About Me

My photo
Lift your lamp beside the golden door, Break not the golden rule, avoid well the golden calf, know; not all that glitters is gold, and laissez faire et laissez passer [let do and let pass] but as a shining sentinel, hesitate not to ring the bell, defend the gates, and man the wall

Tell Me What Democracy Looks Like!

Tell Me What Democracy Looks Like! THIS IS WHAT DEMOCRACY LOOKS LIKE!!!

Cycle of Democracies

overview of what various forms of Govt.

Tuesday, June 15, 2010

Woodrow Wilson

Thomas Woodrow Wilson (D) 1856-1924, 28th President of the USA, and the 1st so called "Intellectual" US President. Wilson was the first president to have a PHD in Political Science [from Johns Hopkins University, the flagship of Progressivism's introduction from Germany]. Wilson won election, because Teddy Roosevelt and William Howard Taft [Teddy's selected heir to Progressivism] divided the Republican party.

In his first term,
Wilson persuaded a Democratic Congress to pass
the Federal Reserve Act,[3]
the Federal Trade Commission,
the Clayton Antitrust Act,
the Federal Farm Loan Act
and America's first-ever federal progressive income tax in the Revenue Act of 1913.

The Wilson Administration Re-Segregated Federal Agencies.


"Socialism and Democracy by Woodrow Wilson" [1887]
"The State by Woodrow Wilson" [1898]
"The New Freedom" [1912]
"History of the American People" [1902]
"Con­sti­tu­tion­al Gov­ern­ment in the Unit­ed States” [1908]

After being elected Democratic Governor of New Jersey in 1911, Wilson became a national figure due to his progressive views on reform. The following year he was elected as the twenty-eighth President of the United States. Over the next few years he concentrated on anti-trust measures and on reorganizing the federal banking system.

On the outbreak of the First World War President Woodrow Wilson declared a policy of strict neutrality. Although the USA had strong ties with Britain, Wilson was concerned about the large number of people in the country who had been born in Germany and Austria. Other influential political leaders argued strongly in favour of the USA maintaining its isolationist policy. This included the pacifist pressure group, the American Union Against Militarism.

Some people argued that the USA should expand the size of its armed forces in case of war. General Leonard Wood, the former US Army Chief of Staff, formed the National Security League in December, 1914. Wood and his organisation called for universal military training and the introduction of conscription as a means of increasing the size of the US Army.

The Anglophile Willies Find Us A War

The Anglophile Wilson administration’s decided lack of genuine neutrality toward the European war had produced a series of crises. By late February 1917, the President asked Congress for power to outfit American merchant ships with arms – a perfect way to insure an incident which would lead to war between the US and Germany. Senator Robert M. LaFollette of Wisconsin, Progressive Republican, led a filibuster – along with the few remaining antiwar Senators – against the bill. It was known during the debate that at least one Senator on the pro-war side had a loaded revolver on him. Tempers were strained, and Senator Lane of Oregon stood near LaFollette with a sharpened rat-tail file in his pocket, in case the latter needed defending from the ardent patriots in the world’s greatest deliberative body.

The bill failed, but Wilson asserted a new-found "presidential power" to arm the ships on his own motion. In April, he asked for, and received, a declaration of war. During the rather tense, even hysterical debate, pro-war speakers began handing out accusations of "treason" to their fellow members of the great deliberative body. LaFollette and a few others voted No. On his way out of the chamber, a "patriot" handed LaFollette a coil of rope, underscoring, one supposes, the refined good manners to which warmongers adhere, especially when they have gotten their way.

LaFollette later commented that "the espionage bills, the conscription bills, and other forcible military measures… being ground out by the war machine in this country" demonstrated the war party’s "fear that it has no popular support." Certainly, the administration acted as if it thought so. A sedition bill so insanely broad that it would have embarrassed the Federalist Party was quickly passed. It was now a federal crime entailing draconian penalties to question the war, its conduct, its costs, or anything. A great steel door shut down on the American mind, such as it was. 




Wilson posited that there was no difference between socialism and Progressivism's vision of "Democracy"; because he rejected the social contract theory, illegitamizing any limitation on government.
Wilson's vision for govt. was one of politicians and administrators, some to express what the people want and some to carry it out.

by Woodrow Wilson

The thesis of the states socialist is, that no line can be drawn between private and public affairs which the State may not cross at will; that omnipotence of legislation is the first postulate of all just political theory.

