THE GREAT DECEIT
SOCIAL PSEUDO-SCIENCES
A Veritas Foundation Staff Study
V
SOCIAL PSEUDO-SCIENCES
A Veritas Foundation Staff Study
V
MARXISTS TWIST HISTORY
When Charles Beard and his cohorts sold the idea to the American educational system that history is economically determined
they pretended that this was a new American concept. Several
generations of Americans have been taught this false historical principle without knowing that they were being inoculated with Karl
Marx's old formula of historical materialism, or what is sometimes
called the economic interpretation of history. The only thing unique
about Charles Beard and his corps of undercover socialists was the
smooth technique with which this whole process was put over on the
American public. Millions of Americans, including teachers and
academicians, did not suspect that this was a device to brainwash an
entire nation and change the whole concept of national destiny.
In order to unravel the wordy superstructure which Marx
foisted upon the world under the label of dialectical materialism
and historical materialism, we must look into the motives behind
Marx's theories. We must also remember the period in world history
when his ideas were germinated.
Most observers, both leftist and conservative, who deal with the
Marxist question, seem to forget that Karl Marx hatched his
theorems in the middle of the 19th century, when the forces of private enterprise and individual initiative were still in their infancy,
and had only recently emerged from the restrictions of feudalism.
Karl Marx lived, wrote and died when daily life was characterized by
horse-drawn transportation, primitive sanitation, backward farming,
and almost no medicine in the modern sense. It was under these
relatively backward conditions that Marx made the charge that
capitalism had already outgrown its usefulness and was ripe for
revolutionary overthrow.
Chroniclers of Marxism generally fail to note that Karl Marx
did not arrive at his so-called "scientific socialism" by "scientific"
investigation and testing. Marx embraced socialism as a teen age youth, as an emotional belief and then spent the rest of his life in constructing theoretical justifications for his creed, - just the reverse of the "scientific" methods that Karl Marx and his followers profess.
Bigotry inspired Marx
Marx's original historical theory was actually an anti-Jewish interpretation of history. He later refined it into the formula called "an economic interpretation of history."
In 1844, having elected to become a professional revolutionary, Marx presented socialism as a revolution against the system of private enterprise which he characterized as a "Judaized" economy. He labelled the noble principles of individual dignity and personal freedom as "Judaistic" characteristics taken over by Christian society. He declared:
"The Jew has emancipated himself in Jewish fashion, not only by taking to himself financial power, but by virtue of the fact that with and without his cooperation money has become a world power, and the practical Jewish spirit has become the practical spirit of Christian nations. The Jews have emancipated themselves insofar as Christian have become Jews."1
"The Jew who exists as a peculiar member of bourgeois society, is only the particular expression of the Judaism of bourgeois society.
"Judaism has survived not in spite of, but by virtue of history."Out of its own entrails, bourgeois society continually creates
Jews." 2
Having branded the private enterprise system as a "bourgeois"
order he declared:
"Because the real essence of the Jew has been generally
realized and secularized in bourgeois society, the latter could
not convince the Jew of the unreality of his religious essence,
which is merely the ideal reflexion of his practical needs." 3
According to Marx the United States was the classical example
of a society that has become "Judaized" through private enterprise.
He declared:
"The practical domination of Judaism over the Christian
world has reached such a point in North America that the
preaching of the Gospel itself, the Christian ministry, has become an article of commerce, and the bankrupt merchant takes
to the Gospel, while the minister grown rich goes into business." 4
Marx called for the simultaneous elimination of individualism
and the Jew:
"As soon as society succeeds in abolishing the empirical essence
of Judaism, the huckster, and the conditions which produce
him, the Jew will become impossible, because his consciousness
will no longer have a corresponding object, because the subjective basis of Judaism, viz: practical needs, will have been
humanized, because the conflict of the individual sensual existence, with the generic existence of the individual will have
been abolished."5
Marx's point of view is made clear in the final sentence of this
infamous essay when he concludes that:
"The social emancipation of the Jew is the emancipation of
society from Judaism."6
His use of the scapegoat device,-reviving the old prejudices of
the Dark Ages in order to animate his dull socialistic propaganda was the original matrix. of Marxism.
Man debased to clay
At the same time that Marx announced his fight against "the
capitalistic system" as a "Judaistic" emanation he began to fashion
what has come to be known as "historical materialism" or the
"economic interpretation of history". In 1845 Marx stated:
"The phantoms formed in the human brain are also, necessarily, sublimates of their material life-process, which is empirically verifiable and bound to material premises. Morality,
religion, metaphysics, all the rest of ideology and their corresponding forms of consciousness, thus no longer retain the
semblance of independence. They have no history, no development; but men, developing their material production and their
material intercourse, alter, along with this their real existence,
their thinking and the products of their thinking. Life is not
determined by consciousness, ·but consciousness by life."7
By declaring that the entire thinking structure of society
has "no history, no development" Marx at one stroke tried to deprive the finest concepts of human civilization of all "semblance
of independence". He degraded them to mere material conditions
of existence and made the human mind dependent upon production
in the same way that the existence of a hog is determined by the
swill dumped into the pig-pen. He drew the conclusion:
"As individuals express their life, so they are. What they are,
therefore, coincides with their production, both with what
they produce and with how they produce. The nature of individuals thus depends on the material conditions determining
their production."8
Most commentators on Marx's materialist conception of history
err by treating seriously his sleight-of-hand trick of semantics, designed to rationalize his attempt to bring all mankind down to his
miserable level. He tried to put a straight-jacket on the creative
spirit innate in the human race, and laid the basis for the senseless
starvation and slaughter of millions of people in the Soviet Union
and other socialist countries, who pursuant to the Marxist dogma
were considered mere bits of material reflecting their productive
environment.
Adoption by Marx of the theory of historical materialism did
not mean abandonment of his concept of capitalism as an outgrowth
of Judaism. He wrote (with Engels):
"It has been proved that the task of abolishing Jewry is
really the task of abolishing the Jewish spirit of bourgeois
society, the inhumanity of modern living practice, the culminating point of which is the money system."9
To prove that the Judaistic interpretation of capitalism was
not merely a pre-scientific phase of Marx, we have the testimony
of Lenin, the :first communist dictator of Russia, who wrote that
Marx's essay On the Jewish Question and his book The Holy Family
showed that Marx had already made the transition from idealism to
communism and that with the publication of these works "this
transition was definitely consummated."10
These works by Marx, after being suppressed and hidden by
socialist leaders for many years, have been published in many
editions in Soviet Russia as a guide to the communist leadership.
The principle of the persecutions of the Jews as a capitalistic element
is not so recent as one is led to believe by current reports.11
Conclusion preceded analysis
A concomitant of Marx's materialist conception of history is
his theory of the class struggle. Socialists and communists regard
the class struggle as the natural consequence of the materialist
conception of history. In other words, the actions of men are a
reflex of their economic conditions. Therefore, those who own and
control the means of production, exchange and distribution are members of the capitalistic class (bourgeois). Those who do not own
those means but work for the owners and controllers of the economic
instruments are members of the working class (proletariat). The
capitalists, being mere reflectors of their economic interests, are the exploiting class, that is, the enemy class. The workers, being
reflectors of exploitation, are the revolutionary class, that is, the
anti-capitalist class that will some day take the power away from
the capitalists and institute a cooperative socialist society instead,
thereby reducing mankind to a classless society.
Karl Marx, who posited the class theory, curiously arrived at
the class struggle premise at exactly the same time that he wrote
his views on the Jewish question. 12
Like most of the so-called fundamental principles of Marxism,
the concept of the class struggle came first and the so-called method
of analysis called dialectical materialism and historical materialism
came later. The so-called fundamentals were not the bases of a
logical conclusion but ideological excuses invented to justify Karl
Marx's original socialist bias. This, incidentally, has been the usual
process in the socialist movement throughout its history. The conclusions came first and the reasons for the conclusions were manufactured as an afterthought. "Scientific socialism" in its own
development followed a path that is the exact opposite of the
methods of science.
Hitler borrowed "one enemy" from Marx
Curiously, Karl Marx and not Adolph Hitler was the evil genius
who created the concept of the "one enemy". This is a propaganda
device whereby all the evils besetting mankind, whether justified
or not, can be heaped on one scapegoat. Marx preceded Hitler by
some 90 years in projecting the "one enemy" technique, accompanied by its corollary, that is, another class exemplifying everything
that is fine and noble and progressive.
In February, 1844, Marx wrote:
"A particular social sphere must be identical with the notorious crime of society as a whole, in such wise that the emancipation of this sphere would appear to be the general self emancipation." 13
After setting up one class as the sole representative of every thing bad Marx then proceeded to construct the proletariat, or
working class, as the sole repository of all that is good. He declared:
"In order that one class should be the class of emancipation
par excellence, another class must contrariwise be the class of
manifest subjugation."14
In a peculiarly Hitlerian vein, Marx outlined the strategic need
for " . . . the concentration of all the defects of society in another
class, and this particular class must be the embodiment of the
general social obstacles and impediments."15
Eighty years later, Adolph Hitler wrote: "... I, myself, began to
trace the sources of the Marxist doctrine."16
Hitler further declared:
"As a whole, and at all times, the efficiency of the truly
national leader consists primarily in preventing the division
of the attention of a people, and always in concentrating it on a
single enemy. The more uniformly the fighting will of a people
is put into action, the greater will be the magnetic force of
the movement and the more powerful the impetus of the blow.
It is part of the genius of a great leader to make adversaries of
different fields appear as always belonging to one category only,
because to weak and unstable characters the knowledge that
there are various enemies will lead only too easily to incipient
doubts as to their own cause.
