moonbattery logo

Feb 10 2015

Political Science as Taught in Public Schools

West Allis, Wisconsin provides the latest example of the liberal indoctrination kids undergo in public schools:

West-Allis-political-spectrum-quiz

Judging by all that red ink, the student who took this test is on his way to a bad grade.

An 11th grade U.S. Government and Politics student believes only a fascist would make the statement: “We should not help the poor, it’s a waste of money.”

But the Nathan Hale High School student – who answered that on a quiz – found out he was “wrong.”

According to the quiz, it’s a conservative who believes that.

Ironically, the school is named after a patriot in the Revolutionary War, who died fighting for the values conservatives are attempting to preserve.

“When I picked my son up from school, he asked me what political party did I think thought ‘We should not help the poor, it’s a waste of money,’” the student’s mother, Heather Bronnson, tells EAGnews.

“I answered none, and a discussion took place,” she says.

“He answered ‘E’ which stood for Facism because he couldn’t imagine conservatives or liberals saying such a thing,” according to the mother. …

“If a 16-year-old believes that a Republican or conservative doesn’t believe in helping the poor, they may view themselves as liberals at a young age … and incorrectly,” she says.

How about if they replaced the statement in question with this:

“To help the poor, we must provide economic opportunity by getting Big Government’s boot off job creators’ throats.”

Few informed students would get that one wrong. Also, it would help give the lie to the false notions that the nearly twin ideologies of communism and fascism are somehow opposites, and that oligarchical collectivist liberals have less in common with oligarchical collectivist fascists than individualist conservatives do.

On a tip from rpp.




187 Responses to “Political Science as Taught in Public Schools”

  1. Khalid Al Monsour says:

    The spectrum itself is incorrect. E should read anarchist while to the left of communist should be totalitarian (or fascist).

  2. Khalid Al Monsour says:

    The spectrum itself is incorrect. E should read anarchist while to the left of communist should be totalitarian (or fascist).

  3. Mike_W20 says:

    Barack Obama isn’t at all nice.
    He is the worst.
    He is very uncool.
    He is loathsome.
    0/5 (Mike_W20, report to principal for immediate execution).

  4. Mike_W20 says:

    That is horrifying.

    This would be my test result:

    %insert drawing of Obama as a jug-eared poopy-head here%

    Barack Obama isn’t at all nice.
    He is the worst.
    He is very uncool.
    He is loathsome.

    0/5 (Mike_W20, report to principal for immediate execution).

  5. JeffersonSpinningInGrave says:

    It’s partially an artifact of trying to collapse an (at least) 2-D spectrum onto one dimension. The 2-D space of [socially conservative vs. socially liberal] and [statist vs. individualist] does a much better job. But it’s also propaganda. They like putting communism opposite fascism because it distances them from the Nazis.

    Anyway, theory aside, in practice the main difference between fascism and communism seems to be whether the oligarchs bother to pretend that resources are controlled in the name of the people. For those with their necks under the boot, the view is much the same.

  6. JeffersonSpinningInGrave says:

    It’s partially an artifact of trying to collapse an (at least) 2-D spectrum onto one dimension. The 2-D space of [socially conservative vs. socially liberal] and [statist vs. individualist] does a much better job. But it’s also propaganda. They like putting communism opposite fascism because it distances them from the Nazis.

    Anyway, theory aside, in practice the main difference between fascism and communism seems to me to be whether the oligarchs bother to pretend that resources are controlled in the name of the people. For those with their necks under the boot, the view is much the same.

  7. Smith and Wesson and Me says:

    HOME SCHOOL. NOW. or your children will become Democrat sheep.
    https://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/sheep_surround_shepherd_obama_350475.jpg

  8. Smith and Wesson and Me says:

    HOME SCHOOL. NOW. or your children will become Democrat sheep.
    https://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/sheep_surround_shepherd_obama_350475.jpg

  9. Rotohammer says:

    The questions are poorly worded. Presumably “we should help the poor” means the federal government using our tax dollars. Where private charity is concerned, liberals give nothing compared to conservatives.

  10. Rotohammer says:

    The questions are poorly worded. Presumably “we should help the poor” means the federal government using our tax dollars. Where private charity is concerned, liberals give nothing compared to conservatives.

  11. Gene says:

    Close, but not quite. Fascists were more nationalistic and allowed more private ownership than Communists. This puts them slightly to the right of communists. Mussolini was a Marxist and Hitler may have been a communist party member at one time. Fascism is also very close to most Islamic governments.

  12. Gene says:

    Close, but not quite. Fascists were more nationalistic and allowed more private ownership than Communists. This puts them slightly to the right of communists. Mussolini was a Marxist and Hitler may have been a communist party member at one time. Fascism is also very close to most Islamic governments.

  13. Spartan24708 says:

    That would have been sent back to the school ripped up in an envelope.

  14. Spartan24708 says:

    That would have been sent back to the school ripped up in an envelope.

  15. Americangirl5 says:

    Find out where you fit on the spectrum so we can berate and chastise you should you score Conservative or Republican.

  16. Americangirl5 says:

    Find out where you fit on the spectrum so we can berate and chastise you should you score Conservative or Republican.

  17. PicoFF says:

    The spectrum is in fact:

    Statist – Moderate – Libertarian.
    or
    Progressive/Communist/Fascist/Socialist – Moderate – Rebublican/Conservative/Libertarian.

  18. PicoFF says:

    The spectrum is in fact:

    Statist – Moderate – Libertarian.
    or
    Progressive/Communist/Fascist/Socialist – Moderate – Rebublican/Conservative/Libertarian.

  19. Chish says:

    I seriously doubt the progressives that indoctrinate the kids realize who
    the school is named after.

  20. Chish says:

    I seriously doubt the progressives that indoctrinate the kids realize who
    the school is named after.

  21. Son_of_Taz says:

    Time to locate a new school for your kid.

  22. Eddie_Valiant says:

    Time to locate a new school for your kid.

  23. TED says:

    MY FAVORITE.

  24. TED says:

    MY FAVORITE.

  25. TED says:

    Then there’s…

  26. TED says:

    Then there’s…

  27. 762x52 says:

    Exactly what I thought. The left are the fascists. They are so ignorant that they don’t even realize truth.

  28. 762x52 says:

    Exactly what I thought. The left are the fascists. They are so ignorant that they don’t even realize truth.

  29. 762x51 says:

    Fascism has nothing to do with nationalism. The Nazi’s were National Socialists who we also fascistic in their beliefs, but could have just as easily only socialist fascists like the deomtards in America.
    Your own example of Islam demonstrates the same results. Islam is not communist or nationalist but it is a fascist, totalitarian belief system.

  30. 762x51 says:

    Fascism has nothing to do with nationalism. The Nazi’s were National Socialists who we also fascistic in their beliefs, but could have just as easily only socialist fascists like the deomtards in America.
    Your own example of Islam demonstrates the same results. Islam is not communist or nationalist but it is a fascist, totalitarian belief system.

  31. 762x51 says:

    Liberals/Communists don’t help the poor, they just manufacture more of them, then keep them poor so they can be controlled. That is true in every nation that s tried communism. Commies are 0 and 150 for their so called “social experiment”.

    In 1962 Time Magazine, when it was still a legitimate publication, ran an article about the breadlines in Soviet Russia. Food production was down from the inception of Khrushchev 7 year plan in 1958 and falling rapidly. That same story was true in a 1989 report in Pravda, so nothing improved in the interim 28 years. Yep, communism works great, if you are the dictator in power.

  32. 762x51 says:

    Liberals/Communists don’t help the poor, they just manufacture more of them, then keep them poor so they can be controlled. That is true in every nation that s tried communism. Commies are 0 and 150 for their so called “social experiment”.

    In 1962 Time Magazine, when it was still a legitimate publication, ran an article about the breadlines in Soviet Russia. Food production was down from the inception of Khrushchev 7 year plan in 1958 and falling rapidly. That same story was true in a 1989 report in Pravda, so nothing improved in the interim 28 years. Yep, communism works great, if you are the dictator in power.

  33. Torcer says:

    In certain basic respects – a totalitarian state structure, a single party, a leader, a secret police, a hatred of political, cultural and intellectual freedom – fascism and communism are clearly more like each other than they are like anything in between. Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., Associate Professor of History at Harvard New York Times Magazine, Sunday, April 4, 1948

  34. Torcer says:

    “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”—John F. Kennedy

  35. Torcer says:

    “He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression.” – Thomas Paine

  36. Torcer says:

    “We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others, the same word many mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men’s labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name- liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names – liberty and tyranny.”
    Abraham Lincoln
    Source:April 18, 1864 – Address at Sanitary Fair, Baltimore, Maryland

  37. Torcer says:

    Now and then the workers are victorious, but only for a time. The real fruit of their battles lies, not in the immediate result, but in the ever-expanding union of the workers. This union is helped on by the improved means of communication that are created by modern industry and that place the workers of different localities in contact with one another. It was just this contact that was needed to centralise the numerous local struggles, all of the same character, into one national struggle between classes. But every class struggle is a political struggle. And that union, to attain which the burghers of the Middle Ages, with their miserable highways, required centuries, the modern proletarians, thanks to railways, achieve in a few years.

    The Communist Manifesto
    II. BOURGEOIS AND PROLETARIANS Page 18.
    http://thepeoplescube.com/peoples-tools/the-communist-manifesto-original-text-t3022.html

  38. Torcer says:

    Though not in substance, yet in form, the struggle of the proletariat with the bourgeoisie is at first a national struggle. The proletariat of each country must, of course, first of all settle matters with its own bourgeoisie.

    Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto
    II. BOURGEOIS AND PROLETARIANS Page 22.
    http://thepeoplescube.com/peoples-tools/the-communist-manifesto-original-text-t3022.html

  39. Torcer says:

    In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time we’ve been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. But if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else?

    Ronald Reagan First Inaugural Address 20 January 1981

  40. Torcer says:

    “Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God.” Thomas Jefferson

  41. Torcer says:

    “How do you tell a communist? Well, it’s someone who reads Marx and Lenin.
    And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It’s someone who understands Marx and Lenin.”
    Ronald Reagan

  42. Torcer says:

    Which One Are You: Ideologue or Pragmatist?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2n_rBxHxaco

  43. Torcer says:

    Karl Marx Rebuttal: Debunking Communism from ‘The School of Life’
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFxWXbdqGIg

  44. Torcer says:

    Take a look at what the national Socialist Left admitted was in the law after it was passed and we found out what was in it – one of the vestiges of Marxism: Wealth redistribution

    Don’t Dare Call the Health Law ‘Redistribution’
    These days the word is particularly toxic at the White House, where it has been hidden away to make the Affordable Care Act more palatable to the public and less a target for Republicans, who have long accused Democrats of seeking “socialized medicine.” But the redistribution of wealth has always been a central feature of the law and lies at the heart of the insurance market disruptions driving political attacks this fall.

    But throughout the process, they knew that some level of redistributing wealth — creating losers as well as winners — was inescapable.

    Hiding in plain sight behind that pledge — visible to health policy experts but not the general public — was the redistribution required to extend health coverage to those who had been either locked out or priced out of the market.

    Now some of that redistribution has come clearly into view.

    “The A.C.A. is very much about redistribution, whether or not its advocates acknowledge that this is the case,” wrote Reihan Salam on the website of the conservative National Review.

    Still, the word is hardly a favorite of the president these days. The last time Mr. Obama used it in public, according to Federal News Service transcripts, was 18 months ago during his re-election campaign in Elyria, Ohio.

    “Understand this is not a redistribution argument,” the president told his audience then.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/24/us/dont-dare-call-the-health-law-redistribution.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=1&

  45. Torcer says:

    Hitler Was NOT Left Wing
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REqlZv57Tzo

    Transcript:
    There’s been a recent trend of right-wingers trying to claim that Hitler was not on their side. they claim that Nazism was actually a left wing movement.

    People like Jonah Goldberg seem to define left-wing as prostate and right-wing is anti-state.

    This however seems to be a very new definition of the political spectrum.

    Traditionally what people have meant by right-wing is a system that preserves and/or enforces social and economic hierarchy while left-wing systems are those that encourage equality.

    For a state to grant or deny freedoms and privileges to people based on where they think those people should be placed in the social and political hierarchy is a right-wing thing to do not left-wing.

    The whole point of Nazism and fascism were to enforce inequality the healthcare programs that Hitler design work for the purpose of lifting those of so-called area and ethnicity above those who are not.
    It was about giving privileges to ethnic Germans whom he believed to be superior and denying them to ethnic groups that he saw his inferior.

    It is profoundly mendacious to equate that with the social programs of Western governments today whose primary goal is to mitigate inequality with the policies of Nazi and fascist government whose purpose was to enforce it.

    Being pro state does not automatically make you left-wing being in favor of laws against sodomy for example is to be in favor of increased state power but few would argue that such a policy is left wing because its purpose is to enforce inequality.

    Socialism also is not necessarily pro state traditionally the word socialism has referred to a system in which those who operate the means of production are also those who own and control them.

    This is not at all the case in any fascist state this however was also not the case in the Soviet Union under Stalin workers had absolutely no control over the means of production and had far fewer rights and privileges than those in power.

    The most profound irony of Goldberg’s attempt to portray fascism is left wing is not only that it is false but that the reverse is actually true communist states actually enforced rather than eliminated hierarchy and therefore not only where Hitler and Mussolini not left wing but Stalin and Mao were actually very right-wing.

  46. Torcer says:

    CONSERVATIVE, OR BOURGEOIS, SOCIALISM

    A part of the bourgeoisie is desirous of redressing social grievances, in order to secure the continued existence of bourgeois society.

    To this section belong economists, philanthropists, humanitarians, improvers of the condition of the working class, organisers of charity, members of societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals, temperance fanatics, hole-and-corner reformers of every imaginable kind. This form of Socialism has, moreover, been worked out into complete systems.

    We may cite Proudhon’s Philosophie de la Misere as an example of this form.

    The Socialistic bourgeois want all the advantages of modern social conditions without the struggles and dangers necessarily resulting therefrom. They desire the existing state of society minus its revolutionary and disintegrating elements. They wish for a bourgeoisie without a proletariat. The bourgeoisie naturally conceives the world in which it is supreme to be the best; and bourgeois Socialism develops this comfortable conception into various more or less complete systems. In requiring the proletariat to carry out such a system, and thereby to march straightway into the social New Jerusalem, it but requires in reality, that the proletariat should remain within the bounds of existing society, but should cast away all its hateful ideas concerning the bourgeoisie.

    A second and more practical, but less systematic, form of this Socialism sought to depreciate every revolutionary movement in the eyes of the working class, by showing that no mere political reform, but only a change in the material conditions of existence, in economic relations, could be of any advantage to them. By changes in the material conditions of existence, this form of Socialism, however, by no means understands abolition of the bourgeois relations of production, an abolition that can be effected only by a revolution, but administrative reforms, based on the continued existence of these relations; reforms, therefore, that in no respect affect the

    relations between capital and labour, but, at the best, lessen the cost, and simplify the administrative work, of bourgeois government.

    Bourgeois Socialism attains adequate expression, when, and only when, it becomes a mere figure of speech.

    Free trade
    for the benefit of the working class. Protective duties: for the benefit of the working class. Prison Reform: for the benefit of the working class. This is the last word and the only seriously meant word of bourgeois Socialism.

    It is summed up in the phrase: the bourgeois is a bourgeois — for the benefit of the working class.

    CRITICAL-UTOPIAN SOCIALISM AND COMMUNISM

    We do not here refer to that literature which, in every great modern revolution, has always given voice to the demands of the proletariat, such as the writings of Babeuf and others.

    The first direct attempts of the proletariat to attain its own ends, made in times of universal excitement, when feudal society was being overthrown, these attempts necessarily failed, owing to the then undeveloped state of the proletariat, as well as to the absence of the economic conditions for its emancipation, conditions that had yet to be produced, and could be produced by the impending bourgeois epoch alone. The revolutionary literature that accompanied these first movements of the proletariat had necessarily a reactionary character. It inculcated universal asceticism and social levelling in its crudest form.

    The Socialist and Communist systems properly so called, those of Saint-Simon, Fourier, Owen and others, spring into existence in the early undeveloped period, described above, of the struggle between proletariat and bourgeoisie (see Section (1) Bourgeois and Proletarians).

    The founders of these systems see, indeed, the class antagonisms, as well as the action of the decomposing elements, in the prevailing form of society. But the proletariat, as yet in its infancy, offers to them the spectacle of a class without any historical initiative or any independent political movement.