"Applied in a democratic state, such doctrine sounds radical, but not revolutionary. It is only an acceptance of the extremest logical conclusions deducible from democratic principles long ago received as respectable. For it is very clear that in fundamental theory socialism and democracy are almost if not quite one and the same. They both rest at bottom upon the absolute right of the community to determine its own destiny and that of its members. Men as communities are supreme over men as individuals. Limits of wisdom and convenience to the public control there may be: limits of principle there are, upon strict analysis, none."

Elements of Historical and Practical Politics
by Woodrow Wilson

Modern research into the early history of mankind has made it possible to reconstruct, in outline, much of the thought and practice of primitive society, and has thus revealed facts which render it impossible for us to accept any of these views as adequately explaining what they pretend to explain. The defects of the social compact theory are too plain to need more than brief mention. That theory simply has no historical foundation. Status was the basis of primitive society: the individual counted for nothing; society-the family, the tribe-counted for everything. Government came, so to say, before the individual. There was, consequently, no place for contract, and yet this theory makes contract the first fact of social life. Such a contract as it imagines could not have stood unless supported by that reverence for law which is an altogether modern principle of action. The times in which government originated knew absolutely nothing of law as we conceive law. The only bond was kinship,-the common blood of the community; the only individuality was the individuality of the community as a whole. Man was merged in society. Without kinship there was no duty and no union. It was not by compounding rights, but by assuming kinship, that groups widened into states-not by contract, but by adoption. Not deliberate and reasoned respect for law, but habitual and instinctive respect for authority, held men together; and authority did not rest upon mutual agreement, but upon mutual subordination.

by Woodrow Wilson 
[as described in Ameritopia by Mark R. Levin Chapter 11]

“No doubt a great deal of non­sense has been talked about the in­alien­able rights of the in­di­vid­ual, and a great deal that was mere vague sen­ti­ment and pleas­ing spec­ula­tion has been put for­ward as fun­da­men­tal prin­ci­ple.”

“Wil­son dis­missed not on­ly the Dec­la­ra­tion of In­de­pen­dence and the Founders’ an­nounced pur­pose for Amer­ican in­de­pen­dence, but the Lock­ean ex­po­si­tion on nat­ural law, the na­ture of man, the so­cial com­pact es­tab­lish­ing the civ­il so­ci­ety, and the es­sen­tial in­gre­di­ents of con­sti­tu­tion­al re­pub­li­can­ism… for Wil­son, rights are award­ed or de­nied the in­di­vid­ual as de­ter­mined by the gov­ern­ment.” -Mark R. Levin

“Gov­ern­ment is a part of life, and, with life, it must change, alike in its ob­jects and in its prac­tices; on­ly this prin­ci­ple must re­main un­al­tered,—this prin­ci­ple of lib­er­ty, that there must be the freest right and op­por­tu­ni­ty of ad­just­ment. Po­lit­ical lib­er­ty con­sists in the best prac­ti­ca­ble ad­just­ment be­tween the pow­er of the gov­ern­ment and the priv­ilege of the in­di­vid­ual; and the free­dom to al­ter the ad­just­ment is as im­por­tant as the ad­just­ment it­self for the ease and progress of af­fairs and the con­tent­ment of the cit­izen.”

“It is dif­fi­cult to de­scribe any sin­gle part of a great gov­ern­men­tal sys­tem with­out de­scrib­ing the whole of it. Gov­ern­ments are liv­ing things and op­er­ate as or­gan­ic wholes. More­over, gov­ern­ments have their nat­ural evo­lu­tion and are one thing in one age, an­oth­er in an­oth­er. The mak­ers of the Con­sti­tu­tion con­struct­ed the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment up­on a the­ory of checks and bal­ances which was meant to lim­it the op­er­ation of each part and al­low to no sin­gle part or or­gan of it a dom­inat­ing force; but no gov­ern­ment can be suc­cess­ful­ly con­duct­ed up­on so me­chan­ical a the­ory. Lead­er­ship and con­trol must be lodged some­where; the whole art of states­man­ship is the art of bring­ing the sev­er­al parts of gov­ern­ment in­to ef­fec­tive co­op­er­ation for the ac­com­plish­ment of par­tic­ular com­mon ob­jects, and par­ty ob­jects at that. Our study of each part of our fed­er­al sys­tem, if we are to dis­cov­er our re­al gov­ern­ment as it lives, must be made to dis­close to us its op­er­ative co­or­di­na­tion as a whole: its places of lead­er­ship, its method of ac­tion, how it op­er­ates, what checks it, what gives it en­er­gy and ef­fect. Gov­ern­ments are what politi­cians make them, and it is eas­ier to write of the Pres­ident than of the pres­iden­cy.”