As soon as the wavering masses find themselves confronting
too many enemies, objectivity at once steps in, and the question
is raised whether actually all the others are wrong and their
own nation or their own movement alone is right.
Also with this comes the first paralysis of their own strength.
Therefore, a number of essentially different internal enemies
must always be regarded as one in such a way that in the
opinion of the mass of one's own adherents the war is being
waged against one enemy alone. This strengthens the belief in
one's .own cause and increases one's bitterness against the
attacker. "17
Hitler, cleverly utilizing the accumulated backlog of Marxist
class propaganda in Germany, merely had to switch symbols and
cash in. Marx's concept of capitalists as Jews plus Christians who
have adopted the Jewish principle is but one short step away from
Hitler's charge that the Jews and their agents were responsible for
all the difficulties of the German nation. In each case all the evils
of society are heaped, deliberately, upon "one enemy". On the
obverse side Marx ascribed to one class, the workers, the progressive
spirit and all the virtues. Hitler identified the mass of the German
people with this same symbol, painting them as the Master Race
and the standard bearers of all that is good and progressive. Hitler's
Mein Kampf is replete with denunciations of the bourgeoisie and
fulsome praise of the proletariat.
Fake "science" killed millions
In the name of such "science" and "progress" entire nations
have been plunged into complete ruin, and tens of millions of people
have perished miserably.
It is interesting to note that the word appear occurs in the
quotations from both Marx and Hitler describing the technique of
heaping of evil upon "one enemy". Both thus' admitted they were
guilty of fraudulent pretenses.
All these theories Karl Marx lumped together under the attractive title of "scientific socialism".
One outstanding authority observed:
"Just as he (Marx---ed.) laid down the theory of economic
inevitability knowing nothing of economics, so he made up his
mind on the proletarian formula knowing nothing of the proletariat. Only later did he try to make up for this lack of
knowledge. In the meantime he committed himself to the
proletarian formula. And to this he added the formula of
science."
⚖ ⚖ ⚖
"Ah, science! Science had always been a favorite with all the
socialists. To her they had attributed limitless power. They
had all thought of their various philosophies as science. They
had all of them believed it possible to find, by the methods of
science and philosophy-by the right methods, naturally-the
road to salvation which humanity must travel. Saint-Simon had called his system 'the science of universal gravitation';
Fourier had called his 'the certain science.' 'It is the task of the
human race to build the temple of science,' said Proudhon, and
he had found a name for his doctrine which soon aroused envy:
'scientific socialism.' "18
Marx had studied the socialism of Saint-Simon and Fourier
and had collaborated briefly with Proudhon. He appropriated without acknowledgment Proudhon's term "scientific socialism".
The term "science" had become a popular symbol among the
literate population of the time and was the obvious catchword to
make socialist ideas attractive.
Marx the phrenologist
What Karl Marx considered "scientific" has been carefully
concealed by both socialist and communist sources. His "science"
included some of the grossest superstitions. He insisted on subjecting all newcomers to his socialist clique to a phrenological examination of the bumps on their heads and the shapes of their skulls
in order to determine whether they should be accepted or not.
Harold J. Laski, a leading Marxist and Fabian socialist luminary,
has written:
"A chosen band of helpers, all fellow-exiles used to accompany
him and aid in the researches he conducted; though it should
perhaps be added that they were not admitted as assistants
until they had shown their agreement with Marx. and passed
certain craniological tests."19
Laski further indicated that Karl Marx had inherited this
superstition from the so-called Utopian socialists Saint Simon and
Fourier.
Wilhelm Liebknecht, a member of Marx's political clique, wrote
in his memoirs:
"
'Pere Marx', whom I saw for the first time, began at once to
subject me to a rigid examination, look straight into my eyes,
and inspected my head rather minutely-an operation to which I was accustomed through my friend Gustav Struve, who, obstinately doubting my 'moral hold' had made me the specially
favored victim of his phrenological studies. However, I safely
passed the examination, ... "20
Karl Marx was firmly convinced that an understanding of the
cranial protuberances and depressions was a positive "scientific"
method with which to judge whether a person was suited for leadership in the socialist movement.
Liebknecht wrote further:
"Marx endeavored to make sure of his men and to secure them
for himself."
☠☭☠
"I have already mentioned it--he not only examined me with
questions, but also with his fingers, making them dance over
my skull in a connoisseur's style. Later on he arranged for a
regular investigation by the phrenologist of the party, the good
old painter, Karl Pfaender, one of the 'oldest', who helped to
found the Communist Alliance, and was present in that memorable council to whom the Communist Manifesto was submitted,
and by whom it was discussed and accepted in due form."
☭☠☭
"Well, my skull was officially inspected by Karl Pfaender and
nothing was found that would have prevented my admission
into the Holiest of Holies of the Communist Alliance."21
A master propagandist
Obviously Marx was neither a "scientist" nor "scientific". However, he was a master improviser of propagandistic theory and he
took those features of scientific language which were becoming popular and clothed his socialist movement in them.
Writers on the subject of Marxism and Karl Marx are legion.
However, very few of them have presented a realistic picture of the
origins of Marxism and the true motives of Karl Marx.
Throughout his whole life, Marx only dealt with those branches
of human thought which he felt could be used as weapons for the
promotion of socialism. Many new scientific divisions and subdivisions sprang up in the 19th century. Marx only touched those
sciences that he felt he could twist into his socialist program.
Those who tell us that "Karl Marx the economist" must be
separated from "Karl Marx the revolutionary" are deliberately
trying to keep us from a true understanding of Marxism.22
Marx and his chief disciple, Frederick Engels, did not waste a
moment in writing or expounding theories that did not advance socialist purposes. Marx was never interested in "science" for the sake
of knowledge or truth. He confined himself strictly to such parts
of sciences and other academic studies as he thought he could adapt
to make socialism appear both inevitable and desirable. "Scientific"
facts that contradicted the Marxist thesis he either subjected to a
conspiracy of silence or viciously and unscrupulously attacked.
VI
LEFTISM:
PROGRESS OR REACTION?
The all-embracing theme of socialist and communist propaganda
is that their movements are "progressive". Leftists label all those
who stand for personal freedom and. individual rights as "conservative" or "reactionary". They have tried to make the term "progressive" a synonym for all leftists and the term "reactionary" a
synonym describing all their opponents.
The clearest example of this meaning of progressivism is the
manner in which it has been concretized in the mind of the educated
soviet citizen. "For he is convinced that capitalism is basically bad
and is destined for disaster, and that socialism is basically good;
basically progressive, fair and desirable." 1
All his criticisms are directed only at the way in which socialism
is being administered. There is no attempt to inquire whether socialism itself is at fault. He is convinced that:
"You cannot have a free people and real progress toward a
perfect society unless you have socialism."
The reporter of the above remark observes:
"This basic issue settled, everything else falls into place,"2
This mental straight-jacket is not confined to those brainwashed by soviet propaganda alone. The basic semantics referring
to collectivism as "progressive" and the anti-collectivists as "reactionary" is applied by the entire left-wing without exception. Actually, capture of the symbol "progressive" was a master stroke of
socialist propaganda.
The question arises, how did the leftists manage to acquire
almost exclusive ownership of the title "progressive"? Is it a true or false label? This symbol is particularly effective in the United
States, where something progressive is identified with all of the
material and technological advances characteristic of the American
way of life. The stock-in-trade of all socialists since the days of
Claude Henri Saint-Simon (1798) has been to present themselves
as bearers of ideas which are new, futuristic and progressive. Thus
the left-wing has managed at one stroke to place all of its opponents
on the defensive. In this modern age no one wants to be categorized
as unprogressive.
Walter Lippmann, who had been an old Fabian socialist, gave
a succinct sketch of how the concept "progressive" has been appropriated by the collectivists, during a temporary lapse from leftism,
while personally feuding with F. D. Roosevelt:3
"Throughout the world, in the name of progress, men who
call themselves communists, socialists, fascists, nationalists,
progressives, and even liberals, are unanimous in holding that
government with its instruments of coercion must, by commanding the people how they shall live, direct the course of
civilization and fix the shape of things to come. They believe
in what Mr. Stuart Chase accurately describes as 'the overhead
planning and control of economic activity.' This is the dogma
which all the prevailing dogmas presuppose. This is the mold
in which are cast the thought and action of the epoch. No
other approach to the regulation of human affairs is seriously
considered, or is even conceived as possible. The recently
enfranchised masses and the leaders of thought who supply
their ideas are almost completely under the spell of this dogma.
Only a handful here and there, groups without influence, isolated and disregarded thinkers, continue to challenge it. For the
premises of authoritarian collectivism have become the working
beliefs, the self-evident assumptions, the unquestioned axioms,
not only of all the revolutionary regimes, but of nearly every
effort which lays claim to being enlightened, humane, and progressive."
☩☪☩
"For virtually all that now passes for progressivism in countries
like England and the United States calls for the increasing
ascendancy of the state: always the cry is for more officials with more power over more and more of the activities of men."4
The medieval straight-jacket
In order to probe the socialist claim of being progressive it is
necessary to check the history of socialist thought. People are led
to believe that socialism is something new and modem, evolved out
of the present day high technical level of production. However, all
the basic essentials of modem socialism, as they exist today, were
formulated between the years 1803 and 1848.5 This was a period
when the benefits of private enterprise and free competition had
barely made their appearance. The American Revolution and the
French Revolution had taken place scarcely a generation before
Saint Simon formulated his socialistic theories. The breath of the
Middle Ages could still be felt upon the civilizations of Europe. The
German principalities in particular were still saturated with medieval
trappings and customs.
