a lot of people are starting to take Bernie Sanders — an entertaining amalgam of Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin, and Krusty the Clown — seriously.  Bearing an eerie resemblance to Horrible Hillary mentor Saul Alinsky, Bernie is a crotchety old goat who sincerely believes that a majority of Americans would welcome socialism/communism into their lives.

Make no mistake about it, when Bernie rages on about redistribution-of-wealth schemes, he’s not just some idealistic old fool.  On the contrary, he gives hope to millions of Americans who actually do dream of a Bolshevik-style uprising in in the United States.  Trust me, these people would love nothing more than to see blood running in the streets.  It may be hard for normal people to comprehend, but envy loves blood even more than it loves free stuff.

To envy-crazed Democrats like Kyle Jurek, Bernie represents much more than just a humorous sideshow in the fight for the Democratic nomination.  As the first Democratic candidate to openly embrace socialism, he is nothing short of a heroic cult figure.  Best everyone start taking Bernie seriously, because he is serious — every bit as serious as all the other lefties who have preached revolution of the masses over the past 150 years.

Radical Left revolutionaries hate the fact that most people will not cast their ballots for an agenda that calls for them to surrender their money and freedom, which is why they consider violent revolution to be a viable option.  They realize that people don’t give up their freedom easily, so they believe it’s their moral duty to save people from their own bad judgment.

It’s also why, at a time when a majority of Americans have let it be known that they want to move away from government control, government regulations, and government theft, immature, low-information students, along with their low-information, even more immature college professors, are singing the praises of free … Free … FREE!  Not free as you and I understand the word, but free in the sense of having other people pay for the things you want.

No question about it, free will always be music to the ears of a significant percentage of the population, and freeloaders could care less who pays the bills.  These are the folks who are feelin’ the Bern and are euphoric about Sanders’ chances of winning the Democratic nomination and ascending to the White House.

Not only is the envy-based anger of the left every bit as strong as the MAGA anger that brought Donald Trump to White House, the Radical Left has one big advantage:  To them, Marxism is a religious crusade that demands a willingness to resort to any means necessary to bring about change that is to their liking.  So, even though zombie Democrats are looking quite crazed and moronic right now, it would be wise not to underestimate them.

On the other side of the political coin, when a conservative gets up every morning, he thinks about how to get ahead in the world by providing value in the marketplace.  He may not consciously think about it that way, but it’s instinctive for normal people to strive to better their existence.  The last thing on their minds is trying to figure out ways to gain control of other people’s lives.

Leftists believe time is on their side because of their undying commitment to foist their Machiavellian agenda on mentally lethargic Americans.  Not just the most extreme leftists, but even so-called moderate liberals.  In fact, moderate liberal is an oxymoron, because liberalism, as the word is now commonly used, is an extreme ideology that calls for control over other people’s lives.

That said, there’s no doubt in my mind that Trump will win in a landslide in November, and I expect Republicans to take back the House and increase their numbers in the Senate as well.  That, however, should not bring about a collective sigh of relief, because the long term is not so certain.

Why?  Because those on the Radical Left are masters at playing the long game.  Which is why you can count on Democrats to keep pressing forward with their Radical Left agenda even after the election is over, regardless of the outcome.  Remember, unlike unprincipled, weak-kneed Republicans, Democrats never — ever — let up.

Thus, the most important question of our time is:  Which side will prevail over the long term?  Will the MAGA people fall into the comfort zone and go the way of the Tea Partiers, or will they stay strong and ramp up their efforts to push back against Washington?  The one thing you can count on is that the Radical Left will not fall into the comfort zone and will try to — you guessed it — overturn the 2020 election.

 

 

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 »

The Most Ridiculous Argument Ever – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on September 26, 2018

It is in fact protectionists who are Marxists.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2018/09/laurence-m-vance/the-most-ridiculous-argument-ever-against-free-trade/

By 

In the age of Trump’s protectionism, economic nationalism, and ignorance and incoherence on trade, some conservatives have begun to go beyond legitimate criticisms of government-managed trade agreements and the World Trade Organization (WTO) and attack free trade itself.

The most ridiculous of their arguments against free trade is a classic guilt by association argument: Karl Marx believed in free trade. This is the most ridiculous argument ever against free trade.

Marx said he favored free trade because “it breaks up old nationalities and carries antagonism of proletariat and bourgeoisie to the uttermost point.” But “certainly it would be unfair to tar the bulk of free-traders with Marxism.” Then why do it? Did Marx favor free trade because he was a capitalist? Did Marx favor free trade because he was a libertarian? Did Marx favor free trade because he believed in the free market? Did Marx favor free trade because he was a disciple of Adam Smith and David Ricardo? Did Marx favor free trade because he believed in free enterprise? Did Marx favor free trade because he believed in freedom? Did Marx favor free trade because he was opposed to government intervention in the economy? Did Marx favor free trade because he believed in the benefits of competition?

Of course not… 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 »