"In the Re­pub­lic, Pla­to wrote that “a just man won’t dif­fer at all from a just city in re­spect to the form of jus­tice; rather he’ll be like the city” (435b). Thus man ought not fear gov­ern­ment but sur­ren­der to it, em­brace it, and be at one with it. The Framers’ ef­forts to re­strict fed­er­al pow­er with checks and bal­ances, etc., would, in Wil­son’s view, de­prive oxy­gen to the body of gov­ern­ment just as as­sured­ly as would re­strict­ing the var­ious or­gans of man.” -Mark R. Levin

“The mak­ers of our fed­er­al Con­sti­tu­tion fol­lowed the scheme as they found it ex­pound­ed in Mon­tesquieu, fol­lowed it with gen­uine sci­en­tif­ic en­thu­si­asm. The ad­mirable ex­po­si­tions of the Fed­er­al­ist read like thought­ful ap­pli­ca­tions of Mon­tesquieu to the po­lit­ical needs and cir­cum­stances of Amer­ica. They are full of the the­ory of checks and bal­ances. The Pres­ident is bal­anced off against Congress, Congress against the Pres­ident, and each against the courts. Our states­men of the ear­li­er gen­er­ations quot­ed no one so of­ten as Mon­tesquieu, and they quot­ed him al­ways as a sci­en­tif­ic stan­dard in the field of pol­itics. Pol­itics is turned in­to me­chan­ics un­der his touch.…”

“Wil­son took di­rect aim at Mon­tesquieu as the source of the Framers’ sin­gle-mind­ed and sup­pos­ed­ly mis­placed re­liance on di­vid­ed gov­ern­ment.” -Mark R. Levin

“The weight­iest im­port of the mat­ter is seen on­ly when it is re­mem­bered that the courts are the in­stru­ments of the na­tion’s growth, and that the way in which they serve that use will have much to do with the in­tegri­ty of ev­ery na­tion­al pro­cess. If they de­ter­mine what pow­ers are to be ex­er­cised un­der the Con­sti­tu­tion, they by the same to­ken de­ter­mine al­so the ad­equa­cy of the Con­sti­tu­tion in re­spect of the needs and in­ter­ests of the na­tion; our con­science in mat­ters of law and our op­por­tu­ni­ty in mat­ters of pol­itics are in their hands.”

“Wil­son ar­gued fur­ther, as he had to, that the fed­er­al courts are not bound to the Con­sti­tu­tion.” -Mark Levin

“the Pres­ident is at lib­er­ty, both in law and con­science, to be as big a man as he can. His ca­pac­ity will set the lim­it; and if Congress be over­borne by him, it will be no fault of the mak­ers of the Con­sti­tu­tion,—it will be from no lack of con­sti­tu­tion­al pow­ers on its part, but on­ly be­cause the Pres­ident has the na­tion be­hind him, and Congress has not.”

“For Wil­son, the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment, and par­tic­ular­ly the pres­ident, takes on the qual­ities of Hobbes’s Sovereign.” -Mark R. Levin
“The trou­ble with the the­ory [of lim­it­ed, di­vided gov­ern­ment] is that gov­ern­ment is not a ma­chine, but a liv­ing thing.… It is mod­ified by its en­vi­ron­ment, ne­ces­si­tat­ed by its tasks, shaped to its func­tions by the sheer pres­sure of life. No liv­ing thing can have its or­gans off­set against each oth­er as checks, and live. On the con­trary, its life is de­pen­dent up­on their quick co­op­er­ation, their ready re­sponse to the com­mands of in­stinct or in­tel­li­gence, their am­ica­ble com­mu­ni­ty of pur­pose. Gov­ern­ment is not a body of blind forces; it is a body of men, with high­ly dif­fer­en­ti­at­ed func­tions, no doubt, in our mod­ern day of spe­cial­iza­tion, but with a com­mon task and pur­pose. Their co­op­er­ation is in­dis­pens­able, their war­fare fa­tal. There can be no suc­cess­ful gov­ern­ment with­out lead­er­ship or with­out the in­ti­mate, al­most in­stinc­tive, co­or­di­na­tion of the or­gans of life and ac­tion. This is not the­ory, but fact, and dis­plays its force as fact, what­ev­er the­ories may be thrown across its track. Liv­ing po­lit­ical con­sti­tu­tions must be Dar­wini­an in struc­ture and in prac­tice.”