The Germany of Karl Marx was just beginning to develop the
embryo of the modem factory system. Much of the oppression,
brutality, avarice and abuse of power was merely a feudalistic disregard of human worth.
Socialists and left-wingers, of all stripes, maintain that their
theories are "progressive" and had been developed as a result of
the industrial revolution. However, the "industrial revolution" is
one of those peculiar terms which is actually a misnomer. What is
called the industrial revolution was a process that extended over
decades and to call it a "revolution" contradicts the usual definition
of the word. "Revolution" generally signifies a sudden and drastic
change from one order to another.
Upon examination, it appears that the industrial revolution
which was supposed to have impelled the early socialists to fashion
the fundamental socialist creed did not occur in any country until long after the socialist principles were first proclaimed there. Saint
Simon and Charles Fourier promulgated their socialist theories 27
and 15 years respectively before the industrial revolution began in
France in 1830. 6 Karl Marx laid down the entire basic super-structure of his theories within 36 months, beginning with 1844. He was
then 26 years of age. He had spent 25 of those 26 years in Germany,
and his program was oriented towards the German situation. The
industrial revolution in Germany did not get under way until six
years later, with the formation of the German Empire under Prussian
leadership (circa 1850).7
The industrial revolution in the United States did not begin
until after the Civil War. The denunciation of American capitalism
occurred 22 years before.8
Socialism a reaction
One can only imagine how all the subsequent progress of human
society would have suffered if humanity had listened to the socialists
at that time and allowed itself to be constricted in a socialized
straight-jacket into a closed social order with no chance of further
industrial expansion and development.
In the overwhelming number of cases, school textbooks create
the impression that socialistic theories arose out of the conditions
brought about by the industrial revolution. This is a gross misstatement from which the left-wing has reaped tremendous political
capital. The truth is that the period during which the basic socialist
tenets were fashioned was a period when society was throwing off
the chains of medievalism.
For the first time, in many centuries, men began to fight for
the principles of individual liberty and personal dignity. The ignorance,disease, brutality and abysmal poverty of the Dark and Middle
Ages finally caused courageous and intelligent men to rebel against
the feudal "closed society". The industrial fruition of this freedom
was still to come. The fight to free the human spirit from the shackles of medieval collectivism came several generations before the
ripening of an economic system which developed on the basis of
competition freed from feudal restrictions. The struggle for the
freedom of the individual man came first and the economic results in
the form of the system of private enterprise developed later as a
natural result. This is in complete contradiction to the erroneous
prevailing view that the system of private enterprise came first and
that the ideas of individual rights came later as a reflection of the
new means of production.
The main reason why the poverty, ignorance, filth and disease
in the factory slums were so glaring during the early part of the
industrial revolution was that these were the accumulations of the
barbaric backwardness of the recently overthrown feudal order. 'I'he
liberated serf-like population had brought to the cities all the ancient
habits of ignorance, lack of sanitation, primitive morals and misconduct. Conditions in a serf's hovel were immeasurably worse than
the poorest of the city slums of the industrial revolution. However,
the serf's lot was not as socially noticeable in the rural environment,
since each family was relatively isolated. The sudden influx of
brutalized and impoverished masses from the feudal countryside
into the new industrial areas dramatized the degeneracy and poverty
which had been fermenting for centuries under feudalism. The
fledgling system of free enterprise was immediately loaded with
a terrible legacy of pre-existing mass misery.
Socialist propagandists wrote as if the business world had taken
people of high calibre and brutalized them through the process of
industrialization. This is a great historical fraud.
Karl Marx, in his Communist Manifesto, carried out the fiction
of his socialistic predecessors that capitalism had degraded human
beings from a formerly higher level. He charged that the new industrial system had "changed personal dignity into market value, and
substituted the single unprincipled freedom of trade for the numerous, hardly earned, chartered liberties of the middle ages."9
Freedom called "outmoded" at birth
The system of business enterprise was just beginning. The
great technological and industrial development was to follow. However, Karl Marx and his cohorts had already proclaimed that "The conditions of bourgeois society are too narrow to comprise the wealth
created by them" and that "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." 10
These remarks were addressed to the German population and
announced the end of private enterprise two years before the beginning of the industrial revolution in Germany. Marx and Engels had
managed somehow to proclaim the overthrow of capitalism before
its real birth. It is interesting to note that the term "bourgeoisie"
was taken over by Marx from the nobility who had used the word
as a term of opprobrium against those who had recently deposed
them from positions of tyrannical oppression.11
In 1843, Frederick Engels, Karl Marx's life-long collaborator,
had declared: "Competition is the great mainspring which again
and again jerks into activity our aging and withering social order,
or rather disorder; but with each new exertion it also saps a part of
this order's waning strength."12 It was the convinced opinion of
Marx and Engels that the system of private enterprise, which was
just beginning, was already outworn and ready for socialism. Their
socialism in effect was designed to create a universal industrial
monopoly reorganizing the new factories under a paternalistic
feudalism. Marx's personal notes include the following nostalgic
reference:
"This distinction of industry only continues to exist as a
special sort of work-as an essential, important and life-embracing distinction-so long as industry (town life) develops over against landed property (aristocratic feudal life) and itself continues to bear the feudal character of its opposite in the form
of monopoly, craft, guild, corporation, etc., within which labour
still has a seemingly social significance, still the significance of real community-life, and has not yet reached the stage of indifference to its content, of complete being-for-self, i.e., of
abstraction from all other being, and hence has not yet become
liberated capital."13
Marx idealized savagery
Marx's reactionary perspective, however, harked back beyond
the Middle Ages to the period when mankind lived an animal like
existence in direct contact with raw nature. He adopted the position
that mankind had "estranged itself" from nature and that the purpose of future society is tore-establish this contact between nature
and man.14 His first concept of the determinism of history was based
upon this return to man's original "golden age in nature", the progress of civilization being merely a march back to his original rapport
with nature. He wrote:
"All history is the preparation for 'man' to become the object
of sensuous consciousness, and for the needs of 'man as man'
to become (natural, sensuous) needs. History itself is a real
part of natural history-of nature's coming to be man."15
Marx complained that "the last vestige of common interest, the
community of possessions constituted by the family, is being undermined by the factory system."16
It is no wonder that in the Communist Manifesto Marx and
Engels often refer to the fallen estate of the average factory
laborer compared to his counterpart under feudalism.17
Curiously, it was the emergence of a new order based on individualism and personal freedom that Karl Marx had already condemned in 1844. Marx then declared:
"In Germany emancipation from the Middle Ages can only
be effected by means of emancipation from the results of a
partial freedom from the Middle Ages."18
Here; Karl Marx frankly admitted that Germany had not yet
completed its emancipation from medievalism. His main objection
was to the limited freedom that the German people had wrested
from the aristocracy. In effect Marx's demand "of emancipation
from the results of a partial freedom from the Middle Ages" was
reactionary to the core and meant in effect a reversion to a "closed
system" of collective tyranny.
The fact is that Karl Marx's fatherland at the time that he
formed his socialistic theories was in the throes of a struggle to
emerge from the Middle Ages.
Actually the early founders of socialism had practical knowledge
of only two phases of social order. They were living in the period of
gestation of the private enterprise system. Society was just rising
out of centuries of social ossification and a stationary economy.
The medieval period was characterized by social stability. Those
who were poor endured their poverty without hope of any change
from the cradle to the grave. Laboring 14 to 18 hours a day was the
rule rather than the exception. Brutality, torture, executions were a
regular feature of medieval society. The various gradations of the
population were rigidly stratified and the future of every child was
predetermined at birth.
During the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries there were various
stirrings by men dedicated to the idea of individual freedom, and
personal worth. These manifestations occurred long before there
was any important economic development of private enterprise in
industry.
Return to Middle Ages demanded
Actually, the active socialist movement in Germany during the
youth of Karl Marx formed his basic socialist points of view. Early
German socialism openly and actively supported a return to the
principles of the Middle Ages.
In Germany during 1848 the master craftsmen and journeymen,
who numbered about a million persons, organized a social program
revolving around the "dependence on the Guild system, opposition
to industrial freedom, while recognizing that a reorganization of the
Guild system was necessary, asa simple return to the Middle Ages
had been made impossible by modern economic life."19
At that time, a social reform movement arose which advocated
"a modernized medieval order or a social monarchy." The movement
was composed of "clergymen, nobles, guild masters, romantic
thinkers and poets."20
They developed a program that they:
" ... could not accept ideas and demands and economic practices
which were based on individual freedom of judgment and of
action-without regard to the Church, the State, and the community, and placed egoism and self-interest before subordination, commonality, and social solidarity. The modern era
seemed to them to be built on quicksands, to be chaos, anarchy,
or an utterly unmoral and godless outburst of intellectual and
economic forces, which must inevitably lead to acute social
antagonisms, to extremes of wealth and poverty, and to an
universal upheaval In this frame of mind, the Middle Ages,
with its finn order in church, economic and social life, its faith
in God, its feudal tenures, its cloisters, its autonomous associations and its guilds appeared to these thinkers like a well compacted building.... "21
The two theoreticians laying the foundation of the German
socialistic movement were Marlo (real name Karl Winkelblech, 1810-
1865) and Karl Rodbertus (1805-1875). Rodbertus has been
credited for having anticipated Marx. in most of his so-called fundamental theories of socialism. These men openly asked for the reorganization of society based upon the principles of the Middle
Ages.22
Fabians admitted reactionary origin
Fabian socialists, both in the United States and Britain, openly
admit their kinship with the restricted and controlled social order
of the Middle Ages. W. D. P. Bliss, a founder of American Fabianism, wrote a definitive eulogy of the socialistic nature of the medieval
cities in Europe. He glorified the old German city of Nuremberg as
an ideal socialistic feudalism that should be imitated by present day
society.