    Since the development of class antagonism keeps even pace with the development of industry, the economic situation, as they find it, does not as yet offer to them the material conditions for the emancipation of the proletariat. They therefore search after a new social science, after new social laws, that are to create these conditions.

    Historical action is to yield to their personal inventive action, historically created conditions of emancipation to fantastic ones, and the gradual, spontaneous class-organisation of the proletariat to the organisation of society specially contrived by these inventors. Future history resolves itself, in their eyes, into the propaganda and the practical carrying out of their social plans.

    In the formation of their plans they are conscious of caring chiefly for the interests of the working class, as being the most suffering class. Only from the point of view of being the most suffering class does the proletariat exist for them.

    The undeveloped state of the class struggle, as well as their own surroundings, causes Socialists of this kind to consider themselves far superior to all class antagonisms. They want to improve the condition of every member of society, even that of the most favoured. Hence, they habitually appeal to society at large, without distinction of class; nay, by preference, to the ruling class. For how can people, when once they understand their system, fail to see in it the best possible plan of the best possible state of society?

    Hence, they reject all political, and especially all revolutionary, action; they wish to attain their ends by peaceful means, and endeavour, by small experiments, necessarily doomed to failure, and by the force of example, to pave the way for the new social Gospel.

    Such fantastic pictures of future society, painted at a time when the proletariat is still in a very undeveloped state and has but a fantastic conception of its own position correspond with the first instinctive yearnings of that class for a general reconstruction of society.

    But these Socialist and Communist publications contain also a critical element. They attack every principle of existing society. Hence they are full of the most valuable materials for the enlightenment of the working class. The practical measures proposed in them — -such as the abolition of the distinction between town and country, of the family, of the carrying on of industries for the account of private individuals, and of the wage system, the proclamation of social harmony, the conversion of the functions of the State into a mere superintendence of production, all these proposals, point solely to the disappearance of class antagonisms which were, at that time, only just cropping up, and which, in these publications, are recognised in their earliest, indistinct and undefined forms only. These proposals, therefore, are of a purely Utopian character.

    The significance of Critical-Utopian Socialism and Communism bears an inverse relation to historical development. In proportion as the modern class struggle develops and takes definite shape, this fantastic standing apart from the contest, these fantastic attacks on it, lose all practical value and all theoretical justification. Therefore, although the originators of these systems were, in many respects, revolutionary, their disciples have, in every case, formed mere reactionary sects. They hold fast by the original views of their masters, in opposition to the progressive historical development of the proletariat. They, therefore, endeavour, and that consistently, to deaden the class struggle and to reconcile the class antagonisms. They still dream of experimental realisation of their social Utopias, of founding isolated “phalansteres,” of establishing “Home Colonies,” of setting up a “Little Icaria” — duodecimo editions of the New Jerusalem — and to realise all these castles in the air, they are compelled to appeal to the feelings and purses of the bourgeois. By degrees they sink into the category of the reactionary conservative Socialists depicted above, differing from these only by more systematic pedantry, and by their fanatical and superstitious belief in the miraculous effects of their social science.

    They, therefore, violently oppose all political action on the part of the working class; such action, according to them, can only result from blind unbelief in the new Gospel.

    The Owenites in England, and the Fourierists in France, respectively, oppose the Chartists and the Reformistes.
    …………………………………………..
    IV. POSITION OF THE COMMUNISTS IN RELATION TO THE VARIOUS EXISTING OPPOSITION PARTIES

    Section II has made clear the relations of the Communists to the existing working-class parties, such as the Chartists in England and the Agrarian Reformers in America.

    The Communists fight for the attainment of the immediate aims, for the enforcement of the momentary interests of the working class; but in the movement of the present, they also represent and take care of the future of that movement. In France the Communists ally themselves with the Social-Democrats, against the conservative and radical bourgeoisie, reserving, however, the right to take up a critical position in regard to phrases and illusions traditionally handed down from the great Revolution.

    In Switzerland they support the Radicals, without losing sight of the fact that this party consists of antagonistic elements, partly of Democratic Socialists, in the French sense, partly of radical bourgeois.

    In Poland they support the party that insists on an agrarian revolution as the prime condition for national emancipation, that party which fomented the insurrection of Cracow in 1846.

    In Germany they fight with the bourgeoisie whenever it acts in a revolutionary way, against the absolute monarchy, the feudal squirearchy, and the petty bourgeoisie.

    But they never cease, for a single instant, to instil into the working class the clearest possible recognition of the hostile antagonism between bourgeoisie and proletariat, in order that the German workers may straightaway use, as so many weapons against the bourgeoisie, the social and political conditions that the bourgeoisie must necessarily introduce along with its supremacy, and in order that, after the fall of the reactionary classes in Germany, the fight against the bourgeoisie itself may immediately begin.

    The Communists turn their attention chiefly to Germany, because that country is on the eve of a bourgeois revolution that is bound to be carried out under more advanced conditions of European civilisation, and with a much more developed proletariat, than that of England was in the seventeenth, and of France in the eighteenth century, and because the bourgeois revolution in Germany will be but the prelude to an immediately following proletarian revolution.

    In short, the Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things.

    In all these movements they bring to the front, as the leading question in each, the property question, no matter what its degree of development at the time.

    Finally, they labour everywhere for the union and agreement of the democratic parties of all countries.

    The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.

    WORKING MEN OF ALL COUNTRIES, UNITE!

  47. Torcer says:

    These measures will of course be different in different countries..

    Nevertheless in the most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

    Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

    A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

    Abolition of all right of inheritance.

    Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

    Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a
    national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

    Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.

    Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the
    State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the

    improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

    Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

    Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual
    abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable
    distribution of the population over the country.

    Free
    education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s
    factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with
    industrial production, &c., &c.

    When, in the course of
    development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has
    been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole
    nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political
    power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class
    for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the
    bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise
    itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the
    ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of
    production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away
    the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes
    generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.

    In
    place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class
    antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development
    of each is the condition for the free development of all.

    3 III SOCIALIST AND COMMUNIST LITERATURE

    REACTIONARY SOCIALISM

    Feudal Socialism

    Owing
    to their historical position, it became the vocation of the
    aristocracies of France and England to write pamphlets against modern
    bourgeois society. In the French revolution of July 1830, and in the
    English reform agitation, these aristocracies again succumbed to the
    hateful upstart. Thenceforth, a serious political contest was altogether
    out of the question. A literary battle alone remained possible. But
    even in the domain of literature the old cries of the restoration period
    had become impossible.

    In order to arouse sympathy, the
    aristocracy were obliged to lose sight, apparently, of their own
    interests, and to formulate their indictment against the bourgeoisie in
    the interest of the exploited working class alone. Thus the aristocracy
    took their revenge by singing lampoons on their new master, and
    whispering in his ears sinister prophecies of coming catastrophe.

    In
    this way arose Feudal Socialism: half lamentation, half lampoon; half
    echo of the past, half menace of the future; at times, by its bitter,
    witty and incisive criticism, striking the bourgeoisie to the very
    heart’s core; but always ludicrous in its effect, through total
    incapacity to comprehend the march of modern history.

    The
    aristocracy, in order to rally the people to them, waved the proletarian
    alms-bag in front for a banner. But the people, so often as it joined
    them, saw on their hindquarters the old feudal coats of arms, and
    deserted with loud and irreverent laughter.

    One section of the French Legitimists and “Young England” exhibited this spectacle.

    In
    pointing out that their mode of exploitation was different to that of
    the bourgeoisie, the feudalists forget that they exploited under
    circumstances and conditions that were quite different, and that are now
    antiquated. In showing that, under their rule, the modern proletariat
    never existed, they forget that the modern bourgeoisie is the necessary
    offspring of their own form of society.

    For the rest, so little
    do they conceal the reactionary character of their criticism that their
    chief accusation against the bourgeoisie amounts to this, that under the
    bourgeois regime a class is being developed, which is destined to cut
    up root and branch the old order of society.

    What they upbraid
    the bourgeoisie with is not so much that it creates a proletariat, as
    that it creates a revolutionary proletariat.

    In political
    practice, therefore, they join in all coercive measures against the
    working class; and in ordinary life, despite their high falutin phrases,
    they stoop to pick up the golden apples dropped from the tree of
    industry, and to barter truth, love, and honour for traffic in wool,
    beetroot-sugar, and potato spirits.

    As the parson has ever gone hand in hand with the landlord, so has Clerical Socialism with Feudal Socialism.

    Nothing
    is easier than to give Christian asceticism a Socialist tinge. Has not
    Christianity declaimed against private property, against marriage,
    against the State? Has it not preached in the place of these, charity
    and poverty, celibacy and mortification of the flesh, monastic life and
    Mother Church? Christian Socialism is but the holy, water with which the
    priest consecrates the heart-burnings of the aristocrat.

    Petty-Bourgeois Socialism

    The
    feudal aristocracy was not the only class that was ruined by the
    bourgeoisie, not the only class whose conditions of existence pined and
    perished in the atmosphere of modern bourgeois society. The mediaeval
    burgesses and the small peasant proprietors were the precursors of the
    modern bourgeoisie. In those countries which are but little developed,
    industrially and commercially, these two classes still vegetate side by
    side with the rising bourgeoisie.

    In countries where modern
    civilisation has become fully developed, a new class of petty bourgeois
    has been formed, fluctuating between proletariat and bourgeoisie and
    ever renewing itself as a supplementary part of bourgeois society. The
    individual members of this class, however, are being constantly hurled
    down into the proletariat by the action of competition, and, as modern
    industry develops, they even see the moment approaching when they will
    completely disappear as an independent section of modern society, to be
    replaced, in manufactures, agriculture and commerce, by overlookers,
    bailiffs and shopmen.

    In countries like France, where the
    peasants constitute far more than half of the population, it was natural
    that writers who sided with the proletariat against the bourgeoisie,
    should use, in their criticism of the bourgeois regime, the standard of
    the peasant and petty bourgeois, and from the standpoint of these
    intermediate classes should take up the cudgels for the working class.
    Thus arose petty-bourgeois Socialism. Sismondi was the head of this
    school, not only in France but also in England.

    This school of
    Socialism dissected with great acuteness the contradictions in the
    conditions of modern production. It laid bare the hypocritical apologies
    of economists. It proved, incontrovertibly, the disastrous effects of
    machinery and division of labour; the concentration of capital and land
    in a few hands; overproduction and crises; it pointed out the inevitable
    ruin of the petty bourgeois and peasant, the misery of the proletariat,
    the anarchy in production, the crying inequalities in the distribution
    of wealth, the industrial war of extermination between nations, the
    dissolution of old moral bonds, of the old family relations, of the old
    nationalities.

    In its positive aims, however, this form of
    Socialism aspires either to restoring the old means of production and of
    exchange, and with them the old property relations, and the old
    society, or to cramping the modern means of production and of exchange,
    within the framework of the old property relations that have been, and
    were bound to be, exploded by those means. In either case, it is both
    reactionary and Utopian.

    Its last words are: corporate guilds for manufacture, patriarchal relations in agriculture.

    Ultimately,
    when stubborn historical facts had dispersed all intoxicating effects
    of self-deception, this form of Socialism ended in a miserable fit of
    the blues.

    German, or “True,” Socialism

    The Socialist
    and Communist literature of France, a literature that originated under
    the pressure of a bourgeoisie in power, and that was the expression of
    the struggle against this power, was introduced into Germany at a time
    when the bourgeoisie, in that country, had just begun its contest with
    feudal absolutism.

    German philosophers, would-be philosophers,
    and beaux esprits, eagerly seized on this literature, only forgetting,
    that when these writings immigrated from France into Germany, French
    social conditions had not immigrated along with them. In contact with
    German social conditions, this French literature lost all its immediate
    practical significance, and assumed a purely literary aspect. Thus, to
    the German philosophers of the eighteenth century, the demands of the
    first French Revolution were nothing more than the demands of “Practical
    Reason” in general, and the utterance of the will of the revolutionary
    French bourgeoisie signified in their eyes the law of pure Will, of Will
    as it was bound to be, of true human Will generally.

    The world
    of the German literate consisted solely in bringing the new French ideas
    into harmony with their ancient philosophical conscience, or rather, in
    annexing the French ideas without deserting their own philosophic point
    of view.

    This annexation took place in the same way in which a foreign language is appropriated, namely, by translation.

    It
    is well known how the monks wrote silly lives of Catholic Saints over
    the manuscripts on which the classical works of ancient heathendom had
    been written. The German literate reversed this process with the profane
    French literature. They wrote their philosophical nonsense beneath the
    French original. For instance, beneath the French criticism of the
    economic functions of money, they wrote “Alienation of Humanity,” and
    beneath the French criticism of the bourgeois State they wrote
    “dethronement of the Category of the General,” and so forth.

    The
    introduction of these philosophical phrases at the back of the French
    historical criticisms they dubbed “Philosophy of Action,” “True
    Socialism,” “German Science of Socialism,” “Philosophical Foundation of
    Socialism,” and so on.

    The French Socialist and Communist
    literature was thus completely emasculated. And, since it ceased in the
    hands of the German to express the struggle of one class with the other,
    he felt conscious of having overcome “French one-sidedness” and of
    representing, not true requirements, but the requirements of truth; not
    the interests of the proletariat, but the interests of Human Nature, of
    Man in general, who belongs to no class, has no reality, who exists only
    in the misty realm of philosophical fantasy.

    This German
    Socialism, which took its schoolboy task so seriously and solemnly, and
    extolled its poor stock-in-trade in such mountebank fashion, meanwhile
    gradually lost its pedantic innocence.

    The fight of the German,
    and especially, of the Prussian bourgeoisie, against feudal aristocracy
    and absolute monarchy, in other words, the liberal movement, became more
    earnest.

    By this, the long wished-for opportunity was offered to
    “True” Socialism of confronting the political movement with the
    Socialist demands, of hurling the traditional anathemas against
    liberalism, against representative government, against bourgeois
    competition, bourgeois freedom of the press, bourgeois legislation,
    bourgeois liberty and equality, and of preaching to the masses that they
    had nothing to gain, and everything to lose, by this bourgeois
    movement. German Socialism forgot, in the nick of time, that the French
    criticism, whose silly echo it was, presupposed the existence of modern
    bourgeois society, with its corresponding economic conditions of
    existence, and the political constitution adapted thereto, the very
    things whose attainment was the object of the pending struggle in
    Germany.

    To the absolute governments, with their following of
    parsons, professors, country squires and officials, it served as a
    welcome scarecrow against the threatening bourgeoisie.

    It was a
    sweet finish after the bitter pills of floggings and bullets with which
    these same governments, just at that time, dosed the German
    working-class risings.

    While this “True” Socialism thus served
    the governments as a weapon for fighting the German bourgeoisie, it, at
    the same time, directly represented a reactionary interest, the interest
    of the German Philistines. In Germany the petty-bourgeois class, a
    relic of the sixteenth century, and since then constantly cropping up
    again under various forms, is the real social basis of the existing
    state of things.

    To preserve this class is to preserve the
    existing state of things in Germany. The industrial and political
    supremacy of the bourgeoisie threatens it with certain destruction; on
    the one hand, from the concentration of capital; on the other, from the
    rise of a revolutionary proletariat. “True” Socialism appeared to kill
    these two birds with one stone. It spread like an epidemic.

    The
    robe of speculative cobwebs, embroidered with flowers of rhetoric,
    steeped in the dew of sickly sentiment, this transcendental robe in
    which the German Socialists wrapped their sorry “eternal truths,” all
    skin and bone, served to wonderfully increase the sale of their goods
    amongst such a public.

    And on its part, German Socialism
    recognised, more and more, its own calling as the bombastic
    representative of the petty- bourgeois Philistine.

    It proclaimed
    the German nation to be the model nation, and the German petty
    Philistine to be the typical man. To every villainous meanness of this
    model man it gave a hidden, higher, Socialistic interpretation, the
    exact contrary of its real character. It went to the extreme length of
    directly opposing the “brutally destructive” tendency of Communism, and
    of proclaiming its supreme and impartial contempt of all class
    struggles. With very few exceptions, all the so-called Socialist and
    Communist publications that now (1847) circulate in Germany belong to
    the domain of this foul and enervating literature.

  48. Torcer says:

    III. PROLETARIANS AND COMMUNISTS

    In what relation do the Communists stand to the proletarians as a whole?

    The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to other working-class parties.

    They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole.

    They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement.

    The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties is only: (1) In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of entire proletariat, independently of nationality. (2) In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.

    The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.

    The immediate aim of the Communist is the same as that of all the other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.

    The theoretical conclusions of the Communists are in no way based on ideas or principles that have been invented, or discovered, by this or that would-be universal reformer. They merely express, in general terms, actual relations springing from an existing class struggle, from a historical movement going on under our very eyes. The abolition of existing property relations is not at all a distinctive feature of Communism.

    All property relations in the past have continually been subject to historical change consequent upon the change in historical conditions.

    The French Revolution, for example, abolished feudal property in favour of bourgeois property.

    The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products, that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few.

    In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.

    We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing the right of personally acquiring property as the fruit of a man’s own labour, which property is alleged to be the groundwork of all personal freedom, activity and independence.

    Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! Do you mean the property of the petty artisan and of the small peasant, a form of property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no need to abolish that; the development of industry has to a great extent already destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily.

    Or do you mean modern bourgeois private property?

    But does wage-labour create any property for the labourer? Not a bit. It creates capital, i.e., that kind of property which exploits wage-labour, and which cannot increase except upon condition of begetting a new supply of wage-labour for fresh exploitation. Property, in its present form, is based on the antagonism of capital and wage-labour. Let us examine both sides of this antagonism.

    To be a capitalist, is to have not only a purely personal, but a social status in production. Capital is a collective product, and only by the united action of many members, nay, in the last resort, only by the united action of all members of society, can it be set in motion.

    Capital is, therefore, not a personal, it is a social power.

    When, therefore, capital is converted into common property, into the property of all members of society, personal property is not thereby transformed into social property. It is only the social character of the property that is changed. It loses its class-character.

    Let us now take wage-labour.

    The average price of wage-labour is the minimum wage, i.e., that quantum of the means of subsistence, which is absolutely requisite in bare existence as a labourer. What, therefore, the wage-labourer appropriates by means of his labour, merely suffices to prolong and reproduce a bare existence. We by no means intend to abolish this personal appropriation of the products of labour, an appropriation that is made for the maintenance and reproduction of human life, and that leaves no surplus wherewith to command the labour of others. All that we want to do away with, is the miserable character of this appropriation, under which the labourer lives merely to increase capital, and is allowed to live only in so far as the interest of the ruling class requires it.

    In bourgeois society, living labour is but a means to increase accumulated labour. In Communist society, accumulated labour is but a means to widen, to enrich, to promote the existence of the labourer.

    In bourgeois society, therefore, the past dominates the present; in Communist society, the present dominates the past. In bourgeois society capital is independent and has individuality, while the living person is dependent and has no individuality.

    And the abolition of this state of things is called by the bourgeois, abolition of individuality and freedom! And rightly so. The abolition of bourgeois individuality, bourgeois independence, and bourgeois freedom is undoubtedly aimed at.

    By freedom is meant, under the present bourgeois conditions of production, free trade, free selling and buying. But if selling and buying disappears, free selling and buying disappears also. This talk about free selling and buying, and all the other “brave words” of our bourgeoisie about freedom in general, have a meaning, if any, only in contrast with restricted selling and buying, with the fettered traders of the Middle Ages, but have no meaning when opposed to the Communistic abolition of buying and selling, of the bourgeois conditions of production, and of the bourgeoisie itself.

    You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths. You reproach us, therefore, with intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary condition for whose existence is the non-existence of any property for the immense majority of society.

    In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so; that is just what we intend.

    From the moment when labour can no longer be converted into capital, money, or rent, into a social power capable of being monopolised, i.e., from the moment when individual property can no longer be transformed into bourgeois property, into capital, from that moment, you say individuality vanishes.

    You must, therefore, confess that by “individual” you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property. This person must, indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible.

    Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriation.

    It has been objected that upon the abolition of private property all work will cease, and universal laziness will overtake us.

    According to this, bourgeois society ought long ago to have gone to the dogs through sheer idleness; for those of its members who work, acquire nothing, and those who acquire anything, do not work. The whole of this objection is but another expression of the tautology: that there can no longer be any wage-labour when there is no longer any capital.

    All objections urged against the Communistic mode of producing and appropriating material products, have, in the same way, been urged against the Communistic modes of producing and appropriating intellectual products. Just as, to the bourgeois, the disappearance of class property is the disappearance of production itself, so the disappearance of class culture is to him identical with the disappearance of all culture.

    That culture, the loss of which he laments, is, for the enormous majority, a mere training to act as a machine.

    But don’t wrangle with us so long as you apply, to our intended abolition of bourgeois property, the standard of your bourgeois notions of freedom, culture, law, etc. Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of the conditions of your bourgeois production and bourgeois property, just as your jurisprudence is but the will of your class made into a law for all, a will, whose essential character and direction are determined by the economical conditions of existence of your class.

    The selfish misconception that induces you to transform into eternal laws of nature and of reason, the social forms springing from your present mode of production and form of property-historical relations that rise and disappear in the progress of production — this misconception you share with every ruling class that has preceded you. What you see clearly in the case of ancient property, what you admit in the case of feudal property, you are of course forbidden to admit in the case of your own bourgeois form of property.

    Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.

    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.

    But, you will say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social.

    And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention, direct or indirect, of society, by means of schools, etc.? The Communists have not invented the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class.

    The bourgeois clap-trap about the family and education, about the hallowed co-relation of parent and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labour.

    But you Communists would introduce community of women, screams the whole bourgeoisie in chorus.

    The bourgeois sees in his wife a mere instrument of production. He hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited in common, and, naturally, can come to no other conclusion than that the lot of being common to all will likewise fall to the women.

    He has not even a suspicion that the real point is to do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production.

    For the rest, nothing is more ridiculous than the virtuous indignation of our bourgeois at the community of women which, they pretend, is to be openly and officially established by the Communists. The Communists have no need to introduce community of women; it has existed almost from time immemorial.

    Our bourgeois, not content with having the wives and daughters of their proletarians at their disposal, not to speak of common prostitutes, take the greatest pleasure in seducing each other’s wives.

    Bourgeois marriage is in reality a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with, is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalised community of women. For the rest, it is self-evident that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of the community of women springing from that system, i.e., of prostitution both public and private.

    The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality.

    The working men have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got. Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is, so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word.

    National differences and antagonisms between peoples are daily more and more vanishing, owing to the development of the bourgeoisie, to freedom of commerce, to the world-market, to uniformity in the mode of production and in the conditions of life corresponding thereto.

    The supremacy of the proletariat will cause them to vanish still faster. United action, of the leading civilised countries at least, is one of the first conditions for the emancipation of the proletariat.

    In proportion as the exploitation of one individual by another is put an end to, the exploitation of one nation by another will also be put an end to. In proportion as the antagonism between classes within the nation vanishes, the hostility of one nation to another will come to an end.

    The charges against Communism made from a religious, a philosophical, and, generally, from an ideological standpoint, are not deserving of serious examination.

    Does it require deep intuition to comprehend that man’s ideas, views and conceptions, in one word, man’s consciousness, changes with every change in the conditions of his material existence, in his social relations and in his social life?

    What else does the history of ideas prove, than that intellectual production changes its character in proportion as material production is changed? The ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of its ruling class.

    When people speak of ideas that revolutionise society, they do but express the fact, that within the old society, the elements of a new one have been created, and that the dissolution of the old ideas keeps even pace with the dissolution of the old conditions of existence.

    When the ancient world was in its last throes, the ancient religions were overcome by Christianity. When Christian ideas succumbed in the 18th century to rationalist ideas, feudal society fought its death battle with the then revolutionary bourgeoisie. The ideas of religious liberty and freedom of conscience merely gave expression to the sway of free competition within the domain of knowledge.

    “Undoubtedly,” it will be said, “religious, moral, philosophical and juridical ideas have been modified in the course of historical development. But religion, morality philosophy, political science, and law, constantly survived this change.”

    “There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc. that are common to all states of society. But Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience.”

    What does this accusation reduce itself to? The history of all past society has consisted in the development of class antagonisms, antagonisms that assumed different forms at different epochs.

    But whatever form they may have taken, one fact is common to all past ages, viz., the exploitation of one part of society by the other. No wonder, then, that the social consciousness of past ages, despite all the multiplicity and variety it displays, moves within certain common forms, or general ideas, which cannot completely vanish except with the total disappearance of class antagonisms.

    The Communist revolution is the most radical rupture with traditional property relations; no wonder that its development involves the most radical rupture with traditional ideas.

    But let us have done with the bourgeois objections to Communism.

    We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working class, is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling as to win the battle of democracy.

    The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total of productive forces as rapidly as possible.

    Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, 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 revolutionising the mode of production.

  49. Torcer says:

    I. A SPECTRE IS HAUNTING EUROPE — THE SPECTRE OF COMMUNISM.

    All the Powers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre: Pope and Czar, Metternich and Guizot, French Radicals and German police-spies.

    Where is the party in opposition that has not been decried as Communistic by its opponents in power? Where the Opposition that has not hurled back the branding reproach of Communism, against the more advanced opposition parties, as well as against its reactionary adversaries?

    Two things result from this fact.

    Communism is already acknowledged by all European Powers to be itself a Power.

    II. It is high time that Communists should openly, in the face of the whole world, publish their views, their aims, their tendencies, and meet this nursery tale of the Spectre of Communism with a Manifesto of the party itself.

    To this end, Communists of various nationalities have assembled in London, and sketched the following Manifesto, to be published in the English, French, German, Italian, Flemish and Danish languages.

    …………………………………………………………..
    II. BOURGEOIS AND PROLETARIANS

    The history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of class struggles.

    Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary re-constitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.

    In the earlier epochs of history, we find almost everywhere a complicated arrangement of society into various orders, a manifold gradation of social rank. In ancient Rome we have patricians, knights, plebeians, slaves; in the Middle Ages, feudal lords, vassals, guild-masters, journeymen, apprentices, serfs; in almost all of these classes, again, subordinate gradations.

    The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society has not done away with clash antagonisms. It has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old ones. Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses, however, this distinctive feature: it has simplified the class antagonisms: Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes, directly facing each other: Bourgeoisie and Proletariat.

    From the serfs of the Middle Ages sprang the chartered burghers of the earliest towns. From these burgesses the first elements of the bourgeoisie were developed.

    The discovery of America, the rounding of the Cape, opened up fresh ground for the rising bourgeoisie. The East-Indian and Chinese markets, the colonisation of America, trade with the colonies, the increase in the means of exchange and in commodities generally, gave to commerce, to navigation, to industry, an impulse never before known, and thereby, to the revolutionary element in the tottering feudal society, a rapid development.

    The feudal system of industry, under which industrial production was monopolised by closed guilds, now no longer sufficed for the growing wants of the new markets. The manufacturing system took its place. The guild-masters were pushed on one side by the manufacturing middle class; division of labour between the different corporate guilds vanished in the face of division of labour in each single workshop.

    Meantime the markets kept ever growing, the demand ever rising. Even manufacture no longer sufficed. Thereupon, steam and machinery revolutionised industrial production. The place of manufacture was taken by the giant, Modern Industry, the place of the industrial middle class, by industrial millionaires, the leaders of whole industrial armies, the modern bourgeois.

    Modern industry has established the world-market, for which the discovery of America paved the way. This market has given an immense development to commerce, to navigation, to communication by land. This development has, in its time, reacted on the extension of industry; and in proportion as industry, commerce, navigation, railways extended, in the same proportion the bourgeoisie developed, increased its capital, and pushed into the background every class handed down from the Middle Ages.

    We see, therefore, how the modern bourgeoisie is itself the product of a long course of development, of a series of revolutions in the modes of production and of exchange.

    Each step in the development of the bourgeoisie was accompanied by a corresponding political advance of that class. An oppressed class under the sway of the feudal nobility, an armed and self-governing association in the mediaeval commune; here independent urban republic (as in Italy and Germany), there taxable “third estate” of the monarchy (as in France), afterwards, in the period of manufacture proper, serving either the semi-feudal or the absolute monarchy as a counterpoise against the nobility, and, in fact, corner-stone of the great monarchies in general, the bourgeoisie has at last, since the establishment of Modern Industry and of the world-market, conquered for itself, in the modern representative State, exclusive political sway. The executive of the modern State is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie.

    The bourgeoisie, historically, has played a most revolutionary part.

    The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his “natural superiors,” and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous “cash payment.” It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervour, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value. And in place of the numberless and feasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom — Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.

    The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage labourers.

    The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation.

    The bourgeoisie has disclosed how it came to pass that the brutal display of vigour in the Middle Ages, which Reactionists so much admire, found its fitting complement in the most slothful indolence. It 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.

    The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. Conservation of the old modes of production in unaltered form, was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes. Constant revolutionising of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses, his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind.

    The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the whole surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connexions everywhere.

    The bourgeoisie has through its exploitation of the world-market given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country. To the great chagrin of Reactionists, it has drawn from under the feet of industry the national ground on which it stood. All old-established national industries have been destroyed or are daily being destroyed. They are dislodged by new industries, whose introduction becomes a life and death question for all civilised nations, by industries that no longer work up indigenous raw material, but raw material drawn from the remotest zones; industries whose products are consumed, not only at home, but in every quarter of the globe. In place of the old wants, satisfied by the productions of the country, we find new wants, requiring for their satisfaction the products of distant lands and climes. In place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, universal inter-dependence of nations. And as in material, so also in intellectual production. The intellectual creations of individual nations become common property. National one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness become more and more impossible, and from the numerous national and local literatures, there arises a world literature.

    The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilisation. The cheap prices of its commodities are the heavy artillery with which it batters down all Chinese walls, with which it forces the barbarians’ intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate. It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilisation into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world after its own image.

    The bourgeoisie has subjected the country to the rule of the towns. It has created enormous cities, has greatly increased the urban population as compared with the rural, and has thus rescued a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life. Just as it has made the country dependent on the towns, so it has made barbarian and semi-barbarian countries dependent on the civilised ones, nations of peasants on nations of bourgeois, the East on the West.

    The bourgeoisie keeps more and more doing away with the scattered state of the population, of the means of production, and of property. It has agglomerated production, and has concentrated property in a few hands. The necessary consequence of this was political centralisation. Independent, or but loosely connected provinces, with separate interests, laws, governments and systems of taxation, became lumped together into one nation, with one government, one code of laws, one national class-interest, one frontier and one customs-tariff. The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, 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, canalisation 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 labour?

    We see then
    the means of production and of exchange, on whose foundation the bourgeoisie built itself up, were generated in feudal society. At a certain stage in the development of these means of production and of exchange, the conditions under which feudal society produced and exchanged, the feudal organisation of agriculture and manufacturing industry, in one word, the feudal relations of property became no longer compatible with the already developed productive forces; they became so many fetters. They had to be burst asunder; they were burst asunder.

    Into their place stepped free competition, accompanied by a social and political constitution adapted to it, and by the economical and political sway of the bourgeois class.

    A similar movement is going on before our own eyes. Modern bourgeois society with its relations of production, of exchange and of property, a society that has conjured up such gigantic means of production and of exchange, is like the sorcerer, who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells. For many a decade past the history of industry and commerce is but the history of the revolt of modern productive forces against modern conditions of production, against the property relations that are the conditions for the existence of the bourgeoisie and of its rule. It is enough to mention the commercial crises that by their periodical return put on its trial, each time more threateningly, the existence of the entire bourgeois society. In these crises a great part not only of the existing products, but also of the previously created productive forces, are periodically destroyed. In these crises there breaks out an epidemic that, in all earlier epochs, would have seemed an absurdity — the epidemic of over-production. Society suddenly finds itself put back into a state of momentary barbarism; it appears as if a famine, a universal war of devastation had cut off the supply of every means of subsistence; industry and commerce seem to be destroyed; and why? Because there is too much civilisation, too much means of subsistence, too much industry, too much commerce. The productive forces at the disposal of society no longer tend to further the development of the conditions of bourgeois property; on the contrary, they have become too powerful for these conditions, by which they are fettered, and so soon as they overcome these fetters, they bring disorder into the whole of bourgeois society, endanger the existence of bourgeois property. The conditions of bourgeois society are too narrow to comprise the wealth created by them. And how does the bourgeoisie get over these crises? On the one hand inforced destruction of a mass of productive forces; on the other, by the conquest of new markets, and by the more thorough exploitation of the old ones. That is to say, by paving the way for more extensive and more destructive crises, and by diminishing the means whereby crises are prevented.