“Wil­son’s ref­er­ence to Dar­win­ism high­lights his no­tion of the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment in a con­stant state of mo­tion and evo­lu­tion, where the Con­sti­tu­tion and the gov­ern­ment it es­tab­lish­es are no longer fixed or pre­dictable. The in­di­vid­ual and so­ci­ety gen­er­al­ly are to serve the nu­tri­tion­al de­mands for eter­nal gov­ern­men­tal growth, in the form of pow­er, de­mand­ed by Wil­son’s utopi­an dog­ma.” -Mark R. Levin

It is therefore becoming more and more true, as the business of the government becomes more and more complex and extended, that the President is becoming more and more a political and less and less an executive officer. His executive powers are in commission, while his political powers more and more center and accumulate upon him and are in their very nature personal and inalienable.


"We used to think in the old-fashioned days when life was very simple that all that government had to do was to put on a policeman's uniform, and say, "Now don't anybody hurt anybody else." We used to say that the ideal of government was for every man to be left alone and not interfered with, except when he interfered with somebody else; and that the best government was the government that did as little governing as possible. That was the idea that obtained in Jefferson's time. But we are coming now to realize that life is so complicated that we are not dealing with the old conditions, and that the law has to step in and create new conditions under which we may live, the conditions which will make it tolerable for us to live."

Woodrow Wilson
Essential Writings and Speeches of the Scholar-President

 What, then? Am I a political pessimist? Do I distrust the foundations, question the most essential conceptions, of the government under which we live? Do I suspect the people of blindness and all their leaders of charlatanry, and hold up popular government to be laughed at as a farce? By no means. I simply take the liberty of believing in democratic institutions as I understand them. I believe in them as my governors. I believe in the people: in their honesty and sincerity and sagacity; but I do not believe in them as my governors. I believe in them, rather as the wholesome stuff out of which the fabric of government, wherever and whenever constructed, is woven, in homely, but also in most useful and beneficent wise. Let me give you at once an example that will illuminate my meaning. I believe, as I feel sure you also believe, that the reform of the civil service for which we have so long been struggling, with varying degrees of success, is imperatively necessary, and that it embodies eminently wise principles o government. But it is not democratic in idea: by which I mean that it is not consistent with those modern assumptions touching the nature of democratic government which we have just been discussing. It rejects the average man and the average training: it rejects the idea of constantly renewing the official personnel of the government from out the generally body of the people. It seeks to substitute for the person whom we call "the man of the people," so far as possible, the man of the schools, the trained, instructed, fitted men: the men who will study their duties and master the principles of the business of their Departments. The ordinary politician is right when he says that this is not democratic. It is not democratic in the sense in which we have taught our politicians wrongly to understand democracy. It is nevertheless, eminently democratic, if we understand democracy as history has given it to us."

Page 300 of the Google Book Preview of "Woodrow Wilson: Essential Writings and Speeches of the Scholar-President" cut of the full ending of the quote which I retrieved from the Google Book Preview of "Woodrow Wilson and the Roots of Modern Liberalism" pg72


Socialism and Democracy by Woodrow Wilson [1887]


The State by Woodrow Wilson [1898]

“Con­sti­tu­tion­al Gov­ern­ment in the Unit­ed States” by Woodrow Wilson  [1908]


The New Freedom by Woodrow Wilson [1912]


LewRockwell.com: Remembering With Astonishment Woodrow Wilson’s Reign of Terror in Defense of "Freedom"


Spartacus Educational 


Woodrow Wilson and the Roots of Modern Liberalism by Ronald J. Pestritto

Quotes: Woodrow Wilson vs. Thomas Jefferson

Wikipedia: Woodrow Wilson


Wiki-Source: Woodrow Wilson's Writings


Sunday, June 13, 2010

Karl Marx


(May 5, 1818 – March 14, 1883)

German philosopher, political economist, historian, political theorist, sociologist, and communist revolutionary, whose ideas played a significant role in the development of modern communism and socialism.