He wrote that:
"These guilds, of one kind or another, extended all over Germanic Europe and endured in most countries till the time of the
Reformation and in a few instances to the nineteenth century."
⚒☸⚒
"The Middle Ages were a period of customary, not of competitive prices, and the idea of permitting agreements to be decided
by the 'higgling of the market' was an impossibility, because the
laws of the market were not left to the free arbitrament of the
contracting parties. The severance of occupations was imposed
upon the trades, not spontaneously adopted by them, and the
medieval statutes teem with provisions of this nature, as, for
instance, that shoemakers shall not be tanners, brewers not be
coopers, cordwainers not be curriers, butchers not be cooks,
drapers not be 'listers,' while a statute of 1363 admonishes all
artificers and handicraft people to use only one mystery or
occupation."23
Bliss quoted E. R. A. Seligman, who spent a lifetime extolling
leftist views, as stating that at the time of the guilds "it was a
period of supremacy of labor over capital, and the master worked
beside the artisan."24
Feudalism praised as socialistic
What is it that the Fabian socialists found so noble in the
medieval "closed economy"? The following is a Fabian socialist
eulogy of the feudal collectivized trade system:
"No Nuremberger ever seriously dreamed of leaving trade
or art or manufacture, or indeed any portion of life, to the
accident and incident of unrestricted competition. 'Competition,' the Nuremberger would have said, 'is the death of trade,
the subverter of freedom, above all, the destroyer of quality.'
Every Nuremberger, like every medieval man, thought of himself, not as an independent unit, but as a dependent, altho
component, part of a larger organism, church or empire or city
or gild. This was of the very essence of medieval life. According to the theory of the times, the town held the right to practise trades as a feudal tenure from the emperor, who held it from God. This tenure-the right to practise trades-the Rath,
or Town Council, parceled out between the gilds or groups
of citizens, each gild having the right to practise only that art
or subdivision of art granted it by the Rath. Finally, in its turn,
the gild granted to its different individual members the right
to practise the trade, conditioned, however, upon restrictions
and within very definite limits. The gild determined what raw
material might be bought and how much, the number of apprentices any master might employ, and the conditions under
which they should work. It determined the number of journeymen in any shop, and the wages they were paid. It held the
right to determine, and often did determine, the very methods
and mechanism of production. Above all, it fixed the price of
the finished product and scrupulously controlled the market."
☼ ☼ ☼
"The gild did not allow the untrained workman or the mean spirited trader to cut prices to spoil or steal the market. The
gilds measured and weighed and tested all materials, and determined how much each producer could have. The gilds said
where materials should be bought. No open market or free
trade for them. They equally measured or counted, weighed
and tested the finished product."
☨ ☨ ☨
"As late as 1456 two men were burned alive at Nuremberg
for having sold adulterated wines."
☨ ☨ ☨
"The gild laws determined even what the artisan should wear
and eat."
☨ ☨ ☨
"Nuremberg thus saw very well that competition only served
the rich and the strong. That collective trading was the hope
of the poor and the plain people."
☨ ☨ ☨
"Only limited amounts of material could be bought."
☨ ☨ ☨
"Money was not to be lent on usury (interest)."
☨ ☨ ☨
"This was paternal Often socialistic in the extreme. It was
as we have seen cruel-but it was with a just cruelty.
☨ ☨ ☨
"Extortion, false measures, adulteration of goods, were abominations in a trading town and punished usually by death."
"The town government, if not by the people, was of the people, and for the people".25
Praise of the medieval town systems as socialistic forms was an important part of the education of the early socialists in this country. The Encyclopedia of Social Reform, which contained the article just quoted was for many years a basic reference work in most high schools and colleges in the United States and Britain.26 was eventually superseded by another leftist slanted compendium, the 15-volume Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences.
When modern socialists praise the collectivist nature of feudalism and yearn for a return to some of its social features, they neglect to mention its more onerous aspects. When a Fabian socialist like Bliss mentions that justice meted out in a socialistic feudal society was cruel "but it was with a just cruelty" he uses as an example two men burned to death for violating economic regulations. In fact, medieval justice was permeated with cruelty and torture on a grand scale. This was the age of persecutions for witchcraft, with several million persons (mostly female) tortured and burned alive for that imaginary crime. 27 In fact, the confessions extracted during medieval days from so-called witches bear a startling resemblance to the confessions elicited by Soviet persecutors in modem Socialist Soviet Republics.
☨ ☨ ☨
"The town government, if not by the people, was of the people, and for the people".25
Praise of the medieval town systems as socialistic forms was an important part of the education of the early socialists in this country. The Encyclopedia of Social Reform, which contained the article just quoted was for many years a basic reference work in most high schools and colleges in the United States and Britain.26 was eventually superseded by another leftist slanted compendium, the 15-volume Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences.
When modern socialists praise the collectivist nature of feudalism and yearn for a return to some of its social features, they neglect to mention its more onerous aspects. When a Fabian socialist like Bliss mentions that justice meted out in a socialistic feudal society was cruel "but it was with a just cruelty" he uses as an example two men burned to death for violating economic regulations. In fact, medieval justice was permeated with cruelty and torture on a grand scale. This was the age of persecutions for witchcraft, with several million persons (mostly female) tortured and burned alive for that imaginary crime. 27 In fact, the confessions extracted during medieval days from so-called witches bear a startling resemblance to the confessions elicited by Soviet persecutors in modem Socialist Soviet Republics.
Since the latter part of the 19th century, socialism has attracted
thousands of clergymen of all faiths. Perhaps some of these have a
nostalgic yearning for the great secular powers of the medieval
clergy. This motivation would be reactionary rather than progressive. In modern times we have observed how easily socialist forces
in Soviet Russia have grafted Marxian socialism upon the feudal
habits Bind the dark superstitions inherited from Czarist feudalism.
Communism appeals to backward peoples
Joseph Stalin, in his mastery of practical socialist politics, recognized the reactionary appeal of socialist propaganda. He broke with Leon Trotsky primarily due to his insistence that the main emphasis of socialist propaganda should be aimed at the backward populations of the world rather than the highly industrialized areas. Stalin's policies proved much more fruitful than Trotsky's.
Today the spread of socialism and communism to the most backward areas is a common occurrence. Government control and ownership appeal to those cultures which reflect recent feudal tyranny or tribal savagery. Outstanding examples are the areas which formerly comprised French Indo-China, and the new-born "nations" of Darkest Africa. This is one reason why a communist trained Negro is able to impose a leftist despotism on Ghana. We have the anomaly of so-called modern "progressive" socialism thriving among cannibals. In practice as well as theory socialism is a long step backward in civilization.
Walter Lippmann had once pinpointed the matter succinctly when he wrote:
"And so I insist that collectivism, which replaces the free market by coercive centralized authority, is reactionary in the exact sense of the word. Collectivism not only renders impossible the progressive division of labor, but requires, wherever it is attempted, a regression to a more primitive mode of production."28
Since the socialist pedigree is a reactionary one, the question naturally arises how they have managed to assume such an exclusive claim to the labels "progressive" and "scientific." The answer lies in the techniques of propaganda. Whereas, the rest of the world is busy with the task of working and managing the practical production, distribution and vending of products and services, the socialists concentrate on psychological factors aimed at controlling the sensitive nerve centers of society. Socialists have made a special study of all the historical methods and techniques of control over the masses. The teachings of Machiavelli are required study in all socialist and communist educational programs.
In the 160 years that the socialist movement has been actively operating, all the accumulated lessons of infiltration, deception and double-dealing have been accumulated, systematized and improved Those who fight socialist and communist forces today are 100 years behind in the practical experience of organizing political and propagandist action. The entire socialist movement is a continuous school in the art of feeding parasitically upon the institutions, ideas, and wealth of others who are too busy with their creative activities to counter effectively the massive and manifold mendacity of the well managed propaganda of the left.
The leftists are the dominant influence in such internationalist movements as the Atlantic Union and the United World Federalists, and constitute the formative and continuing leadership of these organizations. 29 Although the World Government forces include as sponsors many prominent non-leftists their own purpose is the long range socialistic one of creating one huge centralized and collectivized world government.
The leftists, plus their soft-headed and emotional hangers-on, have as usual built up a new super-progressive theory to justify their longing for international government. They argue that the increasing economic interdependence of nations plus the speed-up of transportation and communications, inevitably drives humanity toward one political world union. They minimize or wholly conceal their accompanying intention to set up a unified political control, as wen as a socialistic one, of course.
Thus, far from growing out of the matrix of our rapidly changing and dynamic nuclear age the leftist One-World program is an old bromide carried round in the socialist baggage for more than 160 years. Considering that in Saint-Simon's day land transportation was by horse or on foot throughout the world, there was no telegraph or railroad, and goods were still borne overseas by slow moving sailing ships, the original socialist conception of World Government could not be ascribed to modern technological civilization by any stretch of the. imagination. This platform preceded the French industrial revolution by more than 25 years. With each succeeding generation the socialists have revamped the demand for World Government and claimed that contemporary conditions made the World State imperative. As with most left-wing principles, the emotional idea comes first and the justifying evidence is fabricated later.
Of all the socialist dogmas, World Government is claimed to be the most up-to-date. On the contrary, the real parent of the World Government idea was the old-time reactionary-e-internationalist Roman Empire in its declining period.
