MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘Marxism’

Postmodernism Is A Transformation Of Marxism

Posted by M. C. on July 14, 2022

Post modernism is lipstick on the world wide failure that is communism.

https://youtu.be/0Hu_Rxxs0VA

Be seeing you

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

Rothbard vs. the Religion of Progressivism

Posted by M. C. on June 11, 2022

Despite these superficial deviations, progressives are Marxist to the core because they fervently believe in the Enlightenment myth of inevitable progress toward an ideal society. Therefore, as Rothbard points out, progressivism is “‘religion’ in the deepest sense, held on faith: the view that the inevitable goal of history is a perfect world, an egalitarian socialist world, a Kingdom of God on Earth.”

https://mises.org/wire/rothbard-vs-religion-progressivism

Joseph T. Salerno

Our main text for the Rothbard Graduate Seminar this week is Murray Rothbard’s Power and Market: Government and the Economy, which contains a systematic treatment of one area of economic theory, interventionism. This represents a departure from past seminars in an important respect. Earlier seminars focused on texts by Mises or Rothbard that addressed a much broader scope of their thought. Previous seminar texts such as Man, Economy, and State and Human Action cover the entirety of economic theory. Human Action, in addition, features a full treatment of methodology as well as discussions of epistemology, political philosophy, and economic history. Other texts used at earlier Rothbard Graduate Seminars such as The Ethics of Liberty and Economic Controversies are also broad in scope, containing, respectively, Rothbard’s systematic presentation of his political philosophy and a broad spectrum of his essays on theoretical and applied economics.

This week’s RGS deliberately focuses on the much narrower topic of interventionism, because it is the economic program of progressivism, the prevailing ideology of the twenty-first century. Progressivism attained this position after a leftist “long march” through Western educational, cultural, religious, economic, and political institutions, which began shortly after World War II, gained momentum during the 1960s, and rapidly accelerated in the 1980s. In a prescient memo written shortly after the war, Ludwig von Mises pointed out that the essence of the progressive policy agenda is interventionism. Mises called the teachings of progressives, “a garbled mixture of divers particles of heterogeneous doctrines incompatible with one another.” He included Marxism, British Fabianism, and the Prussian historical school in this doctrinal witch’s brew. Whatever the differences among them, however, all progressives were passionately united on two points. First, they believed that “contradictions and evils are . . . inherent in capitalism.” And second, they argued that the only way to root out the inequities and irrationalities of capitalism and transform it into a more humane and rational system was by imposing the program of interventionism laid out by Marx and Engels in The Communist Manifesto. As Mises pointed out, “the Communist Manifesto is for [progressives] both manual and holy writ, the only reliable source of information about mankind’s future as well as the ultimate code of political conduct.”

To be clear, the gradualist, interventionist path to socialism laid out in The Communist Manifesto was explicitly rejected in the later writings of Marx as “petty-bourgeois nonsense.” The later Marx advocated permitting the conditions of revolution to ripen until the continuing immiseration of the workers, worsening economic crises, and concentration of capital in fewer and fewer hands caused the proletariat to rise up and destroy the capitalist system in one mighty blow. Although embracing Marx’s ultimate goal, progressives thus differ from full-blooded Marxists in choosing the nonviolent, gradualist route toward socialism via interventionism, the mixed economy, democratic socialism, or whatever you wish to call it. Some progressives view interventionism as a method of subverting capitalism and achieving full socialist central planning. Others—probably the majority today—see interventionism as the means for taming and humanizing capitalism and seek to foist it on the productive class of workers and entrepreneurs as “a permanent system of society’s economic organization.” But the difference between these two variants is beside the point. Regardless of the precise long-run goal of their proponents, interventionist policies have the same effects. They distort market prices, misallocate resources, stifle and misdirect entrepreneurship, destabilize the economy, and redistribute income from the producers to the parasitic ruling elites and their constituencies and cronies.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

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

Woke Military

Posted by M. C. on March 24, 2022

Instead of training in military pursuits, personell are learning all about racism, sexism, ableism, ageism and all the rest. Rather than learning how to be better soldiers, sailors, marines, pilots, they are being educated in wokism. At this rate, after their military service is over, they will be good candidates to get jobs in higher education where they can bully professors for engaging in micro-aggressions.

By Walter E. Block

I’ve done it. I’ve finally done it. I’ve finally converted to wokeism. Count me now amongst all of my new friends on the left in favor of cancel culture, transgenderism, intersectionality, BLM, stamping out micro-aggressions, critical race theory, Marxism, and calling for diversity, inclusion and equity rather than ability to do a job. I now see systematic racism as the source of all evil. I now apologize for being a white heterosexual male.. (It is a bit inadvertent; I can’t help it; well, I suppose I could work on the sexual part, but, I’m not inclined to go that far. I’m not known far and wide – at least in my own mind – as Walter Moderate Block, for nothing at all). I’m now a liberal, a socialist, a communist, a collectivist, a pinko, a leftie, a progressive. I hereby apologize, profusely, for, yes, I admit it, being a member of the ruling class thanks to being supremely white and cis-gendered. (See how I can now spout the correct lingo!)

What turned me around on this? What made me see the light on this matter? What was the turning point for me on my road to Damascus?

It was the woke military of the U.S. I finally woke up (pardon the pun) to the fact that the armed forces of this nation are themselves waking up, and that this is an altogether a good thing. No, scratch that. A very, very good thing.

The Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines started weakening themselves by welcoming homosexuals. Then, they followed through by inviting women into their ranks, with roughly the same results, although for obviously different reasons. The latest wakefulness of these organizations is that they have embraced the explicit wokeist philosophy.  The same thing seems to be occurring north of our border, and this, too, is all to the good: Canada has almost always been a junior partner in US expansionism.

Instead of training in military pursuits, personell are learning all about racism, sexism, ableism, ageism and all the rest. Rather than learning how to be better soldiers, sailors, marines, pilots, they are being educated in wokism. At this rate, after their military service is over, they will be good candidates to get jobs in higher education where they can bully professors for engaging in micro-aggressions.

Space Force Lt. Col. Matthew Lohmeier, commander of his squadron, objected to this new initiative. He was fired for writing a book mentioning these concerns of his: “Irresistible Revolution: Marxism’s Goal of Conquest & the Unmaking of the American Military.” In this book he criticized, among many other things the 1619 project of the New York Times. That’s a bad book, based on this new philosophy.

Want to hear about a good book? The US Chief of Naval Operations has recommended on his professional reading list for sailors, How to Be an Antiracist, by Ibram X. Kendi. This is a publication that proposes future discrimination against white people.

But these are only the tips of the iceberg, matters for headlines. The actual day to day training of army personal is ongoing, comprehensive and supremely woke.

Why is this all to the good? That is because the main function of these people is not to defend the home country, but, rather, to roam around the world trying to export democracy to the entire planet. To this end, there are some 800 military bases located in about 130 different countries. Since there are only roughly 200 nations on the entire planet, this constitutes a clear majority of them.

Has U.S. military imperialism been a force for good? That is a difficult position to defend. Had this country not entered world war I, the two sides would have run out of soldiers, on both sides, thanks to losses in trench warfare. There never would have been a Treaty of Versailles, which led to the German hyper-inflation of 1923, which eventuated in the rise of Hitler, the Nazi party, communism and world war II. It is difficult to see what the U.S. sojourns in VietNam did any good for the world. The same holds true for the American fighting presence in Afghanistan for almost two decades. Now, the neo-con warmongers are pushing for entry into the Russian – Ukrainian fracas even though, again, US foreign policy – pushing Nato to the very border of Russia – was to blame..

However, thanks to the weakening of the U.S. military (hey, we can still kick Grenadian butt), it becomes less and less likely that this institution will intervene. So, let us raise a glass to wokeism in our armed forces. That is perhaps not the best route to world peace, but beggars can’t be choosers. The less power wielded by the US the more likely we are to be saved from thermo-nuclear war. We always have to be ready to welcome strange bed-fellows. Yay, wokism. Three cheers, not two.

Be seeing you

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

Marxism versus Libertarianism: Two Types of Internationalism | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on November 2, 2021

The Marxist suggestion that proletarians possess exceptional moral qualities which oppose nationalism and bigotry and exhibit an unconditional love for all people is empirically unwarranted, and there is no historical evidence to support it. It was, instead, a necessary condition in order for the Marxist theory to be logically consistent; that is, the world socialist revolution against the world bourgeoisie could not take place without a united front of proletarians. Marxism consolidated and expanded internationalism as an integral feature of the workers’ and socialist movements, placing itself in opposition to the contrived nationalism of capitalist society. It was an act of intellectual dishonesty that is still difficult to eradicate.

https://mises.org/wire/marxism-versus-libertarianism-two-types-internationalism

Allen Gindler

There are two main philosophical and ideological schools of thought that include the problem of internationalism in their principles. The first is liberal internationalism, which developed within the framework of classical liberalism. The second is orthodox Marxism and its various derivatives that entertain the idea of proletarian internationalism. The concept of internationalism has different origins, meanings, and practical implementations in the two schools of thought.

Because the term “liberal” in a politico-philosophical sense was highjacked by the Left and changed its meaning in people’s perception, it is better to use the term “libertarian internationalism” for the purpose of this discussion.

As a component of political doctrine, libertarian internationalism is based on the concept of laissez-faire, which implies, among other things, free trade and free movement of capital. The main goal of libertarian internationalism is to ensure economic and individual freedom on a global scale that would lead to the prosperity of individual, family, community, and country, and ensure a peaceful world order. From an economic and philosophical point of view, libertarian internationalism is a logical continuation and generalization of the concept of division and cooperation of labor. Division and cooperation of labor are the result of the societal development process that obeys the objective economic laws.

Division of labor results from an interplay between the evolutional forces of natural selection and market forces, and has influenced the development of human society from prehistoric times to this day. It is clear that specialized labor achieves better productivity and quality of the end product or service. Specialization was a manifestation of natural selection based on specific individual skills. At the same time, specialization suggests that an individual voluntarily gives up the production of a commodity that he is less qualified to manufacture but whose consumption is still essential to him. He relies on acquiring these lacking goods and services in the market. Basically, he trusts that some others will supply him needed things that he does not produce anymore. That someone is supposed to know better than everybody else how to produce his specialty commodity or service and, in turn, relies on others to produce something else for him, and so on. In other words, a high degree of division of labor brought members of society together as one, relying on each other. However, it is not collectivism but a voluntary cooperation of individuals who respect each other’s property rights. Division of labor creates atomic, independent producers and consumers, and cooperation brings them together in production and in a marketplace. In other words, division of labor induces cooperation.

The whole of humanity has found this mode of operation more advanced and gradually intensified the division of labor and reciprocal and beneficial trade. It is not done by someone’s order; it simply reflects behavioral changes that humans experience under an influence of selective pressure and the unrestrained laws of the market economy. The domestic mode of production gradually drifts from “production for use” to “production for exchange.” The scale of exchange has steadily increased, crossing the boundaries of the individual household over time and eventually reaching a global level. The entrepreneurial class has taken on many risks to enter manufacturing, service delivery, and trade to meet consumer demand. Under developed capitalism, national borders are crossed not only by goods and services but also by capital.

Libertarian internationalism is constructive and peaceful in nature and is possible due to the entrepreneurial qualities of individuals and a universal consensus on respecting property rights. Thus, libertarian internationalism is essentially entrepreneurial internationalism. Conversely, the idea of globalization, in which the world political bureaucracy interferes with the economic issues of sovereign enterprises or entire countries, is alien to entrepreneurial internationalism. Libertarian internationalism is the ideal that the world community should strive for, but unfortunately, the continuing interference of politics in the economy and worldwide collectivist trends are alienating humanity from a natural and more just order.

Proletarian internationalism arose in the minds of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels as they developed their materialist conception of history. Marxism is a deterministic catastrophe theory applied to the evolution of human society. Using the Hegelian method of dialectics, the founders of Marxism divided capitalist society into two dichotomous classes: the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. The unsolvable conflict between the two antagonistic classes, caused, according to Marx, by the unfair appropriation of surplus value by the capitalists, had to reach a boiling point, the result of which would be a social cataclysm. Marx appointed the proletariat as the driving force, agents of the socialist revolution, designed to sweep away the liberal democratic state and establish the dictatorship of the proletariat as a transitional stage on the path to building a classless society.

Marx considered his theory to be the pinnacle of scientific research in economics and sociology, in which he uncovered the objective laws of the development of society. The objective laws of the development of society, as well as the laws of nature, have to be universal and operate independently of someone else’s will. They cannot be disabled, canceled, or changed; they are a given that affects everything and everyone.

But it was precisely with objectivity that Marx had problems. First of all, the division of society into only two classes and the appointment of the proletariat as an agent of the revolution are unwarranted. Moreover, the workers themselves have not yet realized that they are the proletariat or the role that the founder of Marxism has assigned to them. Marx understood this perfectly and proposed theoretical and practical measures for the emancipation of the proletariat, awakening their class consciousness, and preparing for the political struggle against the bourgeoisie. However, in order to meet the criterion of objectivity, the class consciousness of the proletariat would have to develop naturally and spontaneously, without the influence of anyone’s will. Artificial and purposeful incitement to revolutionary sentiments and instigation to overthrow the existing system do not meet the criterion of objectivity and instead completely falsify it. Indeed, a scientific theory of the development of society is not needed to prepare for a coup.

Moreover, as objective laws must be universal, the same societal developments must occur in other countries. Marxism argued that the socialist revolution must have a universal character, that is, take place on a global scale, or at least in the most industrialized countries. Marx and Engels well understood that entrepreneurs were genuinely international, as capital does not have borders and the economies of different countries are interconnected. At the same time, labor was mostly local, lacking international organizations and representations. Therefore, Marxism invented proletarian internationalism in order to accommodate Marx and Engels’s teaching to these socioeconomic realities and attempt to mobilize the world proletariat for the world socialist revolution. In The Communist Manifesto, the founders of Marxism simply postulated that the proletariat has no boundaries and called on the proletariat of all countries to unite. Marx substantiated this postulate by the fact that the capitalists themselves created the preconditions for the proletarian brotherhood that would ultimately erase the “national one-sidedness” of consciousness within the masses of the proletariat. This conclusion seems farfetched and looks more like wishful thinking.

The Marxist suggestion that proletarians possess exceptional moral qualities which oppose nationalism and bigotry and exhibit an unconditional love for all people is empirically unwarranted, and there is no historical evidence to support it. It was, instead, a necessary condition in order for the Marxist theory to be logically consistent; that is, the world socialist revolution against the world bourgeoisie could not take place without a united front of proletarians. Marxism consolidated and expanded internationalism as an integral feature of the workers’ and socialist movements, placing itself in opposition to the contrived nationalism of capitalist society. It was an act of intellectual dishonesty that is still difficult to eradicate.

Thus, internationalism in the interpretation of libertarian philosophy and Marxist doctrine are completely different concepts. Proletarian internationalism is a political myth postulated by the founders of Marxism and used as a propaganda tool then and now. It is characterized by extreme aggressiveness, since it was invented as a weapon for the political fight against world capital. Libertarian internationalism, in contrast, is peaceful and constructive. It follows naturally from the logical and consistent development of human society in terms of the division and cooperation of labor and is based on respect for private property rights. Author:

Allen Gindler

Allen Gindler is a scholar from the former U.S.S.R., specializing in Political Economy, Econometrics, and Industrial Engineering. He taught Economic Cybernetics, Standard Data Systems, and Computer-Aided Work Design in the Khmelnytskyi National University, Ukraine. He is currently a private consultant to IT industry on Database Administration and Cryptography. As a hobby, he is interested in political philosophy, history, population genetics, and Biblical archaeology. He has published articles and opinion pieces in Mises Wire, American Thinker, Foundation for Economic Education, and Biblical Archaeology Review.

Be seeing you

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

Our New Normal: Inflation, Poverty, Starvation, Economic Collapse, Fascism, Marxism, Communism, and Murder – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on September 18, 2021

In reality, it has but one objective, and that is to achieve total global governance and universal control over all.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2021/09/gary-d-barnett/our-new-normal-inflation-poverty-starvation-economic-collapse-fascism-marxism-communism-and-murder/

By Gary D. Barnett

“So long as the people do not care to exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannize will do so; for tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote themselves in the name of any number of gods, religious and otherwise, to put shackles upon sleeping men.”

~ Voltaire

The gullibility of man it seems has no bounds, for if it did, how could so many be so blind? As I reflect on the past 18 months or so, it is quite alarming to understand the scope of this scam called a ‘pandemic,’ and how this entire country (and world) have embraced lies, deception, and tyranny of such magnitude. Mass murder at the hands of the state has already begun, but with the rollout of deadly and poisonous injections purposely mislabeled as ‘vaccines,’ the murder of large numbers that is democide, will be evident among this entire population for years to come. The perpetrators of this genocidal takeover of society are now coming after all children, and will attempt to poison as many as possible with their ‘vaccines’ over the course of this year and next.

Only a nation of pathetic cowardly fools would allow such an abdominal fate for their own defenseless offspring. This type of behavior indicates a total lack of intellect, and a mass ignorance of reality. It also indicates widespread indifference, which is the incarnate of a sick and immoral society.

So, it seems that the so-called “new normal” of totalitarian rule over a slave-like society, is not just the fault of those who wish to rule over us, but more so the people at large for allowing this to happen without proper resistance. Blaming the enemy is easy, but accepting blame of self is avoided at all cost, and this attitude is even worse than that of tyrants. It is expected that the evil among us who are the ruling class exist, but the evil of mass apathy can never be accepted or excused.

In the course of the past few months, this country’s citizens have fully acquiesced to the will of a totalitarian regime, and in the process, have laid bare their weaknesses due to an unfounded fear. Many believe there is safety in numbers, but that is only the mindset of herd animals, not humans. By voluntarily allowing for the death and destruction of part of the herd, the rest survive to live one more day, but when people accept this attitude, they also have to accept the death and destruction of their family, friends, and neighbors as normal for survival. If that is the case, it seems that the evolution of the human species is going backward, and that is exactly what collectivism is meant to accomplish.

With this comes the consequences of non-action, and under these circumstances, those consequences are always at the discretion of the tyrants. What has happened to date should be enough for anyone to see the folly of having confidence in any state or nation. What began with lockdowns and quarantines, led to business closings, job loss, extreme stress, supply line disruption, shortages, higher prices for goods and services, (inflation) and of course economic chaos. This in turn led to much more poverty, despair, and starvation, setting the stage for the next phase of this takeover. By this time, the people should have recognized the totalitarian nature of what was going on, but alas, they remained obedient and passive, and watched as their world was decimated.

In order to see the writing on the wall, one must seek out and accept the truth, regardless of the risk involved in doing so. To avoid the truth in favor of hiding from reality, hoping that someone else will ‘fix’ things, is exactly what all tyrannical rulers seek in the populations they are attempting to control. It is my expressed opinion, that the timing of this takeover coup was based fully on the fact that the master class knew that the general population was too afraid, too dependent, and too apathetic to fight back against this dictatorial authoritarianism that had been planned for decades. The timing of this was genius, because the masses acted in exactly the manner desired.

While no such thing as ‘Covid-19’ actually exists, and has never been identified, the real threat that is the real pandemic, had been held aside for just the right moment, and early this year the ‘vaccine’ pandemic was released. The ‘vaccine’ is the bio-weapon, and the so-called non-existent variants a of a non-existent virus, are the result of the deadly ‘vaccines.’ In other words, the ‘vaccine’ is the pandemic, and all those who have voluntarily taken the injections will be the victims of this staged pandemic. Once the deaths from these jabs reach unprecedented numbers, and they will, the rest of society who have not succumbed to the idiocy of taking such a dangerous concoction, will be blamed. In effect, all will have been targeted by the criminal state, whether they got the injection or not. The ‘vaccinated’ group will be sick and dying, while the unvaccinated group will be hunted by the state. This is why this society has already been divided by stealth in order to pit those vaccinated against those who are unvaccinated; a sinister plot meant to solidify control of both groups.

This is a communistic takeover attempt, that has all the elements of Fascism, Marxism, and Communism rolled into one. It is the most dangerous time in history for the inhabitants of this planet, as it is an attempt to achieve a globalized takeover of all in order to convert to one technocratically controlled system, where there are an ‘elite’ few’ at the top, their enforcers and corporate partners below, including government, with the rest being a slave class known as the proletariat.

While this ‘pandemic’ is thought to be about a mystery virus, it is not, as the virus narrative is just the tool being used to accomplish the real agenda, which has its roots based in the guise of ‘sustainable development’ marketed through the idiocy of man-made climate change. This has been fully outlined in the UN’s Agenda 21 and Agenda 30, and in the aptly named “Great Reset’ agenda described by Klaus Schwab and the World Economic Forum. In reality, it has but one objective, and that is to achieve total global governance and universal control over all. To be successful in this venture, many hundreds of millions, or more likely billions, will need to be murdered. The ‘vaccines’ are the tools of murder, so avoidance of these injections at all cost is imperative.

This is not a new threat, but it has been carefully manipulated to occur at this time in order to coincide with the people’s ignorance and indifference, their prepared division, their weakness and dependence on the state, and therefore their cowardice in the face of adversity. This ‘vaccine’ is the key to success for the evil and criminal rulers, so the fewer of us that take this witches brew, the more of us who will be able to fight back against this heinous attempt to destroy humanity. Our only hope is to remain non-compliant, to disobey every order, and to abolish the current governing system that has assumed dictatorial powers with the voluntary cooperation from the masses.

“The opposite of love is not hate, it’s indifference. The opposite of art is not ugliness, it’s indifference. The opposite of faith is not heresy, it’s indifference. And the opposite of life is not death, it’s indifference.”

~ Elie Wiesel

Source and reference links:

The silent weapon that is the mRNA ‘vaccine’

The non-existent ‘virus’ called ‘Covid-19’

Sustainability and super pandemics

Agenda 21

Agenda 2030: Global communism unleashed

‘Covid’ equals murder: the children are next

Covid-19 ‘Vaccine’: A slow-motion genocidal bioweapon

Gary D. Barnett [send him mail] is a retired investment professional that has been writing about freedom and liberty matters, politics, and history for two decades. He is against all war and aggression, and against the state. He recently finished a collaboration with former U.S. Congresswoman, Cynthia McKinney, and was a contributor to her new book, “When China Sneezes” From the Coronavirus Lockdown to the Global Political-Economic Crisis.” Currently, he lives in Montana with his wife and son. Visit his website.

Be seeing you

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

‘‘Ed-exit’ to Protect Your Kids from Critical Race Theory’ – Ron Paul’s 19 July Column

Posted by M. C. on July 19, 2021

https://mailchi.mp/ronpaulinstitute/edexit?e=4e0de347c8

‘Ed-exit’ to Protect Your Kids from Critical Race Theory

Written by Ron Paul Monday July 19, 2021
undefined

Parents across the country are fighting to stop government schools from indoctrinating their children with Critical Race Theory. Critical Race Theory is a form of Marxism that focuses on the “oppression” of racial minorities. Central to Critical Race Theory is the belief that free markets are a tool of racial oppression that must be abolished and replaced with socialism.

This is dangerous nonsense. History shows that governments, not free markets, are and always have been the instruments of racial oppression. For example, legislators passed Jim Crow laws because private businesses refused to voluntarily segregate their customers.

Numerous scholars have documented how the welfare state and the war on drugs, as well as minimum wage laws, occupational licensing laws, and other anti-liberty laws, disproportionately harm minorities. Some of these laws were passed with the explicit goal of protecting white workers from competition with minorities.

Public outrage over teaching children that the only way to overcome racism is to sacrifice liberty helped build efforts to pass laws banning the teaching of Critical Race Theory. Some of these efforts are accompanied by advancing mandates that schools promote a “positive” or “patriotic” view of America. This can replace one form of indoctrination with another.

A “patriotic” curriculum could teach children that the change from a constitutional republic to a welfare-warfare state was a victory for liberty. It could also teach that the American government is morally justified in, and capable of, managing the economy at home and spreading democracy abroad. It could teach children lies like capitalism caused the Great Depression.

Instead of arguing over what form of statism government schools should indoctrinate children in, liberty activists should work to replace government control of education with parental control.

The key to this is to restore parental control of education dollars though education tax credits and tax-free education savings accounts. This can enable parents to afford to “ed-exit” from government schools by sending their children to private schools. It can also help parents afford the costs associated with homeschooling. Increased charitable deductions can help fund private education for low-income families. Tax credits can be implementing without increasing the deficit by tying them to legislation closing the Department of Education.

Homeschooling is an increasingly attractive option for many parents. Parents interested in providing their children with a quality education should consider my homeschooling curriculum. The Ron Paul Curriculum provides students with a well-rounded education that includes rigorous programs in history, mathematics, and the physical and natural sciences. The curriculum also provides instruction in personal finance. Students can develop superior communication skills via intensive writing and public speaking courses. Another feature of my curriculum is that it provides students the opportunity to create and run their own businesses.

The government and history sections of the curriculum emphasize Austrian economics, libertarian political theory, and the history of liberty. However, unlike government schools, my curriculum never puts ideological indoctrination ahead of education.

Interactive forums ensure students are engaged in their education and that they have the opportunity to interact with their peers outside of a formal setting.

I encourage all parents looking at alternatives to government schools — alternatives that provide children with a well-rounded education that introduces them to the history and ideas of liberty without sacrificing education for indoctrination — to go to RonPaulCurriculum.com for more information about my homeschooling program.


Copyright © 2021 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.
Please donate to the Ron Paul Institute

Be seeing you

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

An Antidote to Political Correctness in Schools: Just Walk Away | Mises Institute

Posted by M. C. on June 29, 2021

https://mises.org/power-market/antidote-political-correctness-schools-just-walk-away

Patrick Barron

We’ve all heard about the newest insult to our lives and our children. I refer, of course, to the growing adoption of “critical race theory” as part of public school curriculums. Why should we be surprised? Many of our top colleges have been adopting what can only be called Marxist indoctrination of their students for many years. A friend recently sent me a letter written by a North Korean immigrant who attended Columbia University in New York City. This courageous young woman had escaped North Korea into China at great risk, crossed the Gobi Desert to Mongolia with the help of Christian missionaries, and eventually made her way to South Korea. She then came to America to attend what she thought was a great, prestigious school (Columbia University), only to discover that Columbia’s political correctness was perhaps even worse than that of North Korea!

Her story of escape from brutal, communist repression is not unusual. Others have done the same. I did not find as unusual her shock at discovering the same soul-destroying repression on the campus of one of America’s supposedly premier institutes of higher learning. What I did find as unusual was her acquiescence to the many insults she suffered at the hands of the administration, teachers, and some of their student sycophants. She admitted that she learned to keep her head down, not offer an opinion, and not fight back! I admire this young lady a lot, so I’m perplexed at her reaction. If she crossed the Gobi Desert in search of freedom, surely she can cross a Columbia University classroom and walk out the door.

The answer for combating political correctness and other insults in our public schools is to refuse to attend them. There is nothing more important than inculcating the proper values in the minds of our children at such an impressionable age. If your actions to stop political correctness and other insults in our schools fails, then all you have to do is leave. Yes! Pull your child from school and send him to another that does not teach this filth. If it’s a university, all the easier! Don’t send them your children and your money. There are thousands of colleges in America. Find one that teaches values that are important to you. If your child is still in the public school system, you may have to sacrifice, but the rewards are worth it. Pay for your child to attend a private school. If you can’t find one, then homeschool your child. Yes, I know that may mean that you may have to alter your work hours or even quit your current job. But this should be easier now. Perhaps the one good thing that has come out of the covid-19 pandemic is that employees and employers have found that many jobs can be done from home.

Find a way. Do not feel that you have no choice but to subject your child to racism, Marxism, or anti-Americanism. WALK!

Be seeing you

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

My Corner by Boyd Cathey-Liberty or Equality: You Cannot Have Both

Posted by M. C. on March 12, 2021

Over the past half century and more we have witnessed a different kind of revolution; it does not employ as weapons of choice the tank and bayonet, nor the Gulag as the final destination for unrepentant opponents. It leaves nothing of substance behind in its wake. It is an unfolding, all-encompassing cultural movement, subverting and then incorporating in its service diverse extreme revolutionary elements injected into our educational system, into our entertainment industry, into our politics, even into the very language we use to communicate with each other. The “violence” it metes out is mostly of a cerebral nature, not of the physical kind, but rather predicated on shame, humiliation, and the fear of the loss of a job or reputation.

http://boydcatheyreviewofbooks.blogspot.com/

Friends,

Occasionally I will write and publish longer, more detailed articles and essays for The New English Review. These essays are normally about classical music, philosophy, even a short story and a poem or two. They are not keyed necessarily or directly to specific current events. They usually differ from the shorter pieces of political and social commentary that a reader will find here at My Corner by Boyd Cathey.

Last night I went back and reread one of those longer essays. And I thought—given the Harris/Biden administration’s insane emphasis on what they call “equity,” and the dogmatic imposition of “equality” (which is whatever the progressivist Left currently defines it as)—that I might dust it off and offer it here. I think it gets into and explores the rickety structure, the utter egalitarian fakery that is being imposed on us and on our society, and, in fact, the slogan behind which all sorts of unnatural and devastating—and Satanic—evil is shoved down our throats and pounded into the malleable brains of our captive children.

I pass it on here:

Facing the Egalitarian Heresy of the 21st Century

by Boyd Cathey (March 2020)

Poet Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, in The Masque of Pandora, writes, “Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad.” He was not the first to use a version of the phrase, which is found in Sophocles’ play, Antigone. But the meaning has been fairly consistent for over two millennia.

Aren’t we witnessing this today?

A large number of our fellow citizens seem possessed by a kind of madness. They seem to exist in a kind of parallel universe, with its own set of beliefs, its own standards of truth and particular narrative of facts. In almost every respect this universe represents the contrary, the negation, of the inherited, rooted foundation on which our historic Western and Christian civilization is based.

This contrary reality did not all of a sudden spring up, it has existed and been cultivated and nurtured for centuries. Its founding ideologues understood that their premises and desired objectives ran up full force against the ingrained traditions and historic legacy of a culture and civilization that traced its origins not only to the beliefs of the ancient Hebrews, but also to the highest art, philosophy and statecraft of the Greeks and Romans.

Encouraged by the Emperor Constantine at the First Council of Nicaea (325 A.D.) and two centuries later by the Emperor Justinian the Great, the empire both East and West recognized the primacy of Divine Positive Law—the laws and revealed teachings of God and His Church. But not only that: this transformation signaled the explicit foundation of Europe based not only on Revelation, but also upon the reality of Natural Law, those rules inscribed in nature and integral to it that also have as their Author, God Himself. The Christian civilization that came about was built securely and firmly not only on Holy Scripture but also the traditions and the legacy of those ancient cultures that were not destroyed by the Faith, but fulfilled and completed by it.

In the incredibly rich inheritance of ancient philosophy there was a recognition that there were discernible “laws” which govern the orderly operation and functioning of the social order and make possible a harmonious communal existence within society. What the Christian church did was to confirm the existence of those laws while adding a capstone, a divine sanction and specificity derived from Revelation and the teachings of Jesus Christ and the Church. Thus, this transformation of ancient society was prescriptive, conservative in the best sense of that word.

Is this template not the exact opposite of the modernist, progressivist revolution which seeks to cut society off from its inheritance, depriving it of the accumulated wealth of that heritage?

No doubt, change and reform, in some degree, always must occur in society. But these changes do not affect the necessity of our acceptance of the unaltered and unalterable higher laws given by God or the laws inscribed in nature. Rather, they occur on a practical level in any well-functioning society. There is a quote from Prince Giuseppe di Lampedusa’s famous novel describing the revolutionary turmoil of mid-19th century Italy, The Leopard (Il Gattopardo): “Things will have to change in order that they remain the same.” In 1963 director Luchino Visconti directed an exquisite film of the same name based on that novel, starring, quite improbably, Burt Lancaster. The film vividly portrays the tensions between the immemorial past and the circumstances created by political and social change.

What Lampedusa’s principle character, the Prince of Salina is saying is that no society—no culture—can completely denude itself of its inheritance and its history and actually survive. And more, a denial of natural law and the Divine Positive Law ends catastrophically. Such experiments in total revolutionary transformation have inevitably ended in violent bloodshed and incredible destructiveness—in the massacres of the French Revolution, and more recently, in the Gulag and the concentration camp, or in blood-soaked Maoism.

Over the past half century and more we have witnessed a different kind of revolution; it does not employ as weapons of choice the tank and bayonet, nor the Gulag as the final destination for unrepentant opponents. It leaves nothing of substance behind in its wake. It is an unfolding, all-encompassing cultural movement, subverting and then incorporating in its service diverse extreme revolutionary elements injected into our educational system, into our entertainment industry, into our politics, even into the very language we use to communicate with each other. The “violence” it metes out is mostly of a cerebral nature, not of the physical kind, but rather predicated on shame, humiliation, and the fear of the loss of a job or reputation. It plays on the natural human desire for conformity, while steadily upping the ante in our laws—constantly moving the goalposts of what is acceptable and unacceptable. It is the kind of intellectual “violence” now writ large that once impelled people to look the other way when their neighbors were hauled off to Siberia under Comrade Stalin, or to Dachau under Hitler. But, arguably, it is worse, for it denies the very existence of those immutable laws that govern the universe.

It has been highly effective, utilizing as its major weaponry the terrifying twins, the inexpungable accusations of “racism” and “sexism,” and a whole panoply of sub-terms that accompany such charges: “white supremacy,” “historic white oppression,” “colonialist imperialism,” “misogyny,” “toxic masculinity,” and increasingly expanded to incorporate terms like “anti-migrant” or “anti-transgender” bigotry.

The overarching desire of this progressivist revolution is, in fact, not reform—not what Lampedusa’s Prince of Salina says consolingly about some things changing so that other things can remain the same. No, it is incredibly “post-Marxian,” making the older Communist and Marxist revolutionary dreams seem tame in comparison. It invokes and demands a total transformation in which nearly all, if not all, of those institutions, those traditions, and that inheritance vouchsafed to us from our ancestors is rudely discarded, rejected, and condemned as racist, sexist, fascist—in other words, our remembered past is cut off from us.

This progressive revolution is predicated on the idea of equality. Yet, in fact, the equality as envisaged does not exist and has never existed in nature. For revolutionary “equality” is a slogan, in reality an exercise in guile and subterfuge employed to shame and cajole a weak-willed and gullible citizenry into eventually dissolving the traditional social bonds and inherited natural (and moral) laws that have governed our culture for two millennia. Its true objective is domination over and power in society.

As an increasingly independent outgrowth of an historic cultural Marxism formulated decades ago and insinuated into our educational systems and entertainment industry, this assault on our historic culture makes the template of the old Soviet Communists appear conservative. Josef Stalin would never have, and never did, put up with same sex marriage, transgenderism, or the kind of feminist extremism we see around us today. True, the Soviets talked of equality, and women occupied some professional positions, but for the Reds a strong family and observance of supposedly “outdated” traditional morality were still important.

Revolutionary equality, in the form of egalitarianism, is not only a rebellion against the Divine Positive Law, but also against Nature, that is, against the way things are and function naturally in our world, those workings and that usual consistency observed as prescriptive laws for thousands of years.

There is a parable in the Gospel of St. Matthew, the Parable of the Talents (Mt. 25:14-30; The Parable of the Bags of Gold/NIV), which both mirrors and confirms those laws. The three servants of the Master are given unequal amounts and told to be faithful stewards and invest the talents wisely. The first two, those with the largest amounts, comply and double their accounts; but the servant with the least amount fails to use his one Talent, and thus is condemned: “You wicked and lazy slave! You knew, did you, that I reap where I did not sow, and gather where I did not scatter? . . . So take the talent from him, and give it to the one with the ten talents . . . As for this worthless slave, throw him into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

See the rest here

Boyd D. Cathey was educated at the University of Virginia (MA, Thomas Jefferson Fellow) and the Universidad de Navarra, Pamplona, Spain (PhD, Richard M. Weaver Fellow). He is a former assistant to the late author, Dr. Russell Kirk, taught on the college level, and is retired State Registrar of the North Carolina State Archives. Has published widely and in various languages. He resides in North Carolina.

Be seeing you

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

Marxism In Africa: Why So Many African Economies Failed After Independence | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on November 5, 2020

According to Joseph Schumpeter, Marxism is a sort of religion whereby goods are distributed to believers by an all-knowing state. This differs from capitalism, where each individual in a society is held as absolute end in himself. Marxism, like Nazism, fascism, tribalism, communism, and all other socialist theories of nationalism, is based on the principle of collectivism that overrides the free decisions of individuals.

https://mises.org/wire/marxism-africa-why-so-many-african-economies-failed-after-independence?utm_source=Mises+Institute+Subscriptions&utm_campaign=85a2a0582e-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_9_21_2018_9_59_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8b52b2e1c0-85a2a0582e-228343965

Eric Coffie

“As far as I am concerned, I am in the knowledge that death can never extinguish the torch which I have lit in Ghana and Africa. Long after I am dead and gone, the light will continue to burn and be borne aloft, giving light and guidance to all people.” ~ Dr. Kwame Nkrumah

September 21 marks the birthday of Kwame Nkrumah, Africa’s Marxist revolutionary and first president of the republic of Ghana. The day is celebrated as a public holiday in Ghana to commemorate the significant role Nkrumah played to free the Gold Coast from colonial rule. Nkrumah was born on September 21, 1909, at Nkroful, in what was then the British-ruled Gold Coast, the son of a goldsmith. After his graduation from Achimota College in 1930, he traveled to the United States to pursue his master’s degrees at Lincoln University and the University of Pennsylvania, where he was influenced by Marxist ideologies and pan-Africanist ideas, and especially Marcus Garvey, the black American nationalist leader of the 1920s. Eventually, Kwame Nkrumah came to describe himself as a socialist and a Marxist, a leading proponent of African socialism, the offshoot of pan-Africanism.

He returned to Ghana in late 1947 under invitation of the United Gold Coast Convention (UGCC), the first political party in Ghana. Nkrumah served as the general secretary to the party but due to his Marxist tendencies broke away from the conservative UGCC party to form his own socialist political party, the Convention People’s Party (CPP), which won the 1951 general elections. Kwame Nkrumah became prime minister of Ghana and later president of the new republic in 1960. He was the winner of Lenin Peace Prize in 1962. Nkrumah founded numerous state-run companies, launched the construction of a huge dam for the generation of hydroelectric power, built schools and universities, and backed liberation movements in African colonies that had yet to achieve independence.

In 1964, faced with economic crises caused largely by his Marxist economic policies, Nkrumah’s proposed solution was to tighten government control. He declared Ghana a one-party communist state with himself as president for life. Nkrumah was accused of actively promoting a cult of his own personality (Nkrumahism), which eventually led to his overthrow in 1966 by military coup d’état. He died in Bucharest, Romania, after six years in exile in Guinea, at age sixty-two. In the year 2000, Nkrumah was voted Africa’s “Man of the Millennium” by BBC listeners as a “Hero of Independence” and an “international symbol of freedom as the leader of the first African country to shake off the chains of colonial rule.”

“Nkrumah’s primary concern really was the good of the nation,” noted German political scientist Christian Kohrs, but the path he chose was dangerous both for himself and for the people of independent Africa. Like Nkrumah, many other African leaders—namely Julius Nyere of Tanzania, Modibo Keita of Mali, Léopold Senghor of Senegal, and Sékou Touré of Guinea, among others—also took the socialist path in the struggle for African independence. This resulted in the rise of despots and a series of military coups d’état in most African countries and had a devastating effect on the social and economic life of Africa. Though some of these African socialists did not align themselves with Marxism like Nkrumah did, their brand of socialism was not different from the collectivist principles of Marxism. Senghor, for example, claimed that “Africa’s social background of tribal community life not only makes socialism natural to Africa but excludes the validity of the theory of class struggle.” On the surface, socialism might appear natural to African tribal community life, as with many other economies of the world, but according to America-based Ghanaian economist professor George Ayittey, “Africa has had a long history of free market economies dating back to precolonial times.”

According to Joseph Schumpeter, Marxism is a sort of religion whereby goods are distributed to believers by an all-knowing state. This differs from capitalism, where each individual in a society is held as absolute end in himself. Marxism, like Nazism, fascism, tribalism, communism, and all other socialist theories of nationalism, is based on the principle of collectivism that overrides the free decisions of individuals. It is only capitalism that allows the individual to be free and pursue his interests, which at the end will serve the common good.

The brutal rejection of capitalism in favor of socialism by African politicians at independence was largely due to a deep-seated misconception that equates capitalism to colonialism. In fact, according to Lenin, capitalism was the extension of colonialism and imperialism. For this reason, African leaders at the time of independence didn’t want anything to do with capitalism. Nkrumah said, for example, “We need socialism to fight off the imperialists.” Nyere said: “Capitalism encourages individual acquisitiveness and competition. We don’t want that. We need socialism.” This led African leaders to adopt the socialist ideology of Marxism. By that they mean complete ownership of all the means of production by the state. In the end, the socialist experiment was economic failure.

Insanity is said to be the inability to correlate causes and effects. Wherever Marxism/socialism has been practiced, it has meant slavery and death for the majority. It’s no surprise that Marxism failed in Africa just as it has done in many other nations. Throughout history, there has been a lot of evidence showing that capitalism works and socialism is a failure. The results of socialism are poverty and tyranny. Despite all these failures and atrocities committed under national socialism by Marxist dictators, there is a majority that still believes socialism is the way to African social and economic prosperity. The truth is that socialism is not about economics. Socialism is about competition for political power that results in the destruction of wealth and prosperity.

Unfortunately, Africa currently is largely under the influence of Marxism because of the political ideologies of its founding fathers, learned from anticapitalist intellectuals in the West, especially in the United States. As I am writing this article, many African nations are starving and deeply in debt as a result of the socialist programs that have been pursued by their governments. According to the World Bank, 416 million Africans still live in extreme poverty, 210 million of whom are in fragile and conflict-affected countries. African development partners continue to think the solution to these challenges is more political than economic, so they keep on pouring money to support big government programs in Africa as a way of reducing poverty and social injustice. The only real solution to Africa’s long-standing challenges is economic freedom. Africa needs less and less government control and more capitalistic control of the economy. This will make competition for political power unattractive and give people more freedom to exercise their right to individual initiatives, which is the only way to peace and prosperity. Author:

Eric Coffie

Eric Coffie is the founder and president of the Economic Freedom Institute in Ghana. Email him at email ecoffie@efighana.org

Be seeing you

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

What the Father of Kamala Harris Thinks About Marxism

Posted by M. C. on November 5, 2020

Get ready

Don Harris, a prominent Marxist Professor, has been offered a full professorship in the Economics Department here, Department Chairman James Rosse confirmed yesterday. Rosse said Harris has not yet accepted the offer, but he “expects to hear from him this week.”

https://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2020/08/what-father-of-kamala-harris-thinks.html


The father of Kamala Harris is Donald Harris, an immigrant from Jamaica, who taught economics at Stanford University.

He received a Bachelor of Arts degree from London University in 1960. Six years later he received a Doctor of Philosophy degree from the University of California- Berkeley. He retired from Stanford as a professor emeritus of economics in 1998.

He joined the Stanford faculty in 1972 and his focus according to the University was “exploring the analytical conception of the process of capital accumulation and its implications for a theory of growth of the economy, with the aim of providing thereby an explanation of the intrinsic character of growth as a process of uneven development.”

In other words, there is nothing to indicate in his Stanford profile that he is a Marxist. The words Marx, Marxist, Marxism are nowhere to be found on his profile.

Indeed, when I first looked at his profile when Kamala was in the primaries, I passed him off as an unimpressive affirmative action hire.

He was a special hire all right but the fact that he is Jamaican was a bonus, there is no question he was viewed as an “alternative economist” Marxist hire.

This was the headline from The Stanford Daily when Harris was offered his post.:

The newspaper clip reads:

Marxist Offered Economics Post
By KEN MCLAUGHLIN 

Don Harris, a prominent Marxist Professor, has been offered a full professorship in the Economics Department here, Department Chairman James Rosse confirmed yesterday. Rosse said Harris has not yet accepted the offer, but he “expects to hear from him this week.”

Harris who still holds a tenured position at the University of Wisconsin, has served as a visiting Professor here, and is currently teaching at the University of the West Indies in Kingston, Jamaica.

The appointment is the direct result of student pressure in recent years to hire more faculty who favor an “alternative approach” to economics, said Economics Prof. John Gurley, who now teaches the only undergraduate course in Marxist economics. 

Gurley said the appointment of Harris was the culmination of the six-month “round-the-world” search for the most qualified Marxist professor available

Exceptionally good

Gurley called Harris “an exceptionally good teacher, outstanding researcher and one of the leading young people in Marxist economics.”

One knowledgeable source told the Daily that some senior faculty members were very hesitant hiring Harris, but they gradually yielded tp student pressure.

A conservative economics faculty member, who wished to remain anonymous said he was “not part of the decision and it would not be fair to say anything. “

He also added that “as far as I’m concerned Harris is not in the same field I’m in.”

Alternatives

The department, Gurley said, looked for economists who espoused not only Marxists viewpoints, but other alternative perspectives as well.

Libertarian economists, who advocated untrammeled laissez-faire capitalism,for exa

mple, were considered in the selection, he claimed

Gurley said the search included those knowledgeable about socialist economies even if they didn’t sympathize with a Marxist system.

At Stanford, Harris was one of the key faculty members behind a then-new program, “Alternative Approaches to Economic Analysis” as a field of graduate study at Stanford University.

This is what he wrote about Marxism in his book, Capital Accumulation and Income Distribution (my highlights):

Marx was the theorist of economic growth par excellence. He concieved of the capitalist economy as an inherently expansionary system having an inner logic of its own. It was his purpose to discover the abstract and general principles underlying the operation of this form of society and the contradictions it entailed, so as to account for its process of change and supersession. Out of this scientific endeavor, Marx developed an integrated system of analysis with a distinctive method and quite specific formulation of the laws of motion of the capitalist economy. Others, after Marx, have attempted to elaborate upon and develop further this system of analysis, recognizing the changing conditions of capitalism as it develops. Specific elements of Marx’s own formulation as concerns, for instance, the law of the falling tendency of the rate of profit and a tendency of the organic composition of capital to rise, are subject to an ongoing debate within the Marxian tradition. The system of analysis is also incomplete in some of its essentials. Nevertheless, the Marxian system remains today as a powerful basis upon which to construct a theory of growth of the capitalist economy appropriate to modern conditions. Accordingly, an attempt is made below (see Chapters 3 and 10) to develop some elements of the Marxian theoretical system that are relevant to this purpose.

And that is how the daddy of Kamala rolls.

Kamala received a Bachelor’s degree from Howard University where she double-majored in political science and (ahem) economics and chaired Howard’s economics society.

.-RW

Be seeing you

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