Marx summarized his approach in the first line of chapter one of The Communist Manifesto, published in 1848: "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles." Marx argued that capitalism, like previous socioeconomic systems, would inevitably produce internal tensions which would lead to its destruction. Just as capitalism replaced feudalism, he believed socialism would, in its turn, replace capitalism, and lead to a stateless, classless society called pure communism.
This would emerge after a transitional period called the "dictatorship of the proletariat": a period sometimes referred to as the "workers state" or "workers' democracy".

In section one of The Communist Manifesto Marx describes feudalism, capitalism, and the role internal social contradictions play in the historical process:
"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 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 in it, and the economic and political sway of the bourgeois class. A similar movement is going on before our own eyes ... 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 order into the whole of bourgeois society, endanger the existence of bourgeois property."
Marx argued for a systemic understanding of socio-economic change. He argued that the structural contradictions within capitalism necessitate its end, giving way to socialism.
"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, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable."

On the other hand, Marx argued that socio-economic change occurred through organized revolutionary action. He argued that capitalism will end through the organized actions of an international working class:  
"Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality will have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence."
While Marx remained a relatively obscure figure in his own lifetime, his ideas and the ideology of Marxism began to exert a major influence on workers' movements shortly after his death. This influence gained added impetus with the victory of the Bolsheviks in the Russian October Revolution in 1917, and few parts of the world remained significantly untouched by Marxian ideas in the course of the twentieth century. Marx is typically cited, with Émile Durkheim and Max Weber, as one of the three principal architects of modern social science. In 1999, a BBC poll revealed that Marx had been voted the "thinker of the millennium" by people from around the world.



bourgeoisie- [Wikipedia]

In sociology and political science, bourgeoisie (adjective: bourgeois) describes a range of groups across history. In the Western world, between the late 18th century and the present day, the bourgeoisie is a social class characterized by their ownership of capital and their related culture. A member of the bourgeoisie is a bourgeois or capitalist (plural: bourgeois; capitalists). Marxism defines the bourgeoisie as the social class that owns the means of production in a capitalist society. Marxists view the bourgeoisie as emerging from the wealthy urban classes in pre- and early capitalist societies.

Bourgeoisie is a French word that was borrowed directly into English in the specific sense described above. In the French feudal order pre-revolution, "bourgeois" was a class of citizens who were wealthier members of the Third Estate. The French word bourgeois evolved from the Old French word burgeis, meaning "an inhabitant of a town" (cf. Middle English burgeis, Middle Dutch burgher and German Bürger). The Old French word burgeis is derived from bourg, meaning a market town or medieval village, itself derived from Old Frankish burg, meaning "town".[1]

The term bourgeoisie has been widely used as an approximate equivalent of upper class under capitalism. The word also evolved to mean merchants and traders, and until the 19th century was mostly synonymous with the middle class (persons in the broad socioeconomic spectrum between nobility and peasants or proletarians).


Within Marxism and historical materialism

Marxism defines the bourgeoisie as the social class that owns the means of production in a capitalist society. As such, the core of the modern bourgeoisie is industrial bourgeoisie, which obtains income by hiring workers to put in motion their capital, which is to say, their means of production - machines, tools, raw material, etc.

Besides that, other bourgeois sectors also exist, notably the commercial bourgeoisie, which earns income from commercial activities such as the buying and selling of commodities, wares and services.

In medieval times, the bourgeois was typically a self-employed proprietor, small employer, entrepreneur, banker or merchant. In industrial capitalism, on the other hand, the bourgeoisie becomes the ruling class - which means it also owns the bulk of the means of production (land, factories, offices, capital, resources - though in some countries land ownership would still be a monopoly of a different class, landed oligarchy) and controls the means of coercion (national armed forces, police, prison systems, court systems). Ownership of the means of production enables it to employ and exploit the work of a large mass of wage workers (the working class), who have no other means of livelihood than to sell their labour to property owners; while control over the means of coercion allows intervention during challenges from below.[2] Marx distinguished between "functioning capitalists" actually managing enterprises, and others merely earning property rents or interest-income from financial assets or real estate (rentiers).[3]