With the break-up of the feudal order in Europe toward the end of the 18th century, certain Catholic thinkers began to agitate for a huge collectivist international government, in structure resembling the Catholic Church. Their ideal was a secular world government matching the universal church's spiritual apparatus.
George Iggers, who translated the Saint Simonian philosophy into the English language for the first time, states in his introduction:
" . . . the spirit of the medieval social order was expressed for the Saint Simonians by the post-revolutionary theocrats, the early 19th century Catholic thinkers-s-Bonald, Ballanche, LaMennais-s-but above all by de Maistre, who in defense of the modern Church and the modern monarchy expounded a unitary collectivism quite different from medieval particularism. The Christian-Feudal or perhaps more correctly the Catholic-Restoration legitimist idea asserted the supremacy of historical forces over deliberate action, of society over the individual, and of collective faith over individual reason, and the need for authority and hierarchy. Deliberate action based upon abstract reason disturbed the harmony of society based on traditional forces and inevitably had to result in anarchy."31
Some early socialists frankly admitted that their political model was the authoritarian internationalism of the medieval Catholic Church.
Iggers explains:
"The influence of the Catholic Restoration traditionalists on their thought was freely admitted by the Saint-Simonians."32
The Catholic Restoration traditionalists advocated an adoption of the old Roman form to organize Europe, Asia, North Africa and the Americas. They desired one gigantic empire controlled by a single government. The early socialists borrowed this concept. Today, their political heirs conveniently avoid mentioning the reactionary sources of their internationalism. Thus, original socialist collectivism was based not only upon the closed. static society of medieval Europe but also upon the degenerate Roman Empire.
Iggers remarks:
"Hayek, who attempts to demonstrate that both modern positivism and modern socialism began as essentially 'reactionary and authoritarian movements,' cites Saint Simonianism as a prime example of the joining of positivism and authoritarian socialism."33
The early socialists frankly boasted:
"We have no doubt that our doctrine will dominate the future more completely than the beliefs of antiquity ever dominated their epoch and more completely than Catholicism dominated the Middle Ages. More powerful than its predecessors, its benevolent influence will extend to the whole world"34
Karl Marx came by his socialist ideas through Saint Simon's teachings. Karl Marx's father was a prominent German attorney and had made friends with the aristocratic von Westphalen family. Ludwig von Westphalen, the Privy Councillor to the Prussian Provincial Government and descendant of one of Europe's most aristocratic families, taught the socialism of Saint Simon to Marx, while he was still in his teens. 35
Saint-Simon, an aristocrat, created a philosophy designed to counteract the French Revolution and to push back the world to an industrial feudalism under a political structure patterned upon the old Roman Empire. Ludwig von Westphalen, a Prussian aristocrat, absorbed Saint Simon's teachings and passed them on to Karl Marx, who later became his son-in-law. The aristocrats, smarting under defeats by the forces of freedom, exhumed an old device to return humanity to a collectivist tyranny. Such was the birth of modem "scientific" socialism.
It is not generally known that before the advent of the system of private enterprise a monopolistic collectivism existed under the monarchies of Europe. An outstanding example was the British East India Company. This monopoly was chartered by Queen Elizabeth in 1600. The charter "conferred the sole right of trading with the East Indies ie., with all countries lying beyond the Cape of Good Hope or the Straits of Magellan." Nine years later, King James I renewed the company's charter "forever".36
"I once came near being a socialist myself; and, indeed, in that frame of mind founded what afterwards became the Fabian Society. But I soon found out the limitations of socialism, and so I am sure will you, 'if you are true to yourself' ".
"Historically, nations have been great, I believe, in proportion as they have developed individualism on a basis of private property.... If socialism once realized should prove abortive, and throw power and wealth into the hands of a class, that class would be able to maintain itself against all opposition, just as the feudal chiefs did for so long. Feudalism was socialism; that is often forgotten,"38
Non-socialist scholars are now just beginning to probe effectively into the origins of the socialist and communist movements. Previously, critics of socialism were sidetracked by-aggressive socialistic propaganda and its multifarious falsehoods. The leftist extremists are expert in the field of propaganda. With an accumulation of experience and skill, and a widespread control over all mass communication media, they generally managed to confuse or silence all opposition. By putting non-socialists continuously on the defensive, they succeeded in escaping from effective criticism.
However, the investigations of such scholars as Professors von Mises, F. A. Hayek, the powerful voice of Professor Olin Glenn Saxon, and the researches of scores of other serious-minded and authentic scholars have currently brought the socialists to book at last.
A most illuminating historical treatment of the medieval origins of modem socialism can be found in a scholarly essay by Professor E. Harris Harbison of Princeton University.se Harbison wrote: "The truly 'radical' movement. of the later. medieval and early modem period was the growth of economic individualism, not the appearance of a few communistic books, sects, and communities. Against the background of nineteenth century individualism, 'radical' is today almost synonymous with 'socialist' or 'communist.''40 He explains "It is essential to the understanding of utopian socialism to remember that when it first appeared in European history as a fairly consistent theory, it was very largely a reactionary protest against a new, 'progressive', and poorly understood economic movement, an appeal to turn the clock backward."41 "Early modern socialism" Professor Harbison explains "was essentially a conservative critique of a new and strange individualism felt to be excessive."42
He characterized the beginnings of socialism as "essentially, good medieval doctrine on the ownership of property applied to and shaped by contemporary problems."43
M. Sweezy, well-known Marxist economist and darling of the left-wing intellectual crowd, wrote a bellwether article which stated: "There are many misconceptions about the origin and nature of socialism. . . . One of these is that socialism is as old as recorded history, that every age has its socialists, and that ours is therefore in this respect not at all unique." He went to great lengths trying to disassociate modern leftism from "ancient and medieval socialism". With typical socialist dialectical jargon, he tries to prove that "socialism is both a modem and western phenomenon. It is as modern as industrial capitalism and as western as the idea that all men are created equal. In fact, capitalism and the doctrine of human equality can be described without exaggeration as the true parents of socialism."44
Professor Sweezy and his cohorts are very anxious to clear their movement of any connection with medieval reaction, which is the true parent of the socialist movement. By reversing the meaning of the words "progressive" "liberal" and "reactionary" the socialists have had a field day, confusing the world and perverting and misdirecting the so-called social sciences.
The leftists have good reason for their concern to hide the true background and the primary motives which have given birth to the socialist and communist movements. As this chapter has shown, they have been operating under false colors for more than 160 years in the guilty knowledge of their reactionary ancestry. This is reflected in their desperate attempts to stifle all efforts to probe into the early development of the socialist movement. Of course, in a broader sense. the main characteristics of socialist-communist government the monolithic enslavement of its people-can be traced as far back as the first Oriental despotisms, at the dawn of history.
Joseph Stalin, in his mastery of practical socialist politics, recognized the reactionary appeal of socialist propaganda. He broke with Leon Trotsky primarily due to his insistence that the main emphasis of socialist propaganda should be aimed at the backward populations of the world rather than the highly industrialized areas. Stalin's policies proved much more fruitful than Trotsky's.
Today the spread of socialism and communism to the most backward areas is a common occurrence. Government control and ownership appeal to those cultures which reflect recent feudal tyranny or tribal savagery. Outstanding examples are the areas which formerly comprised French Indo-China, and the new-born "nations" of Darkest Africa. This is one reason why a communist trained Negro is able to impose a leftist despotism on Ghana. We have the anomaly of so-called modern "progressive" socialism thriving among cannibals. In practice as well as theory socialism is a long step backward in civilization.
Walter Lippmann had once pinpointed the matter succinctly when he wrote:
"And so I insist that collectivism, which replaces the free market by coercive centralized authority, is reactionary in the exact sense of the word. Collectivism not only renders impossible the progressive division of labor, but requires, wherever it is attempted, a regression to a more primitive mode of production."28
Since the socialist pedigree is a reactionary one, the question naturally arises how they have managed to assume such an exclusive claim to the labels "progressive" and "scientific." The answer lies in the techniques of propaganda. Whereas, the rest of the world is busy with the task of working and managing the practical production, distribution and vending of products and services, the socialists concentrate on psychological factors aimed at controlling the sensitive nerve centers of society. Socialists have made a special study of all the historical methods and techniques of control over the masses. The teachings of Machiavelli are required study in all socialist and communist educational programs.
In the 160 years that the socialist movement has been actively operating, all the accumulated lessons of infiltration, deception and double-dealing have been accumulated, systematized and improved Those who fight socialist and communist forces today are 100 years behind in the practical experience of organizing political and propagandist action. The entire socialist movement is a continuous school in the art of feeding parasitically upon the institutions, ideas, and wealth of others who are too busy with their creative activities to counter effectively the massive and manifold mendacity of the well managed propaganda of the left.
Masked reaction
The socialist siren song has caused untold harm to society
through organized upheavals and continuous destructive disturbances. It gave birth to the nazi and fascist movements, and thereby
tortured and killed tens of millions of people. And while doing this,
at all times, it loudly claimed to represent the finest instincts, and
ethics of man, so that even conservatives are often deluded into
thinking "that socialists may be wrong hut they are good people
with the best intentions." This virtuous mask is highly valued
by the leaders of the left extremists who have long realized that they
are vulnerable on the score of their heritage from the despotism of
feudalism and the decadent Roman Empire. The leftists are the dominant influence in such internationalist movements as the Atlantic Union and the United World Federalists, and constitute the formative and continuing leadership of these organizations. 29 Although the World Government forces include as sponsors many prominent non-leftists their own purpose is the long range socialistic one of creating one huge centralized and collectivized world government.