    The weapons with which the bourgeoisie felled feudalism to the ground are now turned against the bourgeoisie itself.

    But not only has the bourgeoisie forged the weapons that bring death to itself; it has also called into existence the men who are to wield those weapons — the modern working class — the proletarians.

    In proportion as the bourgeoisie, i.e., capital, is developed, in the same proportion is the proletariat, the modern working class, developed — a class of labourers, who live only so long as they find work, and who find work only so long as their labour increases capital. These labourers, who must sell themselves piece-meal, are a commodity, like every other article of commerce, and are consequently exposed to all the vicissitudes of competition, to all the fluctuations of the market.

    Owing to the extensive use of machinery and to division of labour, the work of the proletarians has lost all individual character, and consequently, all charm for the workman. He becomes an appendage of the machine, and it is only the most simple, most monotonous, and most easily acquired knack, that is required of him. Hence, the cost of production of a workman is restricted, almost entirely, to the means of subsistence that he requires for his maintenance, and for the propagation of his race. But the price of a commodity, and therefore also of labour, is equal to its cost of production. In proportion therefore, as the repulsiveness of the work increases, the wage decreases. Nay more, in proportion as the use of machinery and division of labour increases, in the same proportion the burden of toil also increases, whether by prolongation of the working hours, by increase of the work exacted in a given time or by increased speed of the machinery, etc.

    Modern industry has converted the little workshop of the patriarchal master into the great factory of the industrial capitalist. Masses of labourers, crowded into the factory, are organised like soldiers. As privates of the industrial army they are placed under the command of a perfect hierarchy of officers and sergeants. Not only are they slaves of the bourgeois class, and of the bourgeois State; they are daily and hourly enslaved by the machine, by the over-looker, and, above all, by the individual bourgeois manufacturer himself. The more openly this despotism proclaims gain to be its end and aim, the more petty, the more hateful and the more embittering it is.

    The less the skill and exertion of strength implied in manual labour, in other words, the more modern industry becomes developed, the more is the labour of men superseded by that of women. Differences of age and sex have no longer any distinctive social validity for the working class. All are instruments of labour, more or less expensive to use, according to their age and sex.

    No sooner is the exploitation of the labourer by the manufacturer, so far, at an end, that he receives his wages in cash, than he is set upon by the other portions of the bourgeoisie, the landlord, the shopkeeper, the pawnbroker, etc.

    The lower strata of the middle class — the small tradespeople, shopkeepers, retired tradesmen generally, the handicraftsmen and peasants — all these sink gradually into the proletariat, partly because their diminutive capital does not suffice for the scale on which Modern Industry is carried on, and is swamped in the competition with the large capitalists, partly because their specialized skill is rendered worthless by the new methods of production. Thus the proletariat is recruited from all classes of the population.

    The proletariat goes through various stages of development. With its birth begins its struggle with the bourgeoisie. At first the contest is carried on by individual labourers, then by the workpeople of a factory, then by the operatives of one trade, in one locality, against the individual bourgeois who directly exploits them. They direct their attacks not against the bourgeois conditions of production, but against the instruments of production themselves; they destroy imported wares that compete with their labour, they smash to pieces machinery, they set factories ablaze, they seek to restore by force the vanished status of the workman of the Middle Ages.

    At this stage the labourers still form an incoherent mass scattered over the whole country, and broken up by their mutual competition. If anywhere they unite to form more compact bodies, this is not yet the consequence of their own active union, but of the union of the bourgeoisie, which class, in order to attain its own political ends, is compelled to set the whole proletariat in motion, and is moreover yet, for a time, able to do so. At this stage, therefore, the proletarians do not fight their enemies, but the enemies of their enemies, the remnants of absolute monarchy, the landowners, the non-industrial bourgeois, the petty bourgeoisie. Thus the whole historical movement is concentrated in the hands of the bourgeoisie; every victory so obtained is a victory for the bourgeoisie.

    But with the development of industry the proletariat not only increases in number; it becomes concentrated in greater masses, its strength grows, and it feels that strength more. The various interests and conditions of life within the ranks of the proletariat are more and more equalised, in proportion as machinery obliterates all distinctions of labour, and nearly everywhere reduces wages to the same low level. The growing competition among the bourgeois, and the resulting commercial crises, make the wages of the workers ever more fluctuating. The unceasing improvement of machinery, ever more rapidly developing, makes their livelihood more and more precarious; the collisions between individual workmen and individual bourgeois take more and more the character of collisions between two classes. Thereupon the workers begin to form combinations (Trades Unions) against the bourgeois; they club together in order to keep up the rate of wages; they found permanent associations in order to make provision beforehand for these occasional revolts. Here and there the contest breaks out into riots.

    Now and then the workers are victorious, but only for a time. The real fruit of their battles lies, not in the immediate result, but in the ever-expanding union of the workers. This union is helped on by the improved means of communication that are created by modern industry and that place the workers of different localities in contact with one another. It was just this contact that was needed to centralise the numerous local struggles, all of the same character, into one national struggle between classes. But every class struggle is a political struggle. And that union, to attain which the burghers of the Middle Ages, with their miserable highways, required centuries, the modern proletarians, thanks to railways, achieve in a few years.

    This organisation of the proletarians into a class, and consequently into a political party, is continually being upset again by the competition between the workers themselves. But it ever rises up again, stronger, firmer, mightier. It compels legislative recognition of particular interests of the workers, by taking advantage of the divisions among the bourgeoisie itself. Thus the ten-hours’ bill in England was carried.

    Altogether collisions between the classes of the old society further, in many ways, the course of development of the proletariat. The bourgeoisie finds itself involved in a constant battle. At first with the aristocracy; later on, with those portions of the bourgeoisie itself, whose interests have become antagonistic to the progress of industry; at all times, with the bourgeoisie of foreign countries. In all these battles it sees itself compelled to appeal to the proletariat, to ask for its help, and thus, to drag it into the political arena. The bourgeoisie itself, therefore, supplies the proletariat with its own instruments of political and general education, in other words, it furnishes the proletariat with weapons for fighting the bourgeoisie.

    Further, as we have already seen, entire sections of the ruling classes are, by the advance of industry, precipitated into the proletariat, or are at least threatened in their conditions of existence. These also supply the proletariat with fresh elements of enlightenment and progress.

    Finally, in times when the class struggle nears the decisive hour, the process of dissolution going on within the ruling class, in fact within the whole range of society, assumes such a violent, glaring character, that a small section of the ruling class cuts itself adrift, and joins the revolutionary class, the class that holds the future in its hands. Just as, therefore, at an earlier period, a section of the nobility went over to the bourgeoisie, so now a portion of the bourgeoisie goes over to the proletariat, and in particular, a portion of the bourgeois ideologists, who have raised themselves to the level of comprehending theoretically the historical movement as a whole.

    Of all the classes that stand face to face with the bourgeoisie today, the proletariat alone is a really revolutionary class. The other classes decay and finally disappear in the face of Modern Industry; the proletariat is its special and essential product. The lower middle class, the small manufacturer, the shopkeeper, the artisan, the peasant, all these fight against the bourgeoisie, to save from extinction their existence as fractions of the middle class. They are therefore not revolutionary, but conservative. Nay more, they are reactionary, for they try to roll back the wheel of history. If by chance they are revolutionary, they are so only in view of their impending transfer into the proletariat, they thus defend not their present, but their future interests, they desert their own standpoint to place themselves at that of the proletariat.

    The “dangerous class,” the social scum, that passively rotting mass thrown off by the lowest layers of old society, may, here and there, be swept into the movement by a proletarian revolution; its conditions of life, however, prepare it far more for the part of a bribed tool of reactionary intrigue.

    In the conditions of the proletariat, those of old society at large are already virtually swamped. The proletarian is without property; his relation to his wife and children has no longer anything in common with the bourgeois family-relations; modern industrial labour, modern subjection to capital, the same in England as in France, in America as in Germany, has stripped him of every trace of national character. Law, morality, religion, are to him so many bourgeois prejudices, behind which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeois interests.

    All the preceding classes that got the upper hand, sought to fortify their already acquired status by subjecting society at large to their conditions of appropriation. The proletarians cannot become masters of the productive forces of society, except by abolishing their own previous mode of appropriation, and thereby also every other previous mode of appropriation. They have nothing of their own to secure and to fortify; their mission is to destroy all previous securities for, and insurances of, individual property.

    All previous historical movements were movements of minorities, or in the interests of minorities. The proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interests of the immense majority. The proletariat, the lowest stratum of our present society, cannot stir, cannot raise itself up, without the whole superincumbent strata of official society being sprung into the air.

    Though not in substance, yet in form, the struggle of the proletariat with the bourgeoisie is at first a national struggle. The proletariat of each country must, of course, first of all settle matters with its own bourgeoisie.

    In depicting the most general phases of the development of the proletariat, we traced the more or less veiled civil war, raging within existing society, up to the point where that war breaks out into open revolution, and where the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat.

    Hitherto, every form of society has been based, as we have already seen, on the antagonism of oppressing and oppressed classes. But in order to oppress a class, certain conditions must be assured to it under which it can, at least, continue its slavish existence. The serf, in the period of serfdom, raised himself to membership in the commune, just as the petty bourgeois, under the yoke of feudal absolutism, managed to develop into a bourgeois. The modern laborer, on the contrary, instead of rising with the progress of industry, sinks deeper and deeper below the conditions of existence of his own class. He becomes a pauper, and pauperism develops more rapidly than population and wealth. And here it becomes evident, that the bourgeoisie is unfit any longer to be the ruling class in society, and to impose its conditions of existence upon society as an over-riding law. It is unfit to rule because it is incompetent to assure an existence to its slave within his slavery, because it cannot help letting him sink into such a state, that it has to feed him, instead of being fed by him. Society can no longer live under this bourgeoisie, in other words, its existence is no longer compatible with society.

    The essential condition for the existence, and for the sway of the bourgeois class, is the formation and augmentation of capital; the condition for capital is wage-labour. Wage-labour rests exclusively on competition between the laborers. The advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the labourers, due to competition, by their revolutionary combination, due to association. The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie, therefore, produces, above all, is its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.

    ………………………………………………………………

  50. Torcer says:

    The Communist Manifesto after 100 years
    Written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels during the latter part of 1847 and the first month of 1848. It was published in February 1848.
    What gives the Manifesto its unique importance? In order to answer this question it is necessary to see clearly its place in the history of socialism.

    Despite a frequently encountered opinion to the contrary, there was no socialism in ancient or medieval times. There were movements and doctrines of social reform which were radical in the sense that they sought greater equality or even complete community of consumer goods, but none even approached the modern socialist conception of a society in which the means of production are publicly owned and managed. This is, of course, not surprising. Production actually took place on a primitive level in scattered workshops and agricultural strips — conditions under which public ownership and management were not only impossible but even unthinkable.

    The first theoretical expression of a genuinely socialist position came in Thomas More’s Utopia, written in the early years of the 16th Century — in other words, at the very threshold of what we call the modern period.

    Gerrard Winstanley (born 1609, died sometime after 1660) was probably the greatest socialist thinker that the English-speaking countries have yet produced, and the Digger movement which he led was certainly the first practical expression of socialism. But it lasted only a very short time, and the same was true of the movement led by Babeuf during the French Revolution a century and a half later. Meanwhile, quite a number of writers had formulated views of a more or less definitely socialist character.

  51. Torcer says:

    The History Place
    The Triumph of Hitler
    The Gestapo is Born

    Although the Gestapo is generally associated with SS Leader Heinrich Himmler, it was actually founded by Hermann Göring in April 1933.

    Upon becoming Chancellor of Germany, Adolf Hitler had appointed Göring as Minister of the Interior for the State of Prussia, Germany’s biggest and most important state, which controlled two thirds of the country, including the capital, Berlin, and the big industrial centers. As Minister of the Interior, Göring thereby had control of the police.

    The first thing he did was to prohibit regular uniformed police from interfering with Nazi Brownshirts out in the streets. This meant that innocent German citizens had no one to turn to as they were being beaten up by rowdy young storm troopers drunk with their newfound power and quite often drunk on beer. These young Nazi toughs took full advantage of police leniency to loot shops at will and terrorize Jews or anyone else unfortunate enough to be caught in the wrong place at the wrong time.

    Next, Göring purged the Berlin police department of politically unreliable cops and had 50,000 storm troopers sworn in as special police auxiliaries (Hilfspolizei). Now the storm troopers had actual power of arrest and they relished its use. Jails were soon overflowing with people taken into “protective custody” resulting in the need for large outside prison camps, the birth of the concentration camp system.

    Having compromised the uniformed divisions, Göring next turned his attention to the plain-clothes police. On April 26, 1933, a decree was issued creating the Secret Police Office (Geheime Polizei Amt) which quickly became known as the GPA. But this abbreviation was far too similar to the GPU abbreviation used by the Soviet Political Police in Russia. Thus, the name was changed to Secret State Police (Geheime Staats Polizei). The actual term ‘Gestapo’ was supposedly created by a Berlin postal official who wanted a name that would fit on a regulation-sized postal rubber stamp. Gestapo was derived from seven letters within the full name Geheime Staats Polizei. Unknowingly, the postal official had invented one of the most notorious names in history.

    Göring promptly began using the Gestapo to silence Hitler’s political opponents in Berlin and surrounding areas and also to enhance his own personal power. Much to his delight, Göring discovered that the old Prussian state police had kept many secret files on the private lives of top Nazis, which he studied with delight.

    Göring appointed Rudolf Diels as the first Gestapo chief. Although Diels was not a Party member, he had been a member of the Prussian Ministry of the Interior since 1930 and had served as a senior adviser in the police. Göring took full advantage of Diels’ knowledge on how to operate a political police force. He also encouraged Diels to maintain and expand the secret files on Nazi leaders. The cunning and ambitious Göring would use that information to help solidify his own position within the Nazi Party.

    Another ambitious Nazi, SS-Reichsführer Heinrich Himmler, soon set his sights on the Gestapo. A fierce rivalry then developed between Himmler and Göring, with both men working against each other to curry favor with Hitler as to who would actually run the Gestapo. On April 20, 1934, after much infighting, Göring decided to cede the Gestapo to Himmler and his associate, Reinhard Heydrich, who took over as Gestapo chief two days later.

    The ever-ambitious Göring had set his sights on something much bigger than being a policeman. The former World War I flying ace and recipient of the prestigious Pour le Mérite medal fancied himself as a military leader. He wanted to take charge of a rejuvenated German Air Force. His interest in police matters and the Gestapo had diminished as Hitler’s plans for a huge military buildup became apparent.

    Within a few years, Himmler became Chief of the German Police in addition to his duties as SS leader. Heydrich, his number two man, proved to be something of a genius in creating a hugely efficient national intelligence system that kept tabs on everyone. No one was exempt from Gestapo snooping, no matter how high up in the Nazi hierarchy.

    On February 10, 1936, the Nazi Reichstag passed the ‘Gestapo Law’ which included the following paragraph: “Neither the instructions nor the affairs of the Gestapo will be open to review by the administrative courts.” This meant the Gestapo was now above the law and there could be no legal appeal regarding anything it did.

    Indeed, the Gestapo became a law unto itself. It was entirely possible for someone to be arrested, interrogated and sent to a concentration camp for incarceration or summary execution, without any outside legal procedure.

    Justice in Hitler’s Germany was completely arbitrary, depending on the whim of the man in power, the man who had you in his grip. The legal policy as proclaimed by Hitler in 1938 was: “All means, even if they are not in conformity with existing laws and precedents, are legal if they subserve the will of the Führer.”

    Surprisingly, the Gestapo was never actually a very big organization. At its peak it employed only about 40,000 individuals, including office personnel and the plain-clothes agents. But each Gestapo agent operated at the center of a large web of spies and informants. The problem for the average citizen was that no one ever knew for sure just who those informants were. It could be anyone, your milkman, the old lady across the street, a quiet co-worker, even a schoolboy. As a result, fear ruled the day. Most people realized the necessity of self-censorship and generally kept their mouths shut politically, unless they had something positive to say.

    Anyone foolish enough to say something risky or tell an anti-Nazi joke in mixed company might get a knock on the door in the middle of the night or a tap on the shoulder while walking along the street. Letters were also sent out demanding an appearance at No. 8 Prinz Albrecht Strasse, the Gestapo headquarters in Berlin, to answer a few questions. The Gestapo prison center in Berlin (the Columbia-Haus) became notorious as a place where pedestrians strolling outside the building could hear screaming coming from inside.

    Gestapo interrogation methods included: repeated near drownings of a prisoner in a bathtub filled with ice-cold water; electric shocks by attaching wires to hands, feet, ears and genitalia; crushing a man’s testicles in a special vice; securing a prisoner’s wrists behind his back then hanging him by the arms causing shoulder dislocation; beatings with rubber nightsticks and cow-hide whips; and burning flesh with matches or a soldering iron.

    As the SS organization rapidly expanded in the late 1930s, the super-ambitious Heydrich acquired immense powers and responsibilities. One of his main accomplishments was the reorganization and bureaucratic streamlining of the entire Nazi police state. In September 1939, just after the outbreak of war, he created the Reich Main Security Office (RSHA). This new organization had seven main branches. The Gestapo was designated as the fourth branch and was now headed by Heinrich Müller (nicknamed as Gestapo Müller). Back in 1931, as a member of the Munich police, Müller had successfully hushed-up the scandal surrounding the suicide of Hitler’s niece Geli Raubal. Thus he had proven himself to be a very dependable man.

    Section B4 of the Gestapo dealt exclusively with the “Jewish question” and came under the permanent control of Adolf Eichmann. This energetic and efficient organizer would keep the trains running on time from all over Europe to Nazi death camps located in occupied Poland during the Final Solution of the Jewish question.

    The Gestapo followed Hitler’s armies into every country during the conquest of Europe. By pitting neighbor against neighbor, Gestapo agents established the same kind of terror mechanism in each occupied country that had worked so well back in Germany.

    In 1942, the Gestapo took things a step further via Hitler’s Night and Fog Decree. Suspected anti-Nazis would now vanish without a trace into the misty night never to be seen again. The desired effect as stated by Himmler was to “leave the family and the population uncertain as to the fate of the offender.” The victims were mostly from France, Belgium and Holland. They were usually arrested in the middle of the night and whisked off to far away prisons for torture-interrogation, eventually arriving at a concentration camp in Germany if they survived.

    From the very beginning of Hitler’s regime, the ever-present threat of arrest and indefinite confinement in a concentration camp robbed the German people of their personal freedom and left them as inhibited, dutifully obedient subjects.

    But even this was not enough. The Nazis wanted to change people’s thinking. And so, just as they had purged their hated political enemies, they began a campaign to purge hated “unGerman” ideas. That effort started in May 1933 with the worst of all crimes against human thought and culture – the burning of books.

    Copyright © 2001 The History Place™ All Rights Reserved
    http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/triumph/tr-gestapo.htm

  52. Torcer says:

    “The Founding Fathers knew a government can’t control the economy
    without controlling people. And they knew when a government sets out to
    do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose.“
    Ronald Reagan

  53. Torcer says:

    “Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried.” Winston Churchill

  54. Torcer says:

    I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty, than those attending too small a degree of it. -Thomas Jefferson

  55. Torcer says:

    “Inside Every Progressive Is A Totalitarian Screaming to Get Out.”

  56. Torcer says:

    500th Anniversary of Thomas More’s Utopia
    http://s3.amazonaws.com/libapps/accounts/57149/images/Utopia.ortelius.jpg
    2016 marks the 500-year anniversary of Thomas More’s Utopia. You can use this page to find out more about what people and organizations around the world are doing to mark the occasion.

    You can read Utopia for free on Project Gutenberg and other websites.

    If there are events or articles that you would like to see added to this page, please email Emily Ewers (ewers1@illinois.edu), graduate assistant at the History, Philosophy and Newspaper Library.
    Upcoming Conferences and Events Dedicated to More’s Utopia

    “Europe: 500 Years of Utopias”
    17th annual conference of the Utopian Studies Society. Taking place July 5-9th, 2016.
    “More’s Utopia” Greek and Latin Sources–Marking the 500th Anniversary of Utopia”
    Link to call for papers, containing some information on the conference. Conference is sponsored by the Center for Thomas More Studies at the University of Dallas and will take place November 4-5th, 2016.
    “The Theology of Thomas Moore’s Tower Works”
    Link to call for papers, containing some information on the conference taking place on the 7-8th of November, 2016. Conference is sponsored by the Center for Thomas More Studies at the University of Dallas.
    “Utopia by Design” (theme of London Design Biennale)
    “For its inaugural year, the London Design Biennale invites participating countries to explore the theme, ‘Utopia by Design’. 2016 marks the 500th anniversary of the publication of Sir Thomas More’s classic, Utopia (1516), a work of political philosophy that describes a fictional country and the ethnography of its contented inhabitants. The man-made island, with its seafront fortifications and 54 cities, is described as a triumph of design; its citizens, who share everything and place a premium on human happiness, are apparently without greed or pride. More intended his Utopia (a neologism meaning both ‘good place’ and ‘no place’) to critique the status quo by presenting a radical alternative. It is design, engineering and technology that point the way to this better world.”
    “Utopia for 500 Years”
    “A Conference on Thomas More’s Utopia to be held at St. Thomas More College, University Of Saskatchewan, 22-24 September 2016, in celebration of the 500th anniversary of the work’s publication.”
    12 Months of Exhibitions at London’s Somerset House
    “UTOPIA 2016: A Year of Imagination and Possibility celebrates the 500th anniversary of Thomas More’s inspirational text. A year of artists, designers, provocateurs and thinkers experimenting with ways we might live, make, work and play.”

    Articles

    “Free Love or Genocide: The Trouble With Utopias”
    From The Guardian, by Tobias Jones. Jan. 24, 2016
    “Openings: Going back to Utopia”
    “Was More’s ‘Utopia’ a blueprint for dreamers or a sprightly satire on the England of the day?” From Financial Times, by Jan Dalley (Dec. 30, 2105).
    http://guides.library.illinois.edu/c.php?g=417947&p=3051905

  57. Torcer says:

    Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it. – Thomas Sowell

  58. Torcer says:

    The triumph of persuasion over force is the sign of a civilized society. – Mark Skousen

    The triumph of persuasion over force is the sign of a civilized society. – Mark Skousen

  59. Torcer says:

    “Collectivism doesn’t work because it’s based on a faulty economic
    premise. There is no such thing as a person’s “fair share” of wealth.
    The gross national product is not a pizza that must be carefully divided
    because if I get too many slices, you have to eat the box. The economy
    is expandable and, in any practical sense, limitless.” – P.J. O’Rourke

  60. Torcer says:

    I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. – Evelyn Beatrice Hall

  61. Torcer says:

    Capitalism Communism Fascism Political Spectrum
    http://www.paoracle.com/webobjects/capfascdiff.gif

  62. Torcer says:

    Political Spectrum Communism
    http://i.imgur.com/vlxC1.jpg

  63. Torcer says:

    Now and then the workers are victorious, but only for a time. The real fruit of their battles lies, not in the immediate result, but in the ever-expanding union of the workers. This union is helped on by the improved means of communication that are created by modern industry and that place the workers of different localities in contact with one another. It was just this contact that was needed to centralise the numerous local struggles, all of the same character, into one national struggle between classes. But every class struggle is a political struggle. And that union, to attain which the burghers of the Middle Ages, with their miserable highways, required centuries, the modern proletarians, thanks to railways, achieve in a few years.

    The Communist Manifesto
    II. BOURGEOIS AND PROLETARIANS Page 18.
    http://thepeoplescube.com/peoples-tools/the-communist-manifesto-original-text-t3022.html

  64. Torcer says:

    Though not in substance, yet in form, the struggle of the proletariat with the bourgeoisie is at first a national struggle. The proletariat of each country must, of course, first of all settle matters with its own bourgeoisie.

    Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto
    II. BOURGEOIS AND PROLETARIANS Page 22.
    http://thepeoplescube.com/peoples-tools/the-communist-manifesto-original-text-t3022.html

  65. Torcer says:

    I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty, than those attending too small a degree of it. -Thomas Jefferson

  66. Torcer says:

    “The Founding Fathers knew a government can’t control the economy
    without controlling people. And they knew when a government sets out to
    do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose.“
    Ronald Reagan

  67. Torcer says:

    Which One Are You: Ideologue or Pragmatist?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2n_rBxHxaco

  68. Torcer says:

    “How do you tell a communist? Well, it’s someone who reads Marx and Lenin.
    And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It’s someone who understands Marx and Lenin.”
    Ronald Reagan

  69. Torcer says:

    Fascism Is Far Left, Not Far Right on Political Spectrum
    There are many logical incongruities that are maintained on a populist level, especially when it comes to politics. Not least of these is the composition of the political spectrum in identifying ideologies and systems of governance. The most common fallacy is identifying fascism as a right-wing ideology, even though its ideological roots originate in the left-wing extremist models of communism and socialism.
    http://www.conservativedailynews.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Political-Spectrum-Essentialized6-300×129.jpg
    The most pervasive political spectrum is loosely based on a left/right orientation, and attempts to place political models somewhere along the continuum. But for a political spectrum to have any meaningful representation, it must be based on some set of absolute values. Since every system of governance has unique characteristics, those can hardly be used for the absolute reference points from which to measure.

    Since a spectrum is in fact a continuum, the absolute extremes must be established, so that all variations and deviations from those extremes can be accurately charted. For example, light and dark, heat and cold, the band of waves of the electromagnetic spectrum, all measure from one extreme to the other. So it is with the political spectrum. Since governments establish order based on the regulation of the activities of the members of their respective societies, the correct extremes for the political spectrum delineate the degree of individual freedom allowed. And traditionally that has been demarcated as left to right; least freedom, to most freedom; totalitarianism to anarchy.

    http://www.conservativedailynews.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Spectrum3-300×118.png

    And because the spectrum is a continuum, from one extreme to the other, it is a straight line. It doesn’t curve around, or circumvent the scale at any point. It is a continuous, single-dimensional range from one extreme to the other. And with individual freedom, there are only two absolute points of reference: maximum freedom (anarchy), or no freedom (totalitarianism). With those absolutes established at the ends of the spectrum, all systems of governance can be effectively placed on the spectrum, and scaled based on the degree or level of individual freedom, or conversely, the degree of state control over the individual.

    Some political scientists have maintained that a single left-right axis is inadequate, and have consequently often added biaxial spectra distinguishing between varying issues. This is unnecessary when broadly identifying systems of governance based on a continuum of individual freedom, for ancillary factors and characteristics inevitably integrate into the dominant ideological model.

    On the political spectrum, the furthest to the left, the more totalitarian the government is. Centralized planning and governmental control over the lives of individuals is characteristic of all forms of socialism, whether Communist or the Nationalist variety, (fascism) and the state assumes preeminence over individual rights when taken to the extreme.

    http://www.conservativedailynews.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/left-vs-right-truth-300×259.jpg

    The furthest to the right on the political spectrum, the more individual liberty is advanced. Taken to its extreme is anarchy. When analyzed logically, then, National Socialism and fascism are wholly incongruent philosophically and practically to the right of the spectrum. Those who refer to Nazism as “right-wing” are politically ill-informed and have fallen for Stalin’s tactic of referring to them as such. One scholar makes the point that Nazism is to Communism what Pepsi is to Coke: basically the same but with a little different flavor.

    Economically, fascism advocates control of business and labor, not ownership of it as communism advocates. In fact Mussolini called his system the “Corporate State.” Even the term “totalitarianism” derives from Mussolini’s concept of the preeminence of the “total state.”

    Indeed, European fascism is an offshoot of Marxism, the theoretical framework for communism and socialism. The founding father to fascism, Benito Mussolini, in 1919 established the Fasci Italiani di Combattimento, which by 1921, became the National Fascist Party. He was born and raised a socialist. His father was a member of the same internationale as Marx and Engels. His father read him Das Kapital as a bedtime story. He was kicked out of the Italian Socialist Party in 1914 for supporting World War I, which he believed would save socialism, and stubbornly declared that he’d die a socialist.

    This all makes much more sense logically, when the destructive and pejorative elements to Nazism, which was fascistic, are considered. The Brown Shirts, SS (Schutzstaffel), Gestapo, pogroms, anti-Semitism, genocide, eugenics, etc. ad nauseam are all products of oppressive, totalitarian ideology, not one that believes in more freedom.

    Disturbingly, there is an American statism based ideologically on similar principles to European fascism. Our statist movement has the same ideological connections with those in Europe, reliant on philosophical components of Hegel, Weber, Marx, Kung, and Sartre. It’s harmonious in principle to Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s Minister of Propaganda, statement, “To be a socialist is to submit the I to the thou; socialism is sacrificing the individual to the whole.”

    liberal+fascism-e1277080858463America’s version also seeks to concentrate power in the state at the expense of individual liberty. As philosopher Leonard Piekoff states, it “does not represent a new approach to government; but is a continuation of the political absolutism — the absolute monarchies, the oligarchies, the theocracies, the random tyrannies — which has characterized most of human history.” It seeks to suppress criticism and opposition to the government. It denounces and eschews individualism, capitalism and inequity in compensation. It seeks out and targets enemies of the people like corporations and those not supportive of their collectivist objectives. Clearly, even American statism is fascistic, and distinctly characteristic of the political left.

    Historically, ideologically, and etymologically, fascism is a stepchild to Marxist theory. While differences exist between these isms, they are all oppressive, and are among the most totalitarian forms of government in the 20th century.

    Any attempts to describe the political spectrum as “circular,” rather than “linear,” are logically untenable. Any attempt to conflate fascism with the American right on the spectrum, is historically revisionist and wholly illogical. It only fits with an inane, and politically motivated model for casting aspersions, for it has no basis in historical, logical, or ideological fact.

    Associated Press award winning columnist Richard Larsen is President of Larsen Financial, a brokerage and financial planning firm in Pocatello, Idaho and is a graduate of Idaho State University with degrees in Political Science and History and coursework completed toward a Master’s in Public Administration. He can be reached at [email protected].

    http://www.conservativedailynews.com/2015/08/fascism-is-far-left-not-far-right-on-political-spectrum/

  70. Torcer says:

    Political Spectrum Communism
    http://i.imgur.com/vlxC1.jpg

  71. Torcer says:

    POLITICAL SPECTRUM: HOW MANY INTERPRETATIONS ARE THERE?
    http://themetamodern.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Spectrum-800px.jpg
    LET’S GET SOME CLARITY WITH OUR POLITICAL SPECTRUM
    One of the many versions of our Political Spectrum (above) easily found online.
    Let’s start by defining terms and straightening some things out. Chart 1 (above) illustrates the commonly taught political spectrum from left to right. We learn that Anarchy is on the far left. The anti-government; chaos and disorder. Then communism, socialism and moving closer to the middle is our form. Off to the right we have what they consider to be Nazism, Fascism, etc. We’re not too socialist, not too fascist; we’re right in the middle, surrounded on both sides by what we’re taught to be totalitarian forms of government. In other words, both communism (left) and fascism (right) are two different forms of totalitarianism as we’ve been taught to understand.

    The debate has always been about more government or less government. Here’s where it starts to get confusing. Anarchy is considered less government; the anti-government. The right denies government intrusion as well. What’s the difference? Anarchy is not about chaos and disorder. It is about people freely cooperating in a pro-active way. They have no need for authoritarian intrusion or permission to act in any socially positive way. Anarchy does not represent chaos and disorder as the revisionists would have you believe. Anarchy purely questions the legitimacy of authority over free will.

    The Anarchist defies concentration of power, wealth and intrusion into their privacy; a very Libertarian point of view. Libertarians are considered to be on the right. Where are the Anarchists placed? On the far left. Where do we place the Libertarians? Nowhere on this chart obviously, but generally they’re considered to be on the far right. Is any of this making any sense at all? Of course not, because it’s all bullshit.

    Unless it’s a thermometer, most charts start at zero and work their way up. To some zero might seem a fair starting point on the political spectrum instead of somewhere in the middle between extreme left and extreme right. But how can you be in the middle of totalitarianism? You either have more authority governing your lives or less authority. More government intervention or less.

    How can Communism be so close to Anarchy on the left? Anarchy; anti-government vs Communism; totalitarian government, as we’ve seen with the Soviet Union’s and China’s versions. So we have from the left: No government into totalitarian government back to a little less government with some liberalism thrown in and then progressing back into totalitarian government to the right. But wait a minute? The far right is where we put the Libertarians; as referenced by Ron Paul, who also craves much less government. As a matter of fact many political texts will comment on the similarities between Anarchy and Libertarianism to great extent. The similarities between the far left and the far right.
    http://themetamodern.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Political-Spectrum-False-900px.jpg
    There are many interpretations of the Political Spectrum easily found. Beware of false prophets.
    http://themetamodern.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Spectrum-Comparison-900px.jpg
    On the left is the accepted example of what we’re generally taught.
    http://themetamodern.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Spectrum-Comparison-900px.jpg
    The example on the right is actually more accurate.
    American Libertarians carry the flag for free enterprise and minimal government intervention in business, as well as their private lives. Republicans pretend to be Libertarian as a necessity to appease the business sector. But it’s the business sector that manipulates our government ad nauseam. To the American version of Libertarianism I plead this; “If you want my government out of your business, then get your business the fuck out of my government.”

    Again, socialism is an economic principle not a form of government. If Socialism is on the chart, then why not Capitalism? Because Capitalism isn’t a form of government; it’s an economic principle. The Socialists of Russia wanted a fair economic system. To get it they needed to industrialize. Who helped them do it? The industrialists who eventually usurped their movement and corrupted it; turning it into a totalitarian economy and calling it Communism or their Socialists’ republic. If Socialism is on the chart, then Capitalism should be there too. And here’s why:

    Big Business commonly favors Fascism and any other totalitarian form of government. They operate best under the Oligarchy. The entire business structure is hierarchical with minimal displays of democratic process if any within the system. This structure has its own merit for obvious reasons, but it has gone way beyond any ethical or acceptable parameters of authority. Specifically through campaign financing, high dollar lobbyists and the revolving door we have between the private business sector and our government.

    Would it then be fair to ask, why Capitalism, (which through the revolving door has so much influence in our government) isn’t in itself considered an American form of government on every political spectrum? If we categorize or demonize a particular concept through false revisionism, or mixed interpretations that are allowed to prosper and cause more divisiveness, it only serves those who benefit from our confusion with the political spectrum.

    Bernie Sanders is creating quite the stir. He’s the Independent, Democratic/Socialist, Socialist or Communist from Vermont. The Republicans would have you believe that he’s the Red Scare and Stalin’s going to be the Vice President. The Democrats will have you believe that he’s a well-intended, but unworthy spoiler, not to be taken seriously. He will take votes from their own attempt at statehood; Hillary Clinton. Bernie, along with other fringe candidates, challenge the established lexicons that describe our political spectrum.
    http://themetamodern.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Political-Spectrum-names-380px.jpg
    Bernie Sanders is taking a bold approach against the concentration of business and power in government. He’s not placating the corporations and the wealthy. He’s asking the politically incorrect questions no one else is asking, except possibly Elizabeth Warren and Ron Paul. Sanders is asking questions that best serve the working middle class; the 47% that Nit Romney mentioned. The entitled underachievers who are working very hard and still not making any headway; in a climate where paying fifteen dollars an hour or close to a living wage becomes outrageous to the largest corporations in America.

    It’s Capitalism vs Socialism. Both are economic principles misread as government constructs. If we accept capitalism as a core principle of government, how does an Oligarchical system of hierarchy justify its authority over a free and Democratic Republic?

    http://themetamodern.com/political-spectrum/

  72. Torcer says:

    In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time we’ve been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. But if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else?

    Ronald Reagan First Inaugural Address 20 January 1981

  73. Torcer says:

    Which One Are You: Ideologue or Pragmatist?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2n_rBxHxaco

  74. Torcer says:

    The triumph of persuasion over force is the sign of a civilized society. – Mark Skousen

    The triumph of persuasion over force is the sign of a civilized society. – Mark Skousen

  75. Torcer says:

    Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it. – Thomas Sowell

  76. Torcer says:

    “Collectivism doesn’t work because it’s based on a faulty economic
    premise. There is no such thing as a person’s “fair share” of wealth.
    The gross national product is not a pizza that must be carefully divided
    because if I get too many slices, you have to eat the box. The economy
    is expandable and, in any practical sense, limitless.” – P.J. O’Rourke

  77. Torcer says:

    Now and then the workers are victorious, but only for a time. The real fruit of their battles lies, not in the immediate result, but in the ever-expanding union of the workers. This union is helped on by the improved means of communication that are created by modern industry and that place the workers of different localities in contact with one another. It was just this contact that was needed to centralise the numerous local struggles, all of the same character, into one national struggle between classes. But every class struggle is a political struggle. And that union, to attain which the burghers of the Middle Ages, with their miserable highways, required centuries, the modern proletarians, thanks to railways, achieve in a few years.

    The Communist Manifesto
    II. BOURGEOIS AND PROLETARIANS Page 18.
    http://thepeoplescube.com/peoples-tools/the-communist-manifesto-original-text-t3022.html

  78. Torcer says:

    “The Founding Fathers knew a government can’t control the economy
    without controlling people. And they knew when a government sets out to
    do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose.“
    Ronald Reagan

  79. Torcer says:

    In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time we’ve been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. But if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else?

    Ronald Reagan First Inaugural Address 20 January 1981

  80. Torcer says:

    The triumph of persuasion over force is the sign of a civilized society. – Mark Skousen

    The triumph of persuasion over force is the sign of a civilized society. – Mark Skousen

  81. Torcer says:

    Datos, ne quisquam seruiat, enses. (The sword was given for this, that none need live a slave.) – Marcus Annaeus Lucanus

    Datos, ne quisquam seruiat, enses. (The sword was given for this, that none need live a slave.) – Marcus Annaeus Lucanus

  82. Torcer says:

    “The only reason for not tarring and feathering any government official for effrontery when they tell us what to do is that their power to do so is somehow legitimate. But that legitimacy comes from the exercise of constitutional power. If the Constitution doesn’t mean anything, well, then, maybe it’s time to go long on pitchforks. Because without the Constitution the angry mob is just as legitimate as the perfumed princes of the state.”
    Josh Blackman

  83. Torcer says:

    “Collectivism doesn’t work because it’s based on a faulty economic
    premise. There is no such thing as a person’s “fair share” of wealth.
    The gross national product is not a pizza that must be carefully divided
    because if I get too many slices, you have to eat the box. The economy
    is expandable and, in any practical sense, limitless.” – P.J. O’Rourke

  84. Torcer says:

    Datos, ne quisquam seruiat, enses. (The sword was given for this, that none need live a slave.) – Marcus Annaeus Lucanus

    Datos, ne quisquam seruiat, enses. (The sword was given for this, that none need live a slave.) – Marcus Annaeus Lucanus

  85. Torcer says:

    Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it. – Thomas Sowell

  86. Torcer says:

    The triumph of persuasion over force is the sign of a civilized society. – Mark Skousen

  87. Torcer says:

    “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” John Adams

  88. Torcer says:

    “The fact speak for themselves.” Demosthenes

  89. Torcer says:

    Concentrated power has always been the enemy of liberty – Ronald Reagan

  90. Torcer says:

    Man is not free unless government is limited- Ronald Reagan

  91. Torcer says:

    Now and then the workers are victorious, but only for a time. The real fruit of their battles lies, not in the immediate result, but in the ever-expanding union of the workers. This union is helped on by the improved means of communication that are created by modern industry and that place the workers of different localities in contact with one another. It was just this contact that was needed to centralise the numerous local struggles, all of the same character, into one national struggle between classes. But every class struggle is a political struggle. And that union, to attain which the burghers of the Middle Ages, with their miserable highways, required centuries, the modern proletarians, thanks to railways, achieve in a few years.

    The Communist Manifesto
    II. BOURGEOIS AND PROLETARIANS Page 18.
    http://thepeoplescube.com/peoples-tools/the-communist-manifesto-original-text-t3022.html

  92. Torcer says:

    “The Founding Fathers knew a government can’t control the economy
    without controlling people. And they knew when a government sets out to
    do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose.“
    Ronald Reagan

  93. Torcer says:

    The triumph of persuasion over force is the sign of a civilized society. – Mark Skousen

    The triumph of persuasion over force is the sign of a civilized society. – Mark Skousen

  94. Torcer says:

    Democracy is the road to socialism. Karl Marx

  95. Torcer says:

    A specter is haunting Europe – the specter of communism. Karl Marx

    History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce. Karl Marx

    If anything is certain, it is that I myself am not a Marxist. Karl Marx

  96. Torcer says:

    Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it. – Thomas Sowell

  97. Torcer says:

    Though not in substance, yet in form, the struggle of the proletariat with the bourgeoisie is at first a national struggle. The proletariat of each country must, of course, first of all settle matters with its own bourgeoisie.

    Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto
    II. BOURGEOIS AND PROLETARIANS Page 22.
    http://thepeoplescube.com/peoples-tools/the-communist-manifesto-original-text-t3022.html

  98. Torcer says:

    I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. – Evelyn Beatrice Hall

  99. Torcer says:

    Capitalism Communism Fascism Political Spectrum
    http://www.paoracle.com/webobjects/capfascdiff.gif

  100. Torcer says:

    Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it. – Thomas Sowell

  101. Torcer says:

    Definition of authoritarian
    adjective
    1 Favouring or enforcing strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom:
    ‘the transition from an authoritarian to a democratic regime’
    1.1Showing a lack of concern for the wishes or opinions of others; dictatorial:
    ‘he had an authoritarian and at times belligerent manner’
    https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/authoritarian

    ……………………………………………….

    authoritarian: expecting or requiring people to obey rules or laws : not allowing personal freedom
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/authoritarian

    Full Definition of AUTHORITARIAN
    1: of, relating to, or favoring blind submission to authority ‘had authoritarian parents’
    2: of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people ‘an authoritarian regime’
    au·thor·i·tar·i·an·ism -ē-ə-ˌni-zəm noun
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/authoritarian

  102. Torcer says:

    Definition of anarchy
    1A state of disorder due to absence or non-recognition of authority or other controlling systems:
    ‘he must ensure public order in a country threatened with anarchy’
    2 Absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal.
    Origin Mid 16th century: via medieval Latin from Greek anarkhia, from anarkhos, from an- ‘without’ + arkhos ‘chief, ruler’.
    http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/english/anarchy

    Full Definition of ANARCHY
    1a : absence of government
    b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority
    c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
    2 a : absence or denial of any authority or established order
    b : absence of order : disorder not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature — Israel Shenker
    Origin of ANARCHY
    Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek, from anarchos having no ruler, from an- + archos ruler
    First Known Use: 1539
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchy

  103. Torcer says:

    Definition of libertarianism
    An extreme laissez-faire political philosophy advocating only minimal state intervention in the lives of citizens.

    Its adherents believe that private morality is not the state’s affair, and that therefore activities such as drug use and prostitution that arguably harm no one but the participants should not be illegal. Libertarianism shares elements with anarchism, although it is generally associated more with the political right, chiefly in the US
    http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/libertarianism

    Full Definition of LIBERTARIAN
    1: an advocate of the doctrine of free will
    2a : a person who upholds the principles of individual liberty especially of thought and action
    b capitalized : a member of a political party advocating libertarian principles
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/libertarianism

  104. Torcer says:

    Definition of Nazi
    noun (plural Nazis)
    1 historical A member of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party.
    Origin
    German, abbreviation representing the pronunciation of Nati- in Nationalsozialist ‘national socialist’, probably by analogy with Sozi, from Sozialist ‘socialist’.
    https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/Nazi?

    Definition of Nazi
    noun (plural Nazis)
    1 historical A member of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party.
    1.1 derogatory A person with extreme racist or authoritarian views.
    1.2A person who seeks to impose their views on others in a very autocratic or inflexible way:
    ‘I learned to be more open and not such a Nazi in the studio’
    The Nazi Party was formed in Munich after the First World War. It advocated right-wing authoritarian nationalist government, and developed a racist ideology based on anti-Semitism and a belief in the superiority of ‘Aryan’ Germans. Its leader, Adolf Hitler, who was elected Chancellor in 1933, established a totalitarian dictatorship and precipitated the Second World War. The Nazi Party collapsed at the end of the War and was outlawed
    adjective
    Of or concerning the Nazis or Nazism.
    Derivatives
    Nazidom
    Nazify
    verb (Nazifies, Nazifying, Nazified)
    Naziism
    noun
    Origin
    German, abbreviation representing the pronunciation of Nati- in Nationalsozialist ‘national socialist’, probably by analogy with Sozi, from Sozialist ‘socialist’.
    https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/Nazi?

    Definition of Nazi
    1 historical A member of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party.
    1.1 derogatory A person with extreme racist or authoritarian views
    1.2A person who seeks to impose their views on others in a very autocratic or inflexible way
    The Nazi Party was formed in Munich after the First World War. It advocated right-wing authoritarian nationalist government, and developed a racist ideology based on anti-Semitism and a belief in the superiority of ‘Aryan’ Germans. Its leader, Adolf Hitler, who was elected Chancellor in 1933, established a totalitarian dictatorship and precipitated the Second World War. The Nazi Party collapsed at the end of the War and was outlawed
    Origin
    German, abbreviation representing the pronunciation of Nati- in Nationalsozialist ‘national socialist’, probably by analogy with Sozi, from Sozialist ‘socialist’.
    http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/Nazi

  105. Torcer says:

    Political Spectrum Communism
    http://i.imgur.com/vlxC1.jpg

  106. Torcer says:

    A specter is haunting Europe – the specter of communism. Karl Marx

  107. Torcer says:

    “The Founding Fathers knew a government can’t control the economy
    without controlling people. And they knew when a government sets out to
    do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose.“
    Ronald Reagan

  108. Torcer says:

    “How do you tell a communist? Well, it’s someone who reads Marx and Lenin.
    And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It’s someone who understands Marx and Lenin.”
    Ronald Reagan

  109. Torcer says:

    Definition of anarch
    An anarchist: ‘she triumphed as a carnivalesque anarch, transforming defeat into publicity’
    Origin Mid 17th century: from Greek anarkhos ‘without a chief’ (see anarchy).
    http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/english/anarch

  110. Torcer says:

    Definition of totalitarian
    adjective
    of or relating to a system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state: a totalitarian regime
    noun
    a person advocating a totalitarian system of government.
    http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/totalitarian

    ….

    Totalitarian: controlling the people of a country in a very strict way with complete power that cannot be opposed
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/totalitarian

    Definition of TOTALITARIAN
    1a : of or relating to centralized control by an autocratic leader or hierarchy : authoritarian, dictatorial; especially : despotic
    b : of or relating to a political regime based on subordination of the individual to the state and strict control of all aspects of the life and productive capacity of the nation especially by coercive measures (as censorship and terrorism)
    2a : advocating or characteristic of totalitarianism
    b : completely regulated by the state especially as an aid to national mobilization in an emergency
    First Known Use of TOTALITARIAN
    circa 1934
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/totalitarian

    Definition of TOTALITARIANISM
    1: centralized control by an autocratic authority
    2: the political concept that the citizen should be totally subject to an absolute state authority
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/totalitarianism

  111. Torcer says:

    Definition of statism
    [mass noun]
    A political system in which the state has substantial centralized control over social and economic affairs:
    ‘the rise of authoritarian statism’
    Derivatives
    statist
    1 noun & adjective
    https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/statism

  112. Torcer says:

    Socialism, social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources. According to the socialist view, individuals do not live or work in isolation but live in cooperation with one another. Furthermore, everything that people produce is in some sense a social product, and everyone who contributes to the production of a good is entitled to a share in it. Society as a whole, therefore, should own or at least control property for the benefit of all its members.

    This conviction puts socialism in opposition to capitalism, which is based on … (100 of 8,350 words)
    http://www.britannica.com/topic/socialism

    so·cial·ism
    n.
    1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
    2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which the means of production are collectively owned but a completely classless society has not yet been achieved.
    https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=socialism


    ……………………………………………………….

    socialism
    noun
    1.a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
    2.procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
    3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.
    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism?

    ………………………………………………….

    socialism
    Definitions
    noun
    an economic theory or system in which the means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned by the community collectively, usually through the state. It is characterized by production for use rather than profit, by equality of individual wealth, by the absence of competitive economic activity, and, usually, by government determination of investment, prices, and production levels . Compare capitalism
    any of various social or political theories or movements in which the common welfare is to be achieved through the establishment of a socialist economic system
    (in Leninist theory) a transitional stage after the proletarian revolution in the development of a society from capitalism to communism: characterized by the distribution of income according to work rather than need
    Quotations including ‘socialism’

    “”If Socialism can only be realized when the intellectual development of all the people permits it, then we shall not see Socialism for at least five hundred years”” [Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
    “”The worst advertisement for Socialism is its adherents”” [George Orwell]
    “”The language of priorities is the religion of Socialism”” [Aneurin Bevan]
    “”Idleness, selfishness, fecklessness, envy and irresponsibility are the vices upon which socialism in any form flourishes and which it in turn encourages. But socialism’s devilishly clever tactic is to play up to all those human failings, while making those who practise them feel good about it”” [Margaret Thatcher
    “”Socialism can only arrive by bicycle”” [José Antonio Viera Gallo]
    British English: socialism Socialism is a political system with the aim of creating a society in which everyone has an equal opportunity to benefit from a country’s wealth. Under socialism, the country’s main industries are usually owned by the state….capitalism and socialism. http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/socialism

    …………………………………………….

    socialism
    noun
    Socialism is defined as an economic theory, system or movement where the production and distribution of goods is done, owned and shared by the citizens of a society.
    Facts About Socialism
    In theory, citizens have equal access to the products and resources and are compensated based on the amount of work performed.
    Under the ideals of socialism, there is no motivation for workers to excel at their jobs because there is no benefit to the worker.
    Friedrich Engels, a French social theorist, developed modern socialistic theory in the late 18th century when he advocated the elimination of production methods based on capitalism.
    Karl Marx described socialism as a lower form of communism and held the opinion that socialism was an intermediary step in moving from capitalism to communism.
    Many movements across Europe embraced the Marxist view of socialism and this led to the protests and uprisings of the working class, including the labor unions.
    The two largest “socialistic” systems are the former Soviet Union and Mainland China. Each of these began with the ideals of socialism, but ended in becoming totalitarian in nature.
    An example of socialism is the Mainland Chinese economic system.
    socialism

    any of various theories or systems of the ownership and operation of the means of production and distribution by society or the community rather than by private individuals, with all members of society or the community sharing in the work and the products
    a political movement for establishing such a system
    the doctrines, methods, etc. of the Socialist parties
    in Marxist doctrine, the stage of society coming between the capitalist and the communist stages

    socialism

    noun

    Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
    The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which the means of production are collectively owned but a completely classless society has not yet been achieved.

    socialism
    Noun

    (usually uncountable, plural socialisms)

    (Marxism) The intermediate phase of social development between capitalism and full communism in Marxist theory in which the state has control of the means of production.
    Any of several later political philosophies such as libertarian socialism, democratic socialism, and social democracy which do not envisage the need for full state ownership of the means of production nor transition to full communism, and which are typically are based on principles of community decision making, social equality and the avoidance of economic and social exclusion, with economic policy should giving first preference to community goals over individual ones.

    Related terms

    social

    Origin

    Attested since 1832; either from French socialisme or from social +”Ž -ism
    socialism – Investment & Finance Definition

    A political system that believes in society as a whole sharing ownership of property and the means of production, rather than allowing private individuals to acquire them. The government is heavily involved in providing for citizens’ needs, such as medical care. Socialism contrasts with capitalism, which is based on competition and little government involvement. In capitalism, individuals must provide for their own needs.
    http://www.yourdictionary.com/socialism

    ……………………………………..

    socialism
    WordReference Random House Learner’s Dictionary of American English © 2016
    Governmenta theory or system of social organization in which the means of production and distribution of goods are owned and controlled by groups or by the government.
    WordReference Random House Unabridged Dictionary of American English © 2016

    n.
    Governmenta theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
    Government procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
    Government(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles. Cf.utopian socialism.
    Etymology:
    social + -ism 1830–40
    http://www.wordreference.com/definition/socialism

    …………………………………………………………

    socialism
    so·cial·ism (sō′shə-lĭz′əm)
    n.
    1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
    2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which the means of production are collectively owned but a completely classless society has not yet been achieved.
    socialism (ˈsəʊʃəˌlɪzəm)
    n
    1. (Economics) an economic theory or system in which the means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned by the community collectively, usually through the state. It is characterized by production for use rather than profit, by equality of individual wealth, by the absence of competitive economic activity, and, usually, by government determination of investment, prices, and production levels. Compare capitalism
    2. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) any of various social or political theories or movements in which the common welfare is to be achieved through the establishment of a socialist economic system
    3. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) (in Leninist theory) a transitional stage after the proletarian revolution in the development of a society from capitalism to communism: characterized by the distribution of income according to work rather than need
    so•cial•ism (ˈsoʊ ʃəˌlɪz əm)

    n.
    1. a theory or system of social organization in which the means of production and distribution of goods are owned and controlled collectively or by the government.
    2. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.
    [1830–40]
    socialism
    1. a theory or system of social organization advocating placing the ownership and control of capital, land, and means of production in the community as a whole. Cf. utopian socialism.
    2. the procedures and practices based upon this theory.
    3. Marxist theory. the first stage in the transition from capitalism to communism, marked by imperfect realizations of collectivist principles. — socialist, n., adj. — socialistic, adj.
    See also: Politics
    a theory of government based upon the ownership and control of capital, land, and means of production by the community as a whole.
    See also: Government
    socialism
    A political theory advocating public ownership of the means of production and the sharing of political power by the whole community.
    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/socialism

  113. Torcer says:

    “The Founding Fathers knew a government can’t control the economy
    without controlling people. And they knew when a government sets out to
    do that,
    it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose.“
    Ronald Reagan

    “The Founding Fathers knew a government can’t control the economy
    without controlling people. And they knew when a government sets out to
    do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose.“
    Ronald Reagan

  114. Torcer says:

    In certain basic respects – a totalitarian state structure, a single party, a leader, a secret police, a hatred of political, cultural and intellectual freedom – fascism and communism are clearly more like each other than they are like anything in between. Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., Associate Professor of History at Harvard New York Times Magazine, Sunday, April 4, 1948

  115. Torcer says:

    “Whenever the legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any farther obedience, and are left to the common refuge which God hath provided for all men against force and violence.” -John Locke

  116. Torcer says:

    “The only reason for not tarring and feathering any government official for effrontery when they tell us what to do is that their power to do so is somehow legitimate. But that legitimacy comes from the exercise of constitutional power. If the Constitution doesn’t mean anything, well, then, maybe it’s time to go long on pitchforks. Because without the Constitution the angry mob is just as legitimate as the perfumed princes of the state.”
    Josh Blackman

  117. Torcer says:

    In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time we’ve been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. But if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else?

    Ronald Reagan First Inaugural Address 20 January 1981

  118. Torcer says:

    In certain basic respects – a totalitarian state structure, a single party, a leader, a secret police, a hatred of political, cultural and intellectual freedom – fascism and communism are clearly more like each other than they are like anything in between. Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., Associate Professor of History at Harvard New York Times Magazine, Sunday, April 4, 1948

  119. Torcer says:

    “The difference between a welfare state and a totalitarian state is a matter of time.”
    Ayn Rand

  120. Torcer says:

    Politics for Dummies: Left & Right Political Parties, Democrat, Republican,Communism, Capitalism
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWqpojSj1CA
    PsycheTruth

  121. Torcer says:

    “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” John Adams

    “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” John Adams

  122. Torcer says:

    Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used, and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible.

    Senator Hubert H. Humphrey,
    Comm.: Foreign Relations Minnesota
    http://www.gunsmagazine.com/1960issues/G0260.pdf

  123. Torcer says:

    “Contrary to popular opinion, the Constitution was not – and is not – a grant of rights to the citizenry. Instead, the Constitution is a “barbed-wire entanglement” designed to interfere with, restrict, and impede government officials in the exercise of political power.” – Jacob Hornberger

  124. Torcer says:

    “The Founding Fathers knew a government can’t control the economy
    without controlling people. And they knew when a government sets out to
    do that,
    it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose.“
    Ronald Reagan

    “The Founding Fathers knew a government can’t control the economy
    without controlling people. And they knew when a government sets out to
    do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose.“
    Ronald Reagan

  125. Torcer says:

    “If socialists understood economics they wouldn’t be socialists.”
    ― Friedrich Hayek

  126. Torcer says:

    “The difference between a welfare state and a totalitarian state is a matter of time.”
    Ayn Rand

  127. Torcer says:

    “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only
    exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves
    largess out of the public treasury.”
    Alexander Tytler

  128. Torcer says:

    Definition of libertarianism
    An extreme laissez-faire political philosophy advocating only minimal state intervention in the lives of citizens.

    Its adherents believe that private morality is not the state’s affair, and that therefore activities such as drug use and prostitution that arguably harm no one but the participants should not be illegal. Libertarianism shares elements with anarchism, although it is generally associated more with the political right, chiefly in the US
    http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/libertarianism

    Libertarian: a person who believes that people should be allowed to do and say what they want without any interference from the government
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/libertarianism

    Full Definition of LIBERTARIAN
    1: an advocate of the doctrine of free will
    2a : a person who upholds the principles of individual liberty especially of thought and action
    b capitalized : a member of a political party advocating libertarian principles
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/libertarianism

  129. Torcer says:

    “The Founding Fathers knew a government can’t control the economy
    without controlling people. And they knew when a government sets out to
    do that,
    it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose.“
    Ronald Reagan

    “The Founding Fathers knew a government can’t control the economy
    without controlling people. And they knew when a government sets out to
    do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose.“
    Ronald Reagan

  130. Torcer says:

    Constructing the Linear Political Spectrum/Compass Prt I https://conservatism20.wordpress.com/2017/03/02/constructing-the-linear-political-spectrumcompass-part-i/ #GunSense=NonSense #2a #NRA
    Boot #MomsDemand frm #everytown

    Constructing the Linear Political Spectrum/Compass Part I
    “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” John Adams
    1. A consistent overall metric in relating the ideologies to each other.

    It should be clear that the political Right and the political Left have vastly different principles and goals. In general terms, it is aphoristic the political Right favours limited governance with an emphasis on individual rights, while the political Left favours extended governance and an emphasis on collective rights.
    [..]
    The scale of the spectrum will be numerically based to factor out biases and provide a consistent placement of the ideologies. In general terms, since the political Right prefers minimal governance the right end of the scale will be set at zero (0). And since the political Left prefers maximal governance, the left end of the scale will be set at one hundred (100).

    2. Modern and unbiased definitions of the political terminology.

    In order to properly frame the spectrum, modern definitions and terminology will be used instead of outdated, politically biased and logically deficient terms. This is to be a political spectrum based on the factual data of modern times as opposed to a mélange of politically motivated factoids.

    3. Utilisation of numerical rules and logic to properly construct the spectrum basing it on a factual linear progression instead of emotional preconceptions.

    4. Specific political terms can have a logical numerical value assigned to them based on their modern dictionary definitions.

    These specific and factual data points will serve as a framework for the proper placement of other political ideologies within a certain logical range. As well as a test of the validity of the politely biased placements.

    The Oxford English dictionary defines anarchy as:

    “a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority”

    Therefor we can assign a numerical value of zero (0) to this ideological term and place it on the right end of the spectrum based on the previously detailed rules.

    The Merriam Webster dictionary defines totalitarian as:
    “a political regime based on subordination of the individual to the state and strict control of all aspects of the life and productive capacity of the nation especially by coercive measures (as censorship and terrorism)”

    Thus we can assign a numerical value of one hundred (100) to this ideological term and place it on the Left end of the spectrum based on the previously detailed rules.

    The Oxford English dictionary defines the centre as:
    “A point or part that is equally distant from all sides, ends, or surfaces”

    It is therefore logical to set this data point in the middle of the scale with the numerical value of fifty (50) based on the previously detailed rules.

    It also follows that with the political Right being right of centre, it should have a numerical values less than fifty ( < 50) but less than one hundred ( <100)

    And it logically follows that with the political Left being left of centre, it should have a numerical value greater than fifty on the linear political scale ( > 50) but less than one hundred ( <100)
    https://conservatism20.wordpress.com/2017/03/02/constructing-the-linear-political-spectrumcompass-part-i/

  131. Torcer says:

    Definitions of left
    2 Relating to a person or group favouring radical, reforming, or socialist views.
    2 (often the Left) [treated as singular or plural] A group or party favouring radical, reforming, or socialist views:
    Origin Old English lyft, left ‘weak’ (the left-hand side being regarded as the weaker side of the body), of West Germanic origin.
    http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/left

    Definitions of left
    2 Relating to a person or group favouring radical, reforming, or socialist views:
    Left politics
    left periodicals such as Marxism Today
    2 (often the Left) [treated as singular or plural] A group or party favouring radical, reforming, or socialist views:
    the Left is preparing to fight presidential elections
    he is on the left of the party
    Origin Old English lyft, left ‘weak’ (the left-hand side being regarded as the weaker side of the body), of West Germanic origin.
    http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/left

    Full Definition of LEFT
    1a : of, relating to, situated on, or being the side of the body in which the heart is mostly located
    b : done with the left hand a left hook to the jaw
    c : located nearer to the left hand than to the right
    d (1) : located on the left of an observer facing in the same direction as the object specified (2) : located on the left when facing downstream the left bank of a river
    2 often capitalized : of, adhering to, or constituted by the left especially in politics
    Origin of LEFT
    Middle English, from Old English, weak; akin to Middle Low German lucht left; from the left hand’s being the weaker in most individuals
    First Known Use: 13th century
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/left

  132. Torcer says:

    ¡CONTROLAN EL VOTO CON EL HAMBRE! La dictadura ofrece bolsas de los CLAP a cambio de que no validen partidoshttps://t.co/qfMynJYrsk pic.twitter.com/sJb6DzDy4w— Michael Welling (@WellingMichael) March 10, 2017

  133. Torcer says:

    The Bigger the Government…
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qr638pCfPxs
    PragerU
    Published on Mar 3, 2014
    In every society throughout human history the following relationship has held true: as government grows, human freedom and happiness shrinks. Best selling author, Dennis Prager puts it this way: “The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.” This has been true in Europe for decades and is becoming ever more so in the United States. But it’s not the kind of nation, the Founding Fathers had in mind. Can we get back to the principles of liberty and individual responsibility? It’s a big challenge. But first we have to recognize the problem.

    You can support PragerU by clicking https://www.classy.org/checkout/donation?

  134. Torcer says:

    “How do you tell a communist? Well, it’s someone who reads Marx and Lenin.
    And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It’s someone who understands Marx and Lenin.”
    Ronald Reagan

  135. Torcer says:

    How to Talk About the Opposition

    When you can help it, don’t say conservative. As the polls above demonstrate, conservative is no insult. The word and the concept are both quite popular. This is because, while conservative policies are awful, Americans overwhelmingly support stereotyped conservative principles—small government, low taxes, free markets, strong defense, traditional families. It is very clever framing. Who favors a bigger government than we need? Who wants to pay more taxes? Who can oppose freedom, an effective military, or families?
    Don’t say . . .Conservative plan
    Say . . . Right wing

    Don’t say . . .Conservative solution
    Say . . . Risky scheme

    Don’t say . . . Fiscal conservative
    Say . . . Extreme, outside the mainstream
    Fiscal responsibility

    Why . . .
    Why . . .

    When it fits, you can use the term right wing. Voters are somewhat unfavorable toward a right wing candidate (although they are much more unfavorable toward a left-wing candidate). You can also call conservatives extreme. The current crop of conservatives at the federal, state and local levels are far outside of the American mainstream. They are extreme compared to Ronald Reagan!

    Risky is another good word to use, because it highlights what America stands to lose by adopting any particular conservative measure. Finally, when you’re arguing against a conservative proposal, never call it a solution. It will never solve a societal problem.

    What about the Tea Party? Let’s first understand the polling. There are two kinds of questions asked about political organizations: do you favor or oppose the group, and do you consider yourself a supporter or member.

    Only 30 percent are favorable toward the Tea Party and about half are unfavorable. That has not changed much since 2011. Labeling someone as a Tea Party candidate is a negative, but not a terribly strong one. When asked “do you consider yourself a supporter of the Tea Party movement,” only about 20 percent say they are and by this measurement the Tea Party has declined by one-third over the past three years. The group does not represent a big percentage of all voters, but it remains a large and influential part of the Republican Party.

    Don’t say . . .
    Confederate

    Fascist, Nazi

    Say . . .
    Partisan, political and divisive

    Polarizing

    Playing partisan politics

    Putting politics above what’s best for America

    Why . . .

    We cannot call Tea Partiers Confederates or fascists, or compare their actions to the Civil War or World War II. Persuadable voters don’t understand the comparison, it seems dated, and it alienates some of our friends.

    Americans are increasingly aware that the Tea Party is far outside of the mainstream, and that its members are divisive, extremely partisan, and playing politics.
    http://www.progressivemajorityaction.org/how_to_talk_about_the_opposition

  136. Torcer says:

    Obama, Hitler, and Trump http://theresurgent.com/obama-hitler-and-trump/ via @ewerickson

    Obama, Hitler, and Trump
    It was a historic moment. He swept into office on promises of hope and change. He intended to overcome years of conservative governance and, in its place, promised a progressive paradise.

    The platform adopted at the party convention called for universal healthcare, increased taxes on the rich to pay for social welfare programs, equal rights for all, and more government oversight of corporations he and his party thought had gained too much control.

    Once in office, an administration aide advocated “annual ethical-impact reports” from corporations. Another advocated better diets for the citizens. “Nutrition is not a private matter!” read one government publication.
    [..]
    As part of their much debated universal healthcare plan, they intended that individuals should take control of their health through better nutrition and occasional monitoring to make sure the citizens were educated on proper diets. Doing that would save money on healthcare in the long run.

    The government also wanted to make college more affordable. In the party platform adopted at their convention — the convention where they redacted God from the platform and ran promotions that the state is the only thing we all belong to — they declared that “the state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program, to enable every capable and industrious [person] to obtain higher education.”

    Yes, once in office, Hitler’s first order of business was an economic stimulus plan to spur on the Germany economy, and he moved quickly to adopt a universal, government-funded healthcare plan. His major ministers advocated organic farming and a reduction in chemical pesticides. They blamed major corporations for a decline in quality food. They wanted to raise taxes on the wealthy to fund greater social welfare programs for the poor and needy. They wanted to provide more affordable, if not free, access to college education.

    Just like Barack Obama.
    http://theresurgent.com/obama-hitler-and-trump/

  137. Torcer says:

    “Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried.” Winston Churchill

    “Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried.” Winston Churchill

  138. Torcer says:

    Definition of reform
    reform
    verb
    [WITH OBJECT]
    1Make changes in (something, especially an institution or practice) in order to improve it.
    ‘the Bill will reform the tax system’
    noun
    mass noun

    The action or process of reforming an institution or practice.
    ‘the reform of the divorce laws’
    count noun ‘economic reforms’
    Origin
    Middle English (as a verb in the senses ‘restore (peace)’ and ‘bring back to the original condition’): from Old French reformer or Latin reformare, from re- ‘back’ + formare ‘to form, shape’. The noun dates from the mid 17th century.
    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/reform

    …………………

    Definition of reform
    reform
    verb
    [WITH OBJECT]

    1Make changes in (something, especially an institution or practice) in order to improve it.
    ‘the Bill will reform the tax system’

    1.1 Cause (someone) to relinquish an immoral, criminal, or self-destructive lifestyle.
    ‘the state has a duty to reform criminals’
    ‘I’m considered a reformed character these days’

    1.2no object Relinquish an immoral, criminal, or self-destructive lifestyle.
    ‘it was only when his drunken behaviour led to blows that he started to reform’

    2Chemistry
    Subject (hydrocarbons) to a catalytic process in which straight-chain molecules are converted to branched forms for use as petrol.

    noun
    mass noun

    The action or process of reforming an institution or practice.
    ‘the reform of the divorce laws’
    count noun ‘economic reforms’

    Origin

    Middle English (as a verb in the senses ‘restore (peace)’ and ‘bring back to the original condition’): from Old French reformer or Latin reformare, from re- ‘back’ + formare ‘to form, shape’. The noun dates from the mid 17th century.
    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/reform

    …………………….

    Definition of reform
    reform
    verb
    [WITH OBJECT]
    1Make changes in (something, especially an institution or practice) in order to improve it.
    ‘the Bill will reform the tax system’
    noun
    mass noun
    The action or process of reforming an institution or practice.
    ‘the reform of the divorce laws’
    count noun ‘economic reforms’
    Origin
    Middle English (as a verb in the senses ‘restore (peace)’ and ‘bring back to the original condition’): from Old French reformer or Latin reformare, from re- ‘back’ + formare ‘to form, shape’. The noun dates from the mid 17th century.
    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/reform

  139. Torcer says:

    Definition of social
    adjective

    1attributive Relating to society or its organization.
    ‘alcoholism is recognized as a major social problem’
    ‘the social structure of Europe had become more fluid’

    1.1 Relating to rank and status in society.
    ‘a recent analysis of social class in Britain’
    ‘her mother is a lady of the highest social standing’

    2Needing companionship and therefore best suited to living in communities.
    ‘we are social beings as well as individuals’

    2.1 Relating to or designed for activities in which people meet each other for pleasure.
    ‘Guy led a full social life’
    ‘staff facilities included a social club and leisure complex’

    3Zoology
    (of a bird) gregarious; breeding or nesting in colonies.

    3.1 (of an insect) living together in organized communities, typically with different castes, as ants, bees, wasps, and termites do.

    3.2 (of a mammal) living together in groups, typically in a hierarchical system with complex communication.

    noun

    1An informal social gathering, especially one organized by the members of a particular club or group.
    ‘a church social’

    2the socialBritish informal
    ‘not everyone’s on the social and taking drugs’
    short for social security

    Origin
    Late Middle English: from Old French, or from Latin socialis ‘allied’, from socius ‘friend’.
    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/social

  140. Torcer says:

    Ben Shapiro Dismantles Socialism
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSbRo99MiEM

    Zane
    “Socialism is a shitty idea in theory and an immoral idea in practice.”

  141. Torcer says:

    1 Anarcho-syndicalism
    2 Bolshevism
    3 Castroism
    4 Centralism
    5 Communism
    6 common ownership
    7 collectivism
    8 cooperative society
    9 collective ownership
    10 communalism
    11Diggers
    12 Fabianism
    13 Fascism
    14 Guild socialism
    15 heteronomy
    16 kolkhoz
    17 Leftist
    18 Leninism
    19 Liberalism
    20 Managed economy
    23 Maoism
    24 Marxism
    25 Marxist-Leninism,
    26 National Socialism
    27 Neofascism
    28 Ochlocracy
    29 Phalansterism
    30 Progressivism
    31 Project X
    32 Public ownership
    33 Rule of the proletariat
    34 Social justice
    35 Stalinism
    36 Statism
    37 State ownership
    38 Syndicalism
    39 Totalitarianism
    40 Trotskyism
    41 Utopian Socialism

  142. Torcer says:

    MSNBC’s Ed Schultz Talks Gun ‘Confiscation http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/dan-gainor/2012/12/16/msnbc-s-ed-schultz-talks-gun-confiscation

    MSNBC’s Ed Schultz Talks Gun ‘Confiscation’
    December 16, 2012
    Liberals always say they don’t want to take away guns. But give them an awful tragedy like the Newtown, Conn. shooting and they get bolder and more honest. MSNBC host Ed Schultz showed a rare bout of such honesty during a brief Twitter exchange Saturday. Schultz asked “Why should anyone own an assault rifle ?” and followed it up by saying “it’s the confiscation of these types of weapons that counts and will have an impact.”

    “The Ed Show” host wasn’t done his attack on gun rights. “The NRA needs to state the case why assault weapons are needed by anyone,” he claimed. And after that, he told one poster that “a Glock pistol qualifies as an assault weapon.” That last bit is surely a surprise to both gun owners and Congress which didn’t include handguns in its previous assault weapons ban.
    http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/dan-gainor/2012/12/16/msnbc-s-ed-schultz-talks-gun-confiscation

  143. Torcer says:

    What is Socialism (Really) About? A Former Czech Answers.
    http://politichicks.com/2015/10/what-is-socialism-really-about/

    What is Socialism (Really) About? A Former Czech Answers.
    What is Socialism? Most of those who grew up in the capitalist West and do not entirely dislike the idea would answer, social equality, of course, what else? Some of the more radical ones would say “spreading wealth” or equality…

    Although it dates back as far as Plato, modern socialism took root with the French revolution: Equality, Liberty, Fraternity. Ah, those French, they have always had a penchant for pretty sounds and idealism. They gave us the Statue and with it came, well, a Trojan present, it seems, for the world is swarming with poor, huddled masses today. They have all heard of our Freedom, but what is it? Certainly not giving everybody what they want and letting them do as they please.

    Yes, as someone who grew up in socialism, I can tell you what it is, what it results in – socialism, the very opposite of democracy. Let me tell you why.

    Socialism consists of:

    1) censorship, total control of speech, political correctness regulated by the government,
    2) central planning, by design from above, based not on the needs of the people but on what the demagogue in power says that (his) people need,
    3) limited freedom of movement,
    4) limited ability to achieve and prosper (speak of Pursuit of Happiness, ha!), and
    5) regulated market, thus limited economy and ability of the state (GDP, prosperity) to grow.

    If you are able, capable, want to compete and conquer; if you are creative and want to exercise your freedom; if you are an intelligent, intellectual person who wants to think for himself or herself – socialism is not for you.

    Elections? There is one party and one Rule in socialism. Elections exist, to be sure, but they consist of coming to the ballot box to openly show support to the One. If you do not, he will crush you. You may “disappear” overnight without anyone ever hearing from you again. You think that Secret Police cannot enter your house without your permission? You think that you have to have right to an attorney? You think they cannot arrest you for looking dirty at a cop? Think again. Socialism is a police state. You have no idea what it means? 1984, much too real for me to ever read again…
    About the Author
    Sarah P. Condor-Fisher, Ph.D., Esq., LL.M. grew up in communist Czechoslovakia. When she was 17, she was apprehended crossing the border, cross-interrogated by the Secret Police (KGB) and jailed.

    http://politichicks.com/2015/10/what-is-socialism-really-about/

  144. Torcer says:

    “Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all.” – Frederic Bastiat

  145. Torcer says:

    How Big Should Government Be? Left vs. Right #1
    https://youtu.be/sxe5GcMH5yA
    Presented by Dennis Prager
    Transcript excerpt
    One of the most important differences between the Left and the Right is how each regards the role and the size of the government.

    The Left believes that the state should be the most powerful force in society. Among many other things, the government should be in control of educating every child; should provide all health care; and should regulate often to the minutest detail how businesses conduct their business — in Germany, for instance, the government legislates the time of day stores have to close. In short, there should ideally be no power that competes with Government. Not parents, not businesses, not private schools, not religious institutions; not even the individual human conscience.

    Conservatives, on the other hand, believe the government’s role in society should be limited to absolute necessities such as national defense and to being the resource of last resort to help citizens who cannot be helped by family, by community, or by religious and secular charities.

    Conservatives understand that as governments grow in size and power, the following will inevitably happen:

    1. There will be ever-increasing amounts of corruption. Power and money breed corruption. People in government will sell government influence for personal and political gain.

    2. Individual liberty will decline. With a few exceptions such as an unrestricted right to abortion, individual liberty is less important to the Left than to the Right. This is neither an opinion nor a criticism. It is simple logic. The more control the government has over people’s lives, the less liberty people have.

    3. Countries with ever expanding governments will either reduce the size of their government or eventually collapse economically.

    4. In order to pay for an ever-expanding government, taxes are constantly increased.

    5. Big government produces big deficits and ever increasing — and ultimately unsustainable — debt.

    Unless big governments get smaller, they will all eventually collapse under their own weight — with terrible consequences socially as well as economically.

    6. The bigger the government, the greater the opportunities for doing great evil. The twentieth century was the most murderous century in recorded history. And who did all this killing? Big governments. Evil individuals without power can do only so much harm. But when evil individuals take control of a big government, the amount of harm they can do is essentially unlimited. The Right fears Big Government. The Left fears Big Business. But Coca-Cola can’t break into your house or confiscate your wealth — only Big Government can do that. As irresponsible as any Big Business has ever been, it is only Big Government that can build concentration camps and commit genocide.

    7. Big government eats away at the moral character of a nation.

    Without the belief in an ever-expanding government, there is no left. Without a belief in limited government, there is no right.
    https://www.prageru.com/courses/left-and-right-differences/how-big-should-government-be-left-vs-right-1

  146. Torcer says:

    Constructing the Linear Political Spectrum/Compass Part IV
    “In certain basic respects – a totalitarian state structure, a single party, a leader, a secret police, a hatred of political, cultural and intellectual freedomfascism and communism are clearly more like each other than they are like anything in between.” Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., Associate Professor of History at Harvard
    Some definitions ideological terms are rife with internal contradictions, it is for this reason an extended discussion is necessitated when these are the subject. In the case of the term fascism, some of the internal definitions of the word need to be briefly addressed. For this reason we will use three references to set these terms in its proper place on the ideological scale

    The Oxford English dictionary defines the term fascism:
    “extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practices”

    How does one reconcile the pairing of “extreme right-wing” with “authoritarian”?

    Please note how the Oxford English dictionary defines the term Conservatism [that equates to right wing]:
    (in a political context) favouring free enterprise, private ownership, and socially conservative ideas.

    And how it contradicts with how the Oxford English dictionary defines the term authoritarian
    “Favouring or enforcing strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom”

    The Merriam Webster dictionary doesn’t have this internal contradiction.

    The Merriam Webster dictionary defines the term fascism

    “a political philosophy, movement, or regime…… that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition”

    In addition to these references, the Encyclopedia Britannica defines the term fascism:
    “there is no universally accepted definition of fascism. Nevertheless, it is possible to identify a number of general characteristics that fascist movements between 1922 and 1945 tended to have in common.”

    “some observers have noted significant similarities between fascism and Soviet communism.”

    Note that these two of these references does not mention the severe inconsistency of the term “extreme right-wing” directly paired with the term “authoritarian”. They do not state the tremendous incongruity of limited government conservatism connected with the requirement of an immense government necessitated by authoritarianism. These severe incongruities emphasize the bias in the formulation of some definitions, fortunately there are other references that are not rife with these inconsistencies.

    Referring to the Encyclopedia Britannica on Totalitarianism:
    “government that theoretically permits no individual freedom and that seeks to subordinate all aspects of the individual’s life to the authority of the government.”

    And

    “Benito Mussolini coined the term totalitario in the early 1920s to describe the new fascist state of Italy”

    Clearly fascism is synonymous with totalitarianism and the polar opposite of limited government. Thus we place this political ideology in the numerical range of 100 – 80.

    The question arises as to why this term is not situated on the political spectrum on the ‘Far-Right’. The fundamental answer is that it does not belong there.

    We Refer back to the basic principles that under modern ideological conditions the Right favours diminished governance while the Left favours increased governance. Moving Right signifies less government and this is incompatible with any type of authoritarian ideology. This incongruity arises no matter where one might wish to arbitrarily place this or other ideologies on the scale.

    It should be obvious that an authoritarian ideology would have a high numerical quantification in governmental power. Thus placing it in proximity to the ideologies of an extremely low quantification would result in a severe discontinuity. It should be obvious that certain ideologies require the utilization of immense quantities of governmental power. One cannot control the economy and the people without an attendant bureaucracy of immense proportions. This despite the bait and switch of the sales pitch that these ideologies will result in the state ‘withering away’.

    For example, placing it to the right of anarchy (0) would necessitate the discontinuity of scale trending from zero to the high quantitative value of an authoritarian ideology. This would be the case no matter where an authoritarian ideology was placed in relation to limited government and thus low quantification ideologies.

    Then, as referred to previously, there are ideological terminology’s that are extremely vague and inchoate that merely refer to other terms that are extremely vague and inchoate. And ironically, those terms refer to that actually refers to the verb senses ‘restore (peace)’ and ‘bring back to the original condition’

    The Oxford English dictionary defines the term progressivism:

    “Support for or advocacy of social reform.”

    Similarly the Merriam Webster dictionary defines the term progressive:

    “one believing in moderate political change and especially social improvement by governmental action”

    With equally vague specifications. Thus, one must the quantification’s of allies (or socialis in Latin) of those of the Socialist Left ( 70 – 60) in an attempt to place this political ideology on the scale.

    The term Liberal is similarly all over the map as it were.

    The Oxford English dictionary defines the term liberal:

    “(In a political context) favouring individual liberty, free trade, and moderate political and social reform”

    The Merriam Webster dictionary defines the term liberal

    “ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives.”

    A closer examination of this term reveals that it too is contradictory in nature. And in many ways Liberalism could be placed at two different points on the scale. Quantifying the ideology in terms of the classical sense of the word, one could rightly place in next to Conservatism. But other parts of the definition should place it in left field with the Socialist – Left and Progressives in the numerical range of (70 – 60)

    It is for this reason that we use the term Socialist – Left instead of the that internally contradictory and vague terminology to label the Left.
    https://conservatism20.wordpress.com/2017/03/22/constructing-the-linear-political-spect

Alibi3col theme by Themocracy