Marxism sees the proletariat (wage labourers) and bourgeoisie as directly waging an ongoing class struggle, in that capitalists exploit workers and workers try to resist exploitation. This exploitation takes place as follows: the workers, who own no means of production of their own, must seek employment in order to make a living. They get hired by a capitalist and work for him, producing some sort of goods or services. These goods or services then become the property of the capitalist, who sells them and gets a certain amount of money in exchange. Part of this money is used to pay workers' wages, another part is used to pay production costs, and a third part is kept by the capitalist in the form of profit (or surplus value in Marxist terms). Thus the capitalist can earn money by selling the surplus (profit) from the work of his employees without actually doing any work, or in excess of his own work. Marxists argue that new wealth is created through work; therefore, if someone gains wealth that he did not work for, then someone else works and does not receive the full wealth created by his work. In other words, that "someone else" is exploited. In this way, the capitalist might turn a large profit by exploiting workers.
Marx himself primarily used the term "bourgeois", with or without sarcasm, as an objective description of a social class and of a lifestyle based on ownership of private capital, not as a pejorative. He commended the industriousness of the bourgeoisie, but criticised it for its moral hypocrisy. This attitude is shown most clearly in the Communist Manifesto. He also used it to describe the ideology of this class; for example, he called its conception of freedom "bourgeois freedom" and opposed it to what he considered more substantive forms of freedom. He also wrote of bourgeois independence, individuality, property, family, etc.; in each case he referred to conceptions of these ideals which are compatible with condoning the existence of a class society.

Marxist and Anarchist perspectives

In the view of some 20th century Marxist currents, the nomenklatura or lower state bureaucrats in "communist states" were or are a state bourgeoisie presiding over a system of state capitalism. To some schools of anarchists, all prominent members, functionaries and leaders of any kind of state are part of this state bourgeoisie. According to these interpretations, the bourgeoisie is composed of any individuals who have exclusive control over the means of production, regardless of whether this control comes in the form of private ownership or state power.


1.a member of the middle class.
2.a person whose political, economic, and social opinions are believed to be determined mainly by concern for property values and conventional respectability.
3.a shopkeeper or merchant.
4.belonging to, characteristic of, or consisting of the middle class.
5.conventional; middle-class.
6.dominated or characterized by materialistic pursuits or concerns.

World English Dictionary
bourgeois 1  (ˈbʊəʒwɑː, bʊəˈʒwɑː)
1.     a member of the middle class, esp one regarded as being conservative and materialistic or (in Marxist thought) a capitalist exploiting the working class
2.     a mediocre, unimaginative, or materialistic person
— adj
3.     characteristic of, relating to, or comprising the middle class
4.     conservative or materialistic in outlook: a bourgeois mentality
5.     (in Marxist thought) dominated by capitalists or capitalist interests
[C16: from Old French borjois , burgeis  burgher, citizen, from bourg  town; see burgess ] 


Glenn Beck With a Little on Karl Marx
"How many have to die to remember who keeps killing the Jews? In 1844 Karl Marx ‘Self hating Jew’, said quote “what is the secular basis for Judaism? Practical needs self interest. What is the worldly religion? Huckstering. What is the worldly God? Money. Very well then! Emancipation from huckstering and money, consequently from practical, real Judaism, would be the self-emancipation of our time.” Now some of Marx’s followers believed that if you could convince the public to hate the Jewish capitalist you could eventually get them to hate non-Jewish capitalists as well. Judaism and Capitalism. Hate the Jew first. They go hand in hand. Socialism breeds intolerance while Capitalism encourages diversity and competition."


In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly -- only then then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!
I have dealt more at length with the "undiminished" proceeds of labor, on the one hand, and with "equal right" and "fair distribution", on the other, in order to show what a crime it is to attempt, on the one hand, to force on our Party again, as dogmas, ideas which in a certain period had some meaning but have now become obsolete verbal rubbish, while again perverting, on the other, the realistic outlook, which it cost so much effort to instill into the Party but which has now taken root in it, by means of ideological nonsense about right and other trash so common among the democrats and French socialists.

"From 'Each according to his ability' To 'Each according to his need'"

- - -

"Racial Trash" or "Völkerabfälle", in relation to a number of small European nations. Although sometimes translated as "racial trash", a more precise translation is "residual nations" or "refuse of nations", that is, those left behind (discarded) by the dominant civilizations.