The leftists, plus their soft-headed and emotional hangers-on, have as usual built up a new super-progressive theory to justify their longing for international government. They argue that the increasing economic interdependence of nations plus the speed-up of transportation and communications, inevitably drives humanity toward one political world union. They minimize or wholly conceal their accompanying intention to set up a unified political control, as wen as a socialistic one, of course.
"One World" an old idea
The truth is that the original socialistic concept of the One
World Government had absolutely nothing to do with modern technology or the increased tempo of modern life. In 1803, the socialist
Saint-Simon wrote a platform calling for a One-World Government
very similar to Soviet Russia today.30 Thus, far from growing out of the matrix of our rapidly changing and dynamic nuclear age the leftist One-World program is an old bromide carried round in the socialist baggage for more than 160 years. Considering that in Saint-Simon's day land transportation was by horse or on foot throughout the world, there was no telegraph or railroad, and goods were still borne overseas by slow moving sailing ships, the original socialist conception of World Government could not be ascribed to modern technological civilization by any stretch of the. imagination. This platform preceded the French industrial revolution by more than 25 years. With each succeeding generation the socialists have revamped the demand for World Government and claimed that contemporary conditions made the World State imperative. As with most left-wing principles, the emotional idea comes first and the justifying evidence is fabricated later.
Of all the socialist dogmas, World Government is claimed to be the most up-to-date. On the contrary, the real parent of the World Government idea was the old-time reactionary-e-internationalist Roman Empire in its declining period.
With the break-up of the feudal order in Europe toward the end of the 18th century, certain Catholic thinkers began to agitate for a huge collectivist international government, in structure resembling the Catholic Church. Their ideal was a secular world government matching the universal church's spiritual apparatus.
George Iggers, who translated the Saint Simonian philosophy into the English language for the first time, states in his introduction:
" . . . the spirit of the medieval social order was expressed for the Saint Simonians by the post-revolutionary theocrats, the early 19th century Catholic thinkers-s-Bonald, Ballanche, LaMennais-s-but above all by de Maistre, who in defense of the modern Church and the modern monarchy expounded a unitary collectivism quite different from medieval particularism. The Christian-Feudal or perhaps more correctly the Catholic-Restoration legitimist idea asserted the supremacy of historical forces over deliberate action, of society over the individual, and of collective faith over individual reason, and the need for authority and hierarchy. Deliberate action based upon abstract reason disturbed the harmony of society based on traditional forces and inevitably had to result in anarchy."31
Roman tyranny inspired world socialism
From the very beginning the early socialists emulated the
worshippers of the ancient Roman tyranny. The direct ancestor of
the modern One Worlders is the Roman Empire. They echo the
nostalgic yearnings for its return which were expressed often during
the Middle Ages. A social order based upon bloody conquests and
human slavery, and garnished by public spectacles of human beings
tom apart by wild beasts, is the original inspiration for the
so-called "progressive" One World movement, which is an old reactionary imperial and authoritarian concept in modern propaganda
dress. It is a reactionary hangover from a society that collapsed in
bloody ruins 1,500 years ago.Some early socialists frankly admitted that their political model was the authoritarian internationalism of the medieval Catholic Church.
Iggers explains:
"The influence of the Catholic Restoration traditionalists on their thought was freely admitted by the Saint-Simonians."32
The Catholic Restoration traditionalists advocated an adoption of the old Roman form to organize Europe, Asia, North Africa and the Americas. They desired one gigantic empire controlled by a single government. The early socialists borrowed this concept. Today, their political heirs conveniently avoid mentioning the reactionary sources of their internationalism. Thus, original socialist collectivism was based not only upon the closed. static society of medieval Europe but also upon the degenerate Roman Empire.
Iggers remarks:
"Hayek, who attempts to demonstrate that both modern positivism and modern socialism began as essentially 'reactionary and authoritarian movements,' cites Saint Simonianism as a prime example of the joining of positivism and authoritarian socialism."33
The early socialists frankly boasted:
"We have no doubt that our doctrine will dominate the future more completely than the beliefs of antiquity ever dominated their epoch and more completely than Catholicism dominated the Middle Ages. More powerful than its predecessors, its benevolent influence will extend to the whole world"34
Karl Marx came by his socialist ideas through Saint Simon's teachings. Karl Marx's father was a prominent German attorney and had made friends with the aristocratic von Westphalen family. Ludwig von Westphalen, the Privy Councillor to the Prussian Provincial Government and descendant of one of Europe's most aristocratic families, taught the socialism of Saint Simon to Marx, while he was still in his teens. 35
Saint-Simon, an aristocrat, created a philosophy designed to counteract the French Revolution and to push back the world to an industrial feudalism under a political structure patterned upon the old Roman Empire. Ludwig von Westphalen, a Prussian aristocrat, absorbed Saint Simon's teachings and passed them on to Karl Marx, who later became his son-in-law. The aristocrats, smarting under defeats by the forces of freedom, exhumed an old device to return humanity to a collectivist tyranny. Such was the birth of modem "scientific" socialism.
It is not generally known that before the advent of the system of private enterprise a monopolistic collectivism existed under the monarchies of Europe. An outstanding example was the British East India Company. This monopoly was chartered by Queen Elizabeth in 1600. The charter "conferred the sole right of trading with the East Indies ie., with all countries lying beyond the Cape of Good Hope or the Straits of Magellan." Nine years later, King James I renewed the company's charter "forever".36
Boston Tea Party was revolt
against a collectivism
These monopolies were out-and-out collectivistic tyrannies.
They had power of life and death in the areas under their control.
Their managing personnel was made up largely of feudal-minded
aristocrats with all the repressive habits of their background. It was
the abuses of such monopolies that often led their victims to fight
for individual rights and personal freedom. The "Boston Tea Party,"
when American colonists dressed as Indians in 1773 threw 340 chests
of tea into Boston Harbor, was a forerunner of the American Revolution. The tea belonged to the East India Company, which had
instigated monopolistic legislation by the British Parliament, to raise
the price of tea.37 The American Revolution, thus began as a battle
between colonists fighting for individual liberty and unrestricted
commerce on the one hand, and the gigantic collectivist monopolies
created by the British Crown on the other. The socialistic nature
of these monopolistic companies has been largely overlooked in the
study of early socialism.
Fabian founder warned
against feudal socialism
Perhaps the most frank admission of the reactionary nature of socialism was made by Thomas Davidson, one of the founders of the
British Fabian Society, and a long-time devotee of socialist theories.
Shortly before his death, Davidson wrote to Morris Raphael Cohen,
life-long socialist, and professor of Philosophy of the College of the
City of New York from 1912-1938, about socialism: "I once came near being a socialist myself; and, indeed, in that frame of mind founded what afterwards became the Fabian Society. But I soon found out the limitations of socialism, and so I am sure will you, 'if you are true to yourself' ".
⚔⚔⚔⚔
"Historically, nations have been great, I believe, in proportion as they have developed individualism on a basis of private property.... If socialism once realized should prove abortive, and throw power and wealth into the hands of a class, that class would be able to maintain itself against all opposition, just as the feudal chiefs did for so long. Feudalism was socialism; that is often forgotten,"38
Non-socialist scholars are now just beginning to probe effectively into the origins of the socialist and communist movements. Previously, critics of socialism were sidetracked by-aggressive socialistic propaganda and its multifarious falsehoods. The leftist extremists are expert in the field of propaganda. With an accumulation of experience and skill, and a widespread control over all mass communication media, they generally managed to confuse or silence all opposition. By putting non-socialists continuously on the defensive, they succeeded in escaping from effective criticism.
However, the investigations of such scholars as Professors von Mises, F. A. Hayek, the powerful voice of Professor Olin Glenn Saxon, and the researches of scores of other serious-minded and authentic scholars have currently brought the socialists to book at last.
A most illuminating historical treatment of the medieval origins of modem socialism can be found in a scholarly essay by Professor E. Harris Harbison of Princeton University.se Harbison wrote: "The truly 'radical' movement. of the later. medieval and early modem period was the growth of economic individualism, not the appearance of a few communistic books, sects, and communities. Against the background of nineteenth century individualism, 'radical' is today almost synonymous with 'socialist' or 'communist.''40 He explains "It is essential to the understanding of utopian socialism to remember that when it first appeared in European history as a fairly consistent theory, it was very largely a reactionary protest against a new, 'progressive', and poorly understood economic movement, an appeal to turn the clock backward."41 "Early modern socialism" Professor Harbison explains "was essentially a conservative critique of a new and strange individualism felt to be excessive."42
He characterized the beginnings of socialism as "essentially, good medieval doctrine on the ownership of property applied to and shaped by contemporary problems."43
Today's leftists hide their medieval birth
Leftists have been particularly concerned lest the reactionary
medieval ancestry of their own movement be disclosed. As long
ago as 1948, communists and socialists through the medium of the
Soviet dominated magazine Science & Society (A Marxian Quarterly) began to mend their fences against the expected exposure of
socialist origins. M. Sweezy, well-known Marxist economist and darling of the left-wing intellectual crowd, wrote a bellwether article which stated: "There are many misconceptions about the origin and nature of socialism. . . . One of these is that socialism is as old as recorded history, that every age has its socialists, and that ours is therefore in this respect not at all unique." He went to great lengths trying to disassociate modern leftism from "ancient and medieval socialism". With typical socialist dialectical jargon, he tries to prove that "socialism is both a modem and western phenomenon. It is as modern as industrial capitalism and as western as the idea that all men are created equal. In fact, capitalism and the doctrine of human equality can be described without exaggeration as the true parents of socialism."44
Professor Sweezy and his cohorts are very anxious to clear their movement of any connection with medieval reaction, which is the true parent of the socialist movement. By reversing the meaning of the words "progressive" "liberal" and "reactionary" the socialists have had a field day, confusing the world and perverting and misdirecting the so-called social sciences.
The leftists have good reason for their concern to hide the true background and the primary motives which have given birth to the socialist and communist movements. As this chapter has shown, they have been operating under false colors for more than 160 years in the guilty knowledge of their reactionary ancestry. This is reflected in their desperate attempts to stifle all efforts to probe into the early development of the socialist movement. Of course, in a broader sense. the main characteristics of socialist-communist government the monolithic enslavement of its people-can be traced as far back as the first Oriental despotisms, at the dawn of history.
Notes:Chapter 5
1.Karl Marx, Selected Essays ("On the Jewish Question") translated by H. J.
Stenning, International Publishers (Soviet publication outlet) N. Y., 1926 (pp. 89-90).
First printed in the Detusch-Franzosische [ahrbucher, Paris, 1844. (Marx was co- editor of this periodical).
Also see: Wilhelm Liebknecht, Karl Marx-Biographical Memoirs, Charles H. Kerr
Co., (socialist). Chicago, 1901, translated by Ernest Untermann, Liebknecht, a close
friend of Karl Marx, and later a leader in the International socialist movement, quotes
Marx on the nature of the capitalist system:
"Now for the first time Judaism could gain universal supremacy and change
dispossessed Man and Nature into disposable, salable objects, a prey to the serfdom
of egoistic wants, of barter."
"Disposal is the practice of dispossession. Just as Man, while he is religiously
handicapped, knows no better way to make his being objective, than to change it
into a strange, phantastic being, so under the supremacy of egoistic want he can
only manifest himself practically, produce practical objects, by submitting his
products as well as his activity to the supremacy of a strange being and giving them the meaning of a strange being-of money." pp. 19·20.
2 K. Marx, Selected Essays, p. 92.
3 ibid, p. 96.
4 ibid, p. 90
5 ibid, p. 97
6 ibid p. 93
7 Marx and Engels, The German. Ideology, (Feuerhach ) , 1845, International Puh,
lishers, 1939, N. Y., p. 14
8 ibid, p. 7
9 Marx and Engels, The Holy Family, quoted in Marxism and the Bolshevik State
by George Spiro, Red Star Press, N. Y., 1951, pp. 754-55.
10 V. I. Lenin, The Imperialist War, Vol. XVIII, International Publishers, 1930, p. 47
11 Dagobert D. Runes, Karl Marx~A World Without Jews (translation and commentary on Marx's essay "On the Jewish Question".) Philosophical Library, N. Y., 1959.
Runes gives the following Soviet sources as reference:
Marx-Engels GESAMTAUSGABE, MEGA, Moscow, 1927·35, and
Marx.Engels GESAMTAUSGABE, Third Section, MEKOR, Berlin 1929·31.
It is interesting to note that Marx's essay "On the Jewish Question" was- given wide
distribution by the Soviet-controlled communist press in Germany in the years just prior
to Hitler's mass extermination of the Jewish people.
12 Karl Marx, Selected E.,says (A criticism of the Hegelian Philosophy of Right)
International Publishers, N. Y., 1926, pp. 32-39. This essay and On the Jewish
Question appeared simultaneously in the Deutsch Franzsiche Lahrbucher in February,
1844. This was the one and only issue printed.
13 Karl Marx. Selected Essays, "Hegelian Philosophy of Right". p. 33
14 ibid, pp. 33·34
15 ibid.
16 Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf, Reynal & Hitchcock, N. Y., 1940, p, 82
17 ibid, pp, 152-53.
18 Schwarzschild, The Red Prussian, (translated hy Margaret Wing), Charles
Scribner's Sons, N. Y., 1947, pp. 83-84.
19 Harold J. Laski, Karl Marx - An Essay, printed in the Communist Manifesto by
Marx and Engels, (introduction by Norman Thomas). printed by the League for
Industrial Democracy, 1933 (originally published by the Fabian Society 1925), p. 21.
20 Wilhelm Liebknecht, Karl Marx - Biographical Memoirs, p. 52.
Gustav Struve was a German socialistic professor who had fought in the Baden
Insurrection in Germany.
21 Wilhelm Liebknecht, Karl Marx - Biographical Memoirs, pp. 64.·65.
22 Robert L. Heilhroner, The W.orldly Philosophers (Karl Marx) Simon & Schuster,
N. Y., 1953, p. 160; and also E. R. A. Seligman, The Economic Interpretation of History,
Columbia University Press, N. Y., 1902.
Seligman had many years of collaboration with socialist elements; was once president of the American Economic Association. He was the editor-in-chief of the
Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, which was staHed by the top socialist and communist elite in this country. He wrote the following observation fraught with sly
double meaning:
"We need to lay stress on Marx's philosophy, rather than on his economics; and
his philosophy, lIS we now know. resulted in his economic interpretation of history.
It chanced that he also became a socialist; but his socialism and his philosophy of
history, are as we shall see later, really independent. One can be an 'economic
materialist' and yet remain an extreme individualist. The fact that Marx's economics may be defective has no bearing on the truth or falsity of his philosophy of
history." p. 24.
Mr. Seligman presents his argument in such a way that Marx's socialism appears
a chance by-product, whereas Mr. Seligman knew full well that his economic interpretation of history was a deliberate synthetic device to re-inforce and promote socialism.
Chapter 6
1. New York Times, April 28, 1963, Magazine Section, article "Sasha's Creed:
'Russia Right or Wrong'," by George Feifer, p. 113.
Mr. Feifer spent a year in the Moscow State University and wrote this article
basing his observations of those who were most critical of the soviet regime
2 id,
3 See the book Keynes at Harvard for a description of Lippmann's Fabiani socialist
background, pp. 46-47,54-55, 83, 106.
4 Walter Lippmann, The Good Society, Little Brown & Co., Boston, 1937, pp. 3.4,5.
5 The first definite pronouncements of Saint Simon's socialist ideas came about the
year IB03. Charles Fourier and Robert Owen first coalesced their socialistic schemes
about IBIS. Ref., Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences.
Marx laid down all of his basic fundamentals between the years 1844 and the
beginning of 1848. The modern socialist program was actually developed within the
years IB44 and 1847. Thus about 36 months of Marxian denunciations is responsible
for the basic core of the socialist thought, This heritage remains the fundamental basis
of socialism to this very day. The above socialist founders find their reflection not only
in the open socialist and communist movements but also in such socialistic agencies as the League for Industrial Democracy and Americans for Democratic Action.
6 AB previously indicated, Saint Simon enunciated his basic principles in 1803. The
Columbia Encyclopedia, 2nd Edition, indicates that the industrial revolution did not
develop in France until after 1830, p. 957.
7 New International Encyclopedia, Dodd Mead & Co., N. Y., 1926, 2nd ed., Vol.
12, J2. 150;
William L. Langer, An Encyclopedia of World History, Houghton Mifflin, Boston,
1960, p. 678.
8 Charles Sotheran, Horace Greeley and Other Pioneers of American Socialism,
passim.
9 The "Communist Manifesto" (printed for the first time in English in the United
States) Woodhull & Claflin's Weekly, Dec. 30, 1871, p. 3.
10 Communist Manifesto-1847-1848 by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, published by the Fabian Society, 1925, p. 66.
11 The Americana-Universal Reference Library, Vol. 2. In the Middle Ages the
nobility considered that the "bourgeoise possessed little culture and refinement."
12 Karl Marx, Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts 01 1844, Foreign Language
Publishing House, Moscow, U.S.S.R., (1961), p, 207, consisting mostly of unpublished
personal notes of Marx jotted down in 100-44. The above excerpt is taken from Frederick Engels' article "Outlines of a Critique 0.£ Political Economy" written in 1843 and
published in the journal Deutsche·Franzosische-/ahrbucher 1844, edited by Karl Mane.
13 ibid, p. 87.
14 ibid, pp. 74·75
15 ibid, p. 111
16 ibid, p. 183
17 See, in particular, the first publication of the Communist Manifesto in America
in WoodhuIl & Claflin's Weekly, Dec. 30, 1871. This is an unexpurgated translation.
Later editions were considerably watered down, particularly, the fact that the words
"middle class" has been reinterpreted in the sense of big capitalists in later editions
of the Manifesto. This change of emphasis radically alters the meaning of this document
18 Karl Marx, Selected Essays, International Publishers, p. 39. A translated re- print of Marx's article "A Criticism of the Hegelian Philosophy of Right," appearing
in the Deutscb-Franzosische Jahrbucher (Franco-German Annuals)., Feb., 1844.
19 Max Beer, A General History 0/ Socialism and Social Struggles, Vol. Z (Social
Struggles and Modern Socialism) Russell & Russell, N. Y.• 1957, p. 109. Max Beer.
a Gennan, is a recognized historical authority in the socialist camp.
20 ibid, p. 88
21 ibid, pp. 88-89. (The criticism of "egoism and self-interest" by the feudalists are
identical with phrases used 'by Karl Marx.) (See Karl Marx "On the Hegelian Right"
and "On the Jewish Question" op. cit.)'
22 ibid, pp. 91-102.
23 Bliss,New Encyclopedia of Social Reform, pp. 544, 545.
24 Bliss,New Encyclopedia of Social Reform, p. 546.
25 p. 842, New Encyclopedia of Social Reform, Bliss. The article in! question was written by the editor of the Encyclopedia, W. D. P. Bliss, founder of Fabian socialism in the United States in 1885, also publisher and editor of the American Fabian which was eventually dissolved into the American Socialist Society in 1901. The successor today of the early Fabian movement is the League for Industrial Democracy, and its coo operating organizations such as the Americans for Democratic Action.
26 We have previously indicated the socialist-communist makeup of the Encyclopedias personnel.
27 Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th Edition, Vol. 28, pp. 756-
28 Walter Lippmann. The Good Society, p. 205. Lippmann since has slipped back to the Fabian methods.
29 The Appeal for Atlantic Union (AAU) is studded with such leftist personalities as Norman Cousins, Chester Bowles, Edward R. Murrow and Elmer Davis, Allof these have been active in promoting leftist causes of a Fabian socialist nature. Its principles were introduced into the United States Senate by Senators Estes Kefauver, Hubert Humphrey, Herbert H. Lehman and Francis Murray. All of these had been endorsed by the Americans for Democratic Action and National Committee for Effective Congress, both Fabian socialist emanations. Ref.: Unpublished manuscript by Sister M. Margaret Patricia McCarron, Fabian Socialism in the United States, p. LIII. . United World Federalists' (UWF) was a merger of five existing World Federalist Government Groups (1947). It had among its leaders such socialistic personages as Walter Reuther, James B. Carey, Norman Cousins, Lewis Mumford, Robert E. Sherwood, Allan Nevins, A. Phillip Randolph, J. Robert Oppenheimer and Harry A. Overstreet, among many others. Ref.: ibid, p. LXIV.
30 George G. Iggers, The Doctrine of Saint Simon, (see pp. xlvi, xlvii) , "Saint Simonian political thought has affinities with modern totalitarianism in both its conception of the scope of state power and of the inner organization of the state." p, xliii. "The goal is universal association which is to say, the association of all men on the entire surface of the globe in all spheres of their relationships." p. 58 "The entire world is progressing toward unity of doctrine and action. This is our most general profession of faith. This is thc direction which a philosophical examination of the past permits us to trace. Until the day when this great concept, born of the genius of our master, together with its general development, can become direct object of the endeavors of the human spirit, all previous social progress must be 'considered as preparatory, all attempts at organization as partial and successive initiation to the cult of unity and to the reign of order over the entire globe, the territorial possession of the great human family. However, when these preparatory labors, this provisional organization of families of castes, of races and of past nations are studied in the light of a new day, they will show evidence of the goal at which we are aiming and of the means by which to attain it." p. 7l. (All of the above bearing the pagination in arabic numerals were compiled in 1829 by the followers of Saint Simon. Saint Simon died in 1825).
31 ibid, p. xv
32 ibid, p. xlii
33 ibid, p. xxxix. This reference is to Professor F. A. Hayek, The CounterRevolution. of Science; Studies on the Abuse of Reason, Glencoe, illinois, The Free Press, 1935, p. 123. 34 Iggers, op cit p. 2. .
35 Reminiscences of Marx and Engels, printed by the Soviet Union Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow, U.S.S.R., p. 298, article by M. Kovalevsky. ''The old von Westphalen, Marx told me, was a fervent supporter of the 'doctrine of Saint Simon and one of the first to speak to tho future author of. Capital about it."
36 Encyclopedia Britannica, 13th Ed., Vol. 8, p. 834.
37 Encyclopedia Britannica, 13th Ed., Vol. 27, p. 675.
38 William Knight, editor, Memorials of Thomas Davidson, Ginn & Co., Boston, 1907, PI!. 142-143.
39 Egbert and Persons, editors, Socialism and American Life. Vol. I, Princeton University Press, 1952, article by E. Harris Harbison, "Socialism in European History to 1848" PP. 23·51.
40 ibid., p, 30
41 ibid., p. 31
42 ibid., p, 34. Professor Harbison pinpoints the reactionary nature of early socialism when he explains: "Every major feature of pre-Marxian socialism is present in this, its first classic expression: the optimistic faith in human nature, the overweening emphasis upon environment and proper education, the nostalgia for lost innocence and integrity, and the exaggerated uniformitarianism which is the measure of every utopian's revulsion from rugged individualism," p. 33.
43 1bid., p. 35
44 Science & Society (A Marxian quarterly) Winter 1948, Vol. XII, No. I, p. 65, article by Paul M. Sweezy "Origins of Present Day Socialism". The article was advertised us a "draft of a chapter in a forthcoming work by the author entitled Socialism which will be one of the Harvard Economics Handbooks, published by the McGraw Hill Book Company under the editorship of Seymour E. Harris". (Seymour E. Harris is a wen-known Fahian-tvpe socialist economist. The evidence of the communistsocialist amalgam is evident here.)
25 p. 842, New Encyclopedia of Social Reform, Bliss. The article in! question was written by the editor of the Encyclopedia, W. D. P. Bliss, founder of Fabian socialism in the United States in 1885, also publisher and editor of the American Fabian which was eventually dissolved into the American Socialist Society in 1901. The successor today of the early Fabian movement is the League for Industrial Democracy, and its coo operating organizations such as the Americans for Democratic Action.
26 We have previously indicated the socialist-communist makeup of the Encyclopedias personnel.
27 Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th Edition, Vol. 28, pp. 756-
28 Walter Lippmann. The Good Society, p. 205. Lippmann since has slipped back to the Fabian methods.
29 The Appeal for Atlantic Union (AAU) is studded with such leftist personalities as Norman Cousins, Chester Bowles, Edward R. Murrow and Elmer Davis, Allof these have been active in promoting leftist causes of a Fabian socialist nature. Its principles were introduced into the United States Senate by Senators Estes Kefauver, Hubert Humphrey, Herbert H. Lehman and Francis Murray. All of these had been endorsed by the Americans for Democratic Action and National Committee for Effective Congress, both Fabian socialist emanations. Ref.: Unpublished manuscript by Sister M. Margaret Patricia McCarron, Fabian Socialism in the United States, p. LIII. . United World Federalists' (UWF) was a merger of five existing World Federalist Government Groups (1947). It had among its leaders such socialistic personages as Walter Reuther, James B. Carey, Norman Cousins, Lewis Mumford, Robert E. Sherwood, Allan Nevins, A. Phillip Randolph, J. Robert Oppenheimer and Harry A. Overstreet, among many others. Ref.: ibid, p. LXIV.
30 George G. Iggers, The Doctrine of Saint Simon, (see pp. xlvi, xlvii) , "Saint Simonian political thought has affinities with modern totalitarianism in both its conception of the scope of state power and of the inner organization of the state." p, xliii. "The goal is universal association which is to say, the association of all men on the entire surface of the globe in all spheres of their relationships." p. 58 "The entire world is progressing toward unity of doctrine and action. This is our most general profession of faith. This is thc direction which a philosophical examination of the past permits us to trace. Until the day when this great concept, born of the genius of our master, together with its general development, can become direct object of the endeavors of the human spirit, all previous social progress must be 'considered as preparatory, all attempts at organization as partial and successive initiation to the cult of unity and to the reign of order over the entire globe, the territorial possession of the great human family. However, when these preparatory labors, this provisional organization of families of castes, of races and of past nations are studied in the light of a new day, they will show evidence of the goal at which we are aiming and of the means by which to attain it." p. 7l. (All of the above bearing the pagination in arabic numerals were compiled in 1829 by the followers of Saint Simon. Saint Simon died in 1825).
31 ibid, p. xv
32 ibid, p. xlii
33 ibid, p. xxxix. This reference is to Professor F. A. Hayek, The CounterRevolution. of Science; Studies on the Abuse of Reason, Glencoe, illinois, The Free Press, 1935, p. 123. 34 Iggers, op cit p. 2. .
35 Reminiscences of Marx and Engels, printed by the Soviet Union Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow, U.S.S.R., p. 298, article by M. Kovalevsky. ''The old von Westphalen, Marx told me, was a fervent supporter of the 'doctrine of Saint Simon and one of the first to speak to tho future author of. Capital about it."
36 Encyclopedia Britannica, 13th Ed., Vol. 8, p. 834.
37 Encyclopedia Britannica, 13th Ed., Vol. 27, p. 675.
38 William Knight, editor, Memorials of Thomas Davidson, Ginn & Co., Boston, 1907, PI!. 142-143.
39 Egbert and Persons, editors, Socialism and American Life. Vol. I, Princeton University Press, 1952, article by E. Harris Harbison, "Socialism in European History to 1848" PP. 23·51.
40 ibid., p, 30
41 ibid., p. 31
42 ibid., p, 34. Professor Harbison pinpoints the reactionary nature of early socialism when he explains: "Every major feature of pre-Marxian socialism is present in this, its first classic expression: the optimistic faith in human nature, the overweening emphasis upon environment and proper education, the nostalgia for lost innocence and integrity, and the exaggerated uniformitarianism which is the measure of every utopian's revulsion from rugged individualism," p. 33.
43 1bid., p. 35
44 Science & Society (A Marxian quarterly) Winter 1948, Vol. XII, No. I, p. 65, article by Paul M. Sweezy "Origins of Present Day Socialism". The article was advertised us a "draft of a chapter in a forthcoming work by the author entitled Socialism which will be one of the Harvard Economics Handbooks, published by the McGraw Hill Book Company under the editorship of Seymour E. Harris". (Seymour E. Harris is a wen-known Fahian-tvpe socialist economist. The evidence of the communistsocialist amalgam is evident here.)
No comments:
Post a Comment