- - -

Now I share neither in the opinions of Ricardo, who regards ‘Net-Revenue’ as the Moloch to whom entire populations must be sacrificed, without even so much as complaint, nor in the opinion of Sismondi, who, in his hypochondriacal philanthropy, would forcibly retain the superannuated methods of agriculture and proscribe science from industry, as Plato expelled poets from his Republic. Society is undergoing a silent revolution, which must be submitted to, and which takes no more notice of the human existences it breaks down than an earthquake regards the houses it subverts. The classes and the races, too weak to master the new conditions of life, must give way. But can there be anything more puerile, more short-sighted, than the views of those Economists who believe in all earnest that this woeful transitory state means nothing but adapting society to the acquisitive propensities of capitalists, both landlords and money-lords? In Great Britain the working of that process is most transparent. The application of modern science to production clears the land of its inhabitants, but it concentrates people in manufacturing towns.
"The classes and the races, too weak to master the new conditions of life must give way." -People Paper April 16 1863

- - - 

"We discovered that in connection with these figures the German national simpletons and money-grubbers of the Frankfurt parliamentary swamp always counted as Germans the Polish Jews as well, although this dirtiest of all races, neither by its jargon nor by its descent, but at most only through its lust for profit, could have any relation of kinship with Frankfurt". -Friedrich Engels, NRZ 29. Apr. 1849

- - -

- - -
The history of a thousand years ought to have shown them that such a retrogression was impossible; that if all the territory east of the Elbe and Saale had at one time been occupied by kindred Slavonians, this fact merely proved the historical tendency, and at the same time physical and intellectual power of the German nation to subdue, absorb, and assimilate its ancient eastern neighbors; that this tendency of absorption on the part of the Germans had always been, and still was one of the mightiest means by which the civilization of Western Europe had been spread in the east of that continent; that it could only cease whenever the process of Germanization had reached the frontier of large, compact, unbroken nations, capable of an independent national life, such as the Hungarians, and in some degree the Poles: and that, therefore, the natural and inevitable fate of these dying nations was to allow this process of dissolution and absorption by their stronger neighbors to complete itself.
- - -
“But soon order came out of this chaos. The combatants divided into two large camps: the Germans, Poles and Magyars took the side of revolution; the remainder, all the Slavs, except for the Poles, the Rumanians and Transylvanian Saxons, took the side of counter-revolution.
How did this division of the nations come about, what was its basis?
The division is in accordance with all the previous history of the nationalities in question. It is the beginning of the decision on the life or death of all these nations, large and small.
All the earlier history of Austria up to the present day is proof of this and 1848 confirmed it. Among all the large and small nations of Austria, only three standard-bearers of progress took an active part in history, and still retain their vitality — the Germans, the Poles and the Magyars. Hence they are now revolutionary.
All the other large and small nationalities and peoples are destined to perish before long in the revolutionary world storm. For that reason they are now counter-revolutionary.
"The chief mission of all other races and peoples, large and small, is to perish in the revolutionary holocaust." -Journal of the History of I dew Vol 42, no 1 March p115
- - -

“In parting we should like to remind our readers of the words printed in the first issue we published in January:
“The table of contents for 1849 reads: Revolutionary rising of the French working class, world war.”
And in the East, a revolutionary army made up of fighters of all nationalities already confronts the alliance of the old Europe represented by the Russian army, while from Paris comes the threat of a “red republic”."
- - -

"Let us consider the actual, worldly Jew -- not the Sabbath Jew, as Bauer does, but the everyday Jew. Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion, but let us look for the secret of his religion in the real Jew. What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money. Very well then! Emancipation from huckstering and money, consequently from practical, real Jewry, would be the self-emancipation of our time.... We recognize in Jewry, therefore, a general present-time-oriented anti-social element, an element which through historical development -- to which in this harmful respect the Jews have zealously contributed -- has been brought to its present high level, at which it must necessarily dissolve itself. In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Jewry". -Karl Marx, Zur Judenfrage , 1844

- - -




Saturday, June 12, 2010

Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.

Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. (1841 – 1935)


In a series of opinions during and after the First World War, he held that the freedom of expression guaranteed by federal and state constitutions simply declared a common-law privilege to do harm, except in cases where the expression, in the circumstances in which it was uttered, posed a "clear and present danger" of causing some harm that the legislature had properly forbidden. In Schenck v. United States, Holmes announced this doctrine for a unanimous Court, famously declaring that the First Amendment would not protect a person "falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic."