Yes, we did agree that private property is a good thing.

Once we have understood that the ultimate aim of Fabianism is to impose communism, we can see how the abolition of private property is an unacceptable feature of totalitarianism. — Apollodorus

Ah, I love this, sometimes we need to keep communicating to actually understand each other's meanings.

In order to eradicate economic injustice, utopian socialists before Marx suggested solutions such as the abolition of private property. These solutions were often linked to other extreme measures like the abolition of marriage and the abolition of religion. Marx and Engels copied most of their ideas from the utopian socialists but coached them in language that sounded “scientific” to make those utopian ideas more palatable to prospective followers. The abolition of private property was no different.

I can appreciate that as I struggle to communicate with words that get people's attention and cause them to think. But we can also see that a terrible failure of ignorance. I think when we are planning for humans we need to have a scientific understanding of human nature and our limits. But the Greeks made it clear that a polis that is too large is not a polis at all. We are limited in the number of people we can know, and how we feel towards those we know, is different from how we feel about people we do not know. Our morality is based on these feelings. We will never be as moral with "those people" as we are moral with one of "us". This is very much an Israeli problem as they imagine themselves to be very different from "those" people and do to "them" what they never would do to their own.

In 1845, Marx and Engels had written in The German Ideology that in Communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, “society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner …”

I would credit the Prussians for this breakdown of traditional social/economic organization. It goes with modernizing the military force and putting people in their positions based on their merit, instead of inherited social position. As I said earlier, exploration and trading totally changed the social/economic and political order, and religion is inadequate for modern needs because it is based on God's will and inheritance, not merit. These are old world order issues versus the New World Order and we might not be able to think them through without understanding the huge change brought on by exploration and trade, then technology and industry, shifting populations from the country to the city. The Bible was not written for city dwellers.

Marx and Engels failed to find a publisher for their book and it is not difficult to see why. Their idyllic picture of communist society may seem enchanting, but only so long as no questions are asked. It may well be possible in a communist society for all citizens to engage in various spheres of activity, but who would decide what activities should be pursued by millions of citizens at any given time and place and how? What if some preferred to engage in a different type of work or chose not to work at all?

:wink: Capitalism is not about working for a living. It is about owning for a living. For years I have wondered why we prepare our young to be workers instead of owners? Oh boy, now we have something to talk about! In the US and some European countries, we want everyone to accept capitalism but we do not prepare our young to be capitalist. We have zero understanding of economics and banking and yet have the power of the vote, but we can not discuss the really important matters. When was the last time we voted on land use issues or banking policy? And yet we are supposed to be self-governing. This looks really insane to me. Perhaps reading Bible stories would improve my ability to be self-governing?

Only three years later, in the Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels totally reversed the above utopian description of the future society by suggesting not only that all citizens would be “equally liable to work” but that they would be organised in “industrial armies, especially for agriculture”.

Apparently, citizens could now no longer do as they pleased. Their “freedom” consisted in joining the army of workers and perform work as directed by the state which was the new owner of land and means of production. This new description implies that, far from being “free”, all citizens will be turned into the state’s servants or instruments of production.

Marx and Engels’ insistence on armies of workers engaged in large-scale industrial production is also the key to understanding the true meaning of other Marxist concepts such as “abolition of private property” and “common ownership”.

Yeap looks like New World Order to me. And we have "liberated our women" and made them equal to men in this workforce army. Prussian military bureaucracy applied to citizens and education for a technological society with unknown values, is going to get its leaders from where and what will be their goals? We must think of our children as products for industry and their parents as cogs in the machine.

The Communist Manifesto, although calling for the abolition of private property, does not explain what this means in practice. Its hidden meaning only comes to light by taking the authors’ statements to their logical conclusion and seeing how they were applied in Marxist societies.

The Manifesto states very clearly that communism was to abolish property in land and all rights of inheritance. This means that land and houses would become property of the state along with all means of production (raw materials, tools, machinery and factories), transport and communication. This would leave the citizens of communist society with nothing but personal belongings such as clothing and household items.

In terms of housing, the only option would be state-owned accommodation. Marx and Engels believed that, for communist society to be sustainable, workers had to produce as much as possible as efficiently as possible. This required a workforce that was highly disciplined and organized like an army. And as armies are housed in barracks provided by the state, so too, industrial armies would be housed in barracks-style, state-owned housing estates. Indeed, dormitories and accommodation blocks with communal kitchens – and little privacy – became a standard feature of urban planning in the wake of the Communist takeover in Russia.[Sparta]

Obviously, this system of state-owned housing also severely restricted freedom of movement, which once again shows why communism - and Fabian Socialism leading to Communism - is a totalitarian system that is unacceptable to lovers of freedom and democracy.

You explained all that very well! And we can go back to Sparta and Athens to understand the issues.

And we can go back to Sparta and Athens to understand the issues. — Athena

Correct. The fundamental issues have never changed. What has changed is the political systems claiming to address them. And even these are essentially the same. The Greeks already identified several forms of governance such as monarchy, democracy and tyranny. Some philosophers believed that monarchy was the ideal but they qualified it by insisting that the rulers should be philosophical or wise kings. Whichever system we may settle for, what is certain is that communism is a fraudulent system that promises "freedom" but ends in tyranny and economic ruin. And this is why Fabianism must be opposed if we want to avoid the fate of China.

We have zero understanding of economics and banking and yet have the power of the vote, but we can not discuss the really important matters. When was the last time we voted on land use issues or banking policy? And yet we are supposed to be self-governing. — Athena

Knowledge is power. Real power begins with knowledge, with an awareness of the situation we are in, of where we are, how we got here, where we want to go, and how we get there.

There is a great parable from the Bible about the enemy who sowed tares or weeds among the wheat while the farmer slept. Ignorance is a form of sleep that prevents us from identifying the enemy, seeing through his plans and taking steps to stop him. People need to wake up and stay wide awake, aware and alert at all times and encourage others to do the same.

Greek philosophy is about spiritual awakening. But this must go hand in hand with social and political awakening. While we aspire to personal enlightenment or salvation, we can not ignore the world around us. To do so would mean to go against the most fundamental principles of philosophy. The Greeks were practical people. Their gaze was fixed on the stars but their feet were firmly on the earth. Theirs was not an arm-chair philosophy but a philosophy of active practice.

I see what you're saying about the Fabians, but previously just said "whatever" because of that we had gotten off-topic and just didn't feel like going on anymore. I don't really know anything about the Fabians, myself, though.

I don't know. It's all good, I guess.

Well, I think you did mention that you are an Anarchist. So, for example, how would you reconcile Anarchism with the Fabian policy of state control?

I haven't advocated Fabiainism. I have just said that I don't know anything about it.

I know. I was just wondering how an Anarchist would evaluate Fabianism (based on the data provided here).

Probably not terribly favorably, but I only have your analysis to go on.

As I said, the analysis provided here isn’t “my analysis”, it is an analysis found in all critical authors and it is consistent with the Fabians’ own writings, policy papers and other documents.

I know a few Fabians personally so maybe we can invite a few Fabians to join the discussion. But in the meantime, let’s take a look at the Fabian view of this so-called “Fabian conspiracy”.

These are some key points made in the Fabian paper Fabian Review, where Vanesha Singh, assistant editor of the Fabian Society, says:

(1) “As an overview, most Fabian conspiracies have right-wing undertones. They tend to be backed by very few facts and are fuelled, instead, by a staunch opposition to socialism”.

(2) “Websites also lay out, in immense detail, how the Fabian Society influences multinational corporations, or how it represents the financial interests of global institutions such as the United Nations”.

(3) “The theorists extrapolate from information found on the society’s own website: that we once had 200 members sitting in the House of Commons, is turned into evidence that we “write Labour’s policy statements, manifestos and party programmes”, for instance. Facts can be manipulated to suit warped versions of the truth …”.

– V. Singh, “Crying Wolf”, 23 Sep 2018, Fabian Review, Autumn 2018

Great. So, let’s just very briefly analyze this, without going into endless discussions. You can let me know what you think.

(1) “As an overview, most Fabian conspiracies have right-wing undertones. They tend to be backed by very few facts and are fuelled, instead, by a staunch opposition to socialism.”

First, the author ignores the fact that the Fabians have many critics on the left, and have had since Engels and many other. By introducing the phrase "right-wing undertones", she attempt to deflect attention from this fact and deliberately misrepresents criticism of Fabianism as an exclusively "right-wing" phenomenon, which is simply not true.

Second, what kind of statement is this? Is the author suggesting that if an accusation has “right-wing undertones” and is “fueled by opposition to socialism” then that renders it null and void? If yes, then this suggestion is another diversionary tactic meant to undermine the validity and legitimacy of criticism of Fabianism.

As for “very few facts”, she is actually contradicting herself, because a few lines down she says:

(2) “Websites also lay out, in immense detail, how the Fabian Society influences multinational corporations, or how it represents the financial interests of global institutions such as the United Nations.”

For sure, “immense detail” (her own phrase) is a bit more than “very few facts”. Quite the opposite of "very few facts" actually. In my view, the detail is overwhelming as you can gather from what we’ve seen here.

But she scores another own goal straight after the first one:

(3) “The theorists extrapolate from information found on the society’s own website: that we once had 200 members sitting in the House of Commons, is turned into evidence that we “write Labour’s policy statements, manifestos and party programmes”, for instance. Facts can be manipulated to suit warped versions of the truth …”.

She admits that her own Fabian Society (which has a membership of about 7,000) has hundreds of members sitting in the House of Commons (the lower house of the UK Parliament). Actually, not “once”, but NOW, because the same website says that the Fabian Society has “hundreds of politicians in Westminster, local government and the devolved (regional) administrations”.

How can you have hundreds of Fabians developing and implementing public policy at local, regional and national level and at the same time claim that Fabian influence is “conspiracy theory”?

On 3 April 2020 the Fabian Society publicly congratulated Fabian Society members Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner for being elected leader and deputy leader, respectively, of the British Labour Party.

Please read this carefully:

"The Fabian Society is delighted to congratulate Keir Starmer on his election as leader of the Labour party. Keir is a member of the Fabian Society’s executive committee and joins the long line of Labour leaders who have been prominent Fabians.

Congratulations also to Angela Rayner on her election as deputy leader. Angela is also an active member of the Fabian Society. Both Keir and Angela have frequently written for the Fabian Society and addressed our conferences and events.

Andrew Harrop, general secretary of the Fabian Society said:

“The Fabian Society is delighted to congratulate Keir and Angela on their election as leader and deputy leader of the Labour party. We are incredibly proud to see two of our most talented Fabian Society members take charge of the British opposition.

“Both Keir and Angela exemplify the best of Fabian values in the way they combine such passion for social justice with a hard-headed practicality. The Labour party and the country will be well served by two inspiring Fabians leading the British left.”

Congratulations to Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner | Fabian Society

Of course there are many more Fabians in the Labour Party leadership as well as rank-and-file than Starmer and Rayner. But there is no need to enumerate them all because Fabian Society general secretary Harrop himself tells us that two Fabians, Starmer and Rainer, have “taken charge of the British opposition”. Which they have, they are the official leaders!

So, Starmer, who is a member of the Fabian Society executive committee, is the Leader of the Labour Party, i.e. of the British opposition.

The same Fabian website also expressly states that Starmer and Rayner “join the long line of Labour leaders who have been prominent Fabians.”

Why is the Fabian Society, a private organization unaccountable to the British public, in charge of the British opposition?

And how is stating facts published by the Fabian Society itself, “extrapolation”? Nobody denies that there are some crazy theories out there. But there is no need of any theories. The facts admitted by the Fabians themselves are more than enough to show that something isn’t right there.

People are actually trying to get back control of the Labour Party from the Fabians but aside from brief exceptions like Corbyn and McCluskey it’s just not possible.

I've always considered for the Fabians to be well-meaning Socialists who have occasionally made mistakes in terms of public policy, such as their support of Eugenics, because of their Victorian elite mentality, of which a parallel could be drawn towards Andrew Carnegie's The Gospel of Wealth. Though they have changed over the years, I doubt that my assessment of them would differ too much today. Someone somewhere down the line came up with the phrase "the open conspiracy", which, I think, you have become somewhat fixated upon. It doesn't seem to be the case that there is a form of conspiratorial control over the Labour movement on the part of the Fabians. They just became somewhat popular in it. As I have already defended him in this thread, I would be moreso inclined to support someone like Jeremy Corbyn. I don't live in the United Kingdom, though.

Lyndon B. Johnson coined the "Great Society" to describe the Democratic Party's efforts to eliminate poverty and racial injustice in the 1960s. Even though I disagree with Johnson's foreign policy and do not think that their domestic policies were effective, it would be absurd for me to claim that the "Great Society" was some form of progressive industrialist conspiracy.

As it concerns actual political conspiracies, I have already issued a lengthy response revoking them.

It doesn't seem to be the case that there is a form of conspiratorial control over the Labour movement on the part of the Fabians. — thewonder

Well, the point I'm making is that the Fabian Society is a private member organization. When people vote for Labour, the vast majority are not aware of the fact that Labour is controlled by the Fabian Society.

In my view, control of a major political party by a private organization doesn't sound very democratic, no matter what party or what organization that is.

Plus, when Labour is in office, the government is run by Fabian executive members sitting on the Labour leadership team.

Why should a private organization that is unaccountable to the electorate run the country from behind the scenes? It doesn't make any sense to me.

If the public were informed that the country is now run by the Fabian Society, it would be a different matter, but it isn't and that is deceptive and disingenuous.

I agree with your opposition to the Fabians to some extent, but, as I just don't live in the United Kingdom, I don't understand why you think you ought to convince me to do something about this. I am not a citizen of the U.K. and, therefore, not a member of the Labour Party. You should be having this conversation from a table outside of a pub somewhere in London handing out pamphlets for whoever the opposition to the Fabians are within the Labour Party. I can do nothing to help you from where I stand in the United States and, as I am an Anarcho-Pacifist, would do very little to, as I would probably merely vote for the Labour Party and not be an active member of it, were I to live in the United Kingdom.

I don't understand why you think you ought to convince me to do something about this — thewonder

I never asked you to do anything about it. I simply asked you for your honest opinion. But if you think that a private organization that people don't know anything about and that is unaccountable to voters should run the country, then everything is clear. Thank you for your comment.

I have not said that. I have said that I would be more inclined to support someone like Jeremy Corbyn, whom I previously defended against statements that you had made in this very thread.

I think that you think that what people say on The Philosophy Forum has more of an effect in the so-called "real world", as if the internet was somehow not a part of reality, than it actually does. Though anything that anyone says anywhere online can have effects, perhaps, within specific contexts and specific situations, The Philosophy Forum particularly so, generally what is stated here is fairly marginal.

Take your thread on your proposed plan for peace in Western Asia, for instance. If you want to bring peace to the region, what you should do is to look into what kinds of work human rights and nongovernmental organizations are already doing and volunteer. Attempting to start such a grandiose movement of "philosopher kings" on The Philosophy Forum is, at best, rather fanciful.

If you just want to chat it up about the Labour Party here, I would just hope that someone else comments in this thread or another one of yours, as, as I have a fairly limited knowledge of the internal politics of it, I just don't have very much to say.

@StreetlightX probably knows some of the intellectuals whom I have been trying to put aside a certain dispute with. I have taken it upon myself to explain my situation so as to facilitate that happening. You seem to have taken my doing this for that The Philosophy Forum can somehow generate extraordinary historical events and sweeping changes in public policy.

I think that you think that what people say on The Philosophy Forum has more of an effect in the so-called "real world", as if the internet was somehow not a part of reality, than it actually does. — thewonder

lol Not at all. It's just a discussion suggested by @Athena which you volunteered to join if you care to recall. I don't really care about this or any other discussion on this forum to be honest. You are reading far too much into it. And you don't have to participate if you don't want to which is probably just as well.

My mistake, then. I am just saying that I don't know enough about the Labour Party to make good conversation about it. I also don't happen to live in the U.K..

For some reason, though, you seem to have taken that acknowledgment of mine as a tacit support for the Fabians, among others, which is not the case. You have forgotten that within this very thread I made a number of posts defending Jeremy Corbyn.

Anyways, feel free to carry on. Like I said, I just don't know anything about the internal politics of the Labour Party.

Great. So, let’s just very briefly analyze this, without going into endless discussions. You can let me know what you think. — Apollodorus

Who thinks about business and economic matters? What does it mean to think about either? As I understand governing, it is what makes sure everything works together. It must not favor one thing over another but keep things balanced. Some industries can make huge profits and others can not. Only if an industry is very profitable can it pay high wages, and economies are mostly supported by low labor cost, and here government can balance the low labor cost with subsidies. There are economic and social benefits to assuring all workers have a decent standard of living. Someone must care for children and perhaps we should pay that person? I don't think we want to pay a woman who keeps having children so she can live on welfare, so there needs to be a disincentive for not doing that unless a low population rate means there is a need for more people. Then we might want to pay mothers more to encourage their reproduction.

History has not had a lot of highly influential women, but for me, the focus needs to be on the children and the elderly. That means there must be a good economy that can support a high standard of living. But money alone is not the only thing that needs to concern us. Morals also are important, and an industry that is all about manipulating us to buy things may not be considered moral? Businesses should be ethical and society must have shared morals and principles, and that won't be without education transmitting a culture for that. Fabianism is attractive because it considers fairness in wages and education.

I don't think we want to pay a woman who keeps having children so she can live on welfare, so there needs to be a disincentive for not doing that unless a low population rate means there is a need for more people. Then we might want to pay mothers more to encourage their reproduction. — Athena

Correct. The welfare system especially in Fabian-dominated societies like England has encouraged the emergence of thousands of families living on state support for generations. (I'm not talking about people who might occasionally find themselves out work, but about professional scroungers.)

At the same time, the Fabian insistence on women joining the workforce has reduced the number of women willing to devote their lives to raising children.

Fabian influence has also drastically reduced the number of married couples. Marx in his Communist Manifesto boasted about communism aiming to abolish the family. G B Shaw and other Fabian leaders were outspoken opponents of the family. The Fabian-Labour regime of 1997-2010 deliberately neglected the family and its importance in the development and progress of children so as to not appear "discriminatory or judgmental" toward unmarried and single parents. Under Fabian rule in 2009 married couples in England became a minority for the first time in history.

Interestingly, in the past, the head of the family (the man) used to earn enough to support himself and his family. Nowadays both partners often need to work to earn enough and very few can afford to buy a house.

This has contributed to a stagnation or fall in the general population and to the need for entire industries to import employees from abroad. Hence the Fabian and Labour policy of encouraging mass immigration.

Mass immigration in turn has led to a shortage of housing (= higher house prices and rent) and to stagnant wages that aren't keeping up with the rising living costs.

Fabian control of the education system has not led to higher standards of education, but to the opposite. Universities like the Fabians' LSE often have more foreign students than British.

In 2009, at the height of Fabian-Labour rule, independent opinion polls found that many young people were unemployable, lacking skills from reading and writing to punctuality, presentation and communication.

This again has further increased the need for importing "skilled workers" from other countries, etc. and has created an economy dependent on migrant workers who are gradually replacing the local working class.

The question that arises is, How does the British working class benefit from being replaced with others?

So, Fabianism may look "attractive" on the face of it but it comes with many problems of its own.

This is why people in general have decided that they want some Fabian policies such as national health service but not Fabianism, and this is what the ruling Tories (Conservatives) are now trying to offer, and have been since 2010.

Ultimately, the question is not whether Fabianism has anything attractive to offer but whether, on balance, Fabianism's good points outweigh its bad points. Closer analysis suggests that the opposite is the case.

Personally, I wouldn't want to live in Communist China just for the sake of public health service and unemployment benefits. And I definitely don't fancy being replaced. But this is just my view.

China is expanding into South America as the US has expanded around the world. The terms right and left are meaningless to me. What matters is nations are competing against each other and the powerful ones are exploiting the resources of the weak ones. It was a Trump agenda to expand the sphere of corporate interest by increasing their ability to exploit undeveloped countries. I suppose his idea of making the US great again, and at the expense of indigenous people. Without the words "right and Left" we have to talk about what is really happen and those decisions are not just what is happening in our own countries, but it is what is happening around the world and is a moral issue not just an economic one. Our economic interests have caused bad health and suffering and destroyed ecological systems. Now China has progressed and is doing the same. Isn't that wonderful? :brow:

The welfare system especially in Fabian-dominated societies like England has encouraged the emergence of thousands of families living on state support for generations. — Apollodorus

There was a time when we all depended on our tribe. We shared the earth's resources in common and defended our territory just as dog packs and chimpanzees do. We evolved a family order with divided responsibility. Industrialization has disrupted that order. Iran soundly rejected that disruption of family order and celebrated religious leadership and a returned to traditional morality. So does our Christian right, sort of? They reject welfare while bemoaning the end of traditional values, and demanding women have equal rights. A woman with children does not have equal rights, because she does not have equal freedom to pursue her career and have family too.

When men say what you have said, it is pretty obvious that is a man speaking. Where is the father who supports his family and teaches his son how to be a man and a useful part of the community? How many children have you raised without depending on someone to support the family or care for the children?

England and the US prepared their young for citizenship. England rejected education for technology because it was protecting its classes and technology increases equality. We have all embraced education for technology, which is preparing the young to be products for industry and destroying family values. We now speak of freedoms but not our duties. People are physically becoming adults but they are not maturing. Having that wonderful career is about culture and preparation for life that education, is totally failing to do, in our technological societies with unknown values. So now we have divided and are no longer united, and the poor have no idea how to think middle-class lives, nor is the middle-class consciousness the of the at the of poverty. Children in poverty with overwhelmed mothers learn to want nothing because their mothers can not cope with their needs and wants. And this we are spreading around the world. We have left culture up to media commercialism. Our amorality is erupting into anarchy, as we find fault with everything and everyone and look forward to the day computers take over and we are all consumed by the Borg.

The terms right and left are meaningless to me. What matters is nations are competing against each other and the powerful ones are exploiting the resources of the weak ones. — Athena

I agree. That's exactly why I've said many times before that the emergence of a political right and left hasn't brought anything good and society should return to a no-party system where governance is done by consensus instead of having alternate rule by one party or another. Hence my suggestion that governments should be run by impartial or partyless "philosopher kings" or wise rulers as proposed by Plato.

And yes, the problem is powerful countries exploiting the resources of the weak ones. China is a good example. It exploits Tibet - while also suppressing its people - and is expanding its influence and power in the Pacific, Africa, the Middle East and even Europe.

Yet no one says anything about China. Mainstream discussion seems to always revolve around Europe's colonial past.

They reject welfare while bemoaning the end of traditional values, and demanding women have equal rights. A woman with children does not have equal rights, because she does not have equal freedom to pursue her career and have family too. — Athena

Sure. But the same applies to a man who has to bring up children without their mother.

I think “equal rights” can be deceptive and is often used to deceive people. The ruled are not in the same position as the rulers. Individuals are different from each other. We all have different aptitudes and skills, different levels of intelligence or physical strength, etc.

If we take “equality” to its logical conclusion, then women should stop having children and become men. Is this what society should strive to achieve?

I never said there should be no welfare. I only pointed out that some families live on state benefits for generations, even those that do have a man or father in the house. I was referring to people who are deliberately abusing the system out of their own choice, not because circumstances force them.

I agree. That's exactly why I've said many times before that the emergence of a political right and left hasn't brought anything good and society should return to a no-party system where governance is done by consensus instead of having alternate rule by one party or another. Hence my suggestion that governments should be run by impartial or partyless "philosopher kings" or wise rulers as proposed by Plato. ["/quote"]

:gasp: We criticized the communist for having only one political party. That looks like ignorant propaganda doesn't it, when we consider Plato or even the forefathers of the US who originally were opposed to separate parties.
— Apollodorus

And yes, the problem is powerful countries exploiting the resources of the weak ones. China is a good example. It exploits Tibet - while also suppressing its people - and is expanding its influence and power in the Pacific, Africa, the Middle East and even Europe.

Yet no one says anything about China. Mainstream discussion seems to always revolve around Europe's colonial past.

Good point. However, until recently China was known for its internal wars and then becoming one empire and then not expanding. For philosophyical reasons, China remained in the past and protected that but restricting contact with the rest of the world. At one time it had the best technology in the world but this technological growth came a stand still. Why is China different today?

Sure. But the same applies to a man who has to bring up children without their mother.

I think “equal rights” can be deceptive and is often used to deceive people. The ruled are not in the same position as the rulers. Individuals are different from each other. We all have different aptitudes and skills, different levels of intelligence or physical strength, etc.

If we take “equality” to its logical conclusion, then women should stop having children and become men. Is this what society should strive to achieve?

How about men becoming as women? It has been argued that would make the world a better place. For years I have arged the importance of the traditional woman and the vital part she plays in society.

I never said there should be no welfare. I only pointed out that some families live on state benefits for generations, even those that do have a man or father in the house. I was referring to people who are deliberately abusing the system out of their own choice, not because circumstances force them.

You are I do not understand poverty the same. I once thought poverty was a meaningful experience those of us born white and middle class could never have. Then during the 1970 recession caused by OPEC embargoing, my family experienced serious poverty for so long I forgot how to think middle class.

We used to think the people who went through the depression and starting hording, where funny. During the recession I became afraid of that when I used what we had there would be no more, and I bgan hording. I was proud of my ability to endure hunger and cold, and didn't weigh enough to sell plasma, so I used heavy clothing and risked going to shock to sell plasma. I rished my life in other ways, because that is what I had to do to survive and I developed black humor, where death is something to laugh about. I learned poverty is mentally, physically and spiritually devastating. I do not believe people willingly live like that, but when that is all they know. That is all they know.

Do not judge a man until you walk a mile in his boots.

We criticized the communist for having only one political party. That looks like ignorant propaganda doesn't it, when we consider Plato or even the forefathers of the US who originally were opposed to separate parties. — Athena

I think there is a big difference between communism and what Plato or the US Founding Fathers had in mind. Plato proposed rule by good and wise governors precisely to combat tyranny. America had been a British Crown Colony, so rule by one party either under a king or president wasn’t such an unusual prospect. As long as democracy is secured, it doesn’t really matter.

By contrast, communism advocates abolition of private property, total state control, and dictatorship.
Marx and Engels believed that between capitalist and communist society lay the period of revolutionary transformation of the one into the other and that to this corresponded a political transition period in which the state could be nothing but the “revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat” (Critique of the Gotha Programme, 1875, MECW, vol. 24., p. 95).

Engels wrote: “Do you want to know what this dictatorship looks like? Look at the Paris Commune. That was the Dictatorship of the Proletariat” (“Introduction”, 18 Mar. 1891, The Civil War In France, 1871, MEW, Band 22, s. 199).

In the Paris Commune of 1871, armed revolutionaries, some of whom were members of Marx and Engels’ International, had seized the French capital and imposed a reign of terror in which many citizens were summarily executed – including the Archbishop of Paris who had been taken hostage – and much of the city was burned to the ground. Marx and Engels at the time celebrated the Commune as “the most glorious deed of our party” and the “glorious harbinger of a new society” (Marx, Letter to Dr. Kugelmann, 12 Apr. 1871, MECW, vol. 44, p. 131; Marx, “Third Address to the General Council of the International”, 30 May 1871, MECW, vol. 22, p. 230).

The Communists murdered many millions of innocent people in Russia, China, Eastern Europe, and other places.

Good point. However, until recently China was known for its internal wars and then becoming one empire and then not expanding. For philosophyical reasons, China remained in the past and protected that but restricting contact with the rest of the world. At one time it had the best technology in the world but this technological growth came a stand still. Why is China different today? — Athena

China has become different under Western influence. The biggest influence was probably Soviet Communism. After the economic collapse of the Soviet Union, China nearly went down the same road but decided to take a leaf from Lenin’s book and introduced some elements of capitalism under strict state control. This was followed by massive investments and credit from America and Europe and allowed China to become an empire again, but an atheist and national socialist one instead of traditional Chinese. This is already creating big problems for a lot of small countries and even a few big ones.

How about men becoming as women? It has been argued that would make the world a better place. For years I have arged the importance of the traditional woman and the vital part she plays in society. — Athena

Well, if that’s the path humanity wants to go, then there isn’t much we can do about it. Personally, though, I don’t see anything fundamentally wrong with having men and women. A bit of tradition isn’t always bad. If animals can be male and female without problems I don’t see why humans should be different.

You are I do not understand poverty the same. I once thought poverty was a meaningful experience those of us born white and middle class could never have. Then during the 1970 recession caused by OPEC embargoing, my family experienced serious poverty for so long I forgot how to think middle class. — Athena

People tend to agree on some things and disagree on others. However, I think the discussion was trying to establish whether Communism in its Fabian form is a good thing and, in connection with that, what form of government we think would be the ideal one.

I believe we agreed on keeping private property. This would rule out communism. Anything else you think we agree on?

I think there is a big difference between communism and what Plato or the US Founding Fathers had in mind. Plato proposed rule by good and wise governors precisely to combat tyranny. America had been a British Crown Colony, so rule by one party either under a king or president wasn’t such an unusual prospect. As long as democracy is secured, it doesn’t really matter.

By contrast, communism advocates abolition of private property, total state control, and dictatorship.
Marx and Engels believed that between capitalist and communist society lay the period of revolutionary transformation of the one into the other and that to this corresponded a political transition period in which the state could be nothing but the “revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat” (Critique of the Gotha Programme, 1875, MECW, vol. 24., p. 95).

Engels wrote: “Do you want to know what this dictatorship looks like? Look at the Paris Commune. That was the Dictatorship of the Proletariat” (“Introduction”, 18 Mar. 1891, The Civil War In France, 1871, MEW, Band 22, s. 199).

In the Paris Commune of 1871, armed revolutionaries, some of whom were members of Marx and Engels’ International, had seized the French capital and imposed a reign of terror in which many citizens were summarily executed – including the Archbishop of Paris who had been taken hostage – and much of the city was burned to the ground. Marx and Engels at the time celebrated the Commune as “the most glorious deed of our party” and the “glorious harbinger of a new society” (Marx, Letter to Dr. Kugelmann, 12 Apr. 1871, MECW, vol. 44, p. 131; Marx, “Third Address to the General Council of the International”, 30 May 1871, MECW, vol. 22, p. 230).

The Communists murdered many millions of innocent people in Russia, China, Eastern Europe, and other places. — Apollodorus

I am struggling to understand why anyone would think eliminating the industrial leaders would be a good thing. Marx wasn't even capable of supporting himself. Why would anyone think he could create a healthy economy for a whole nation? To be an industrial leader, first a person has to have a good idea, and the ability to promote that idea and get others to invest in it. Then create an organization that turns the idea into a reality and markets it to a population. At no point in the process does a person take a weapon and start killing people. What went so wrong that made people think a violent revolution is how to achieve anything of value?

China has become different under Western influence. The biggest influence was probably Soviet Communism. After the economic collapse of the Soviet Union, China nearly went down the same road but decided to take a leaf from Lenin’s book and introduced some elements of capitalism under strict state control. This was followed by massive investments and credit from America and Europe and allowed China to become an empire again, but an atheist and national socialist one instead of traditional Chinese. This is already creating big problems for a lot of small countries and even a few big ones.

Moa is a good example of a charismatic leader with no merit. He had the power to rule but not the ability. Science is essential to democracy. We once understood this but don't seem to understand that now because half of us followed a leader who ignores science, proving what happened in China can happen in the US. That is quite frightening to me. Only democracy is protected in the classroom is it protected and I think the US stopped doing that.

Well, if that’s the path humanity wants to go, then there isn’t much we can do about it. Personally, though, I don’t see anything fundamentally wrong with having men and women. A bit of tradition isn’t always bad. If animals can be male and female without problems I don’t see why humans should be different.

My comment about men becoming as women was a response to you saying

If we take “equality” to its logical conclusion, then women should stop having children and become men.

I think both of us agree having both sexes and tolerance for gender differences is a good thing. Personally, I think the traditional family of a man who supports the family and a woman who stays home to care for the family has great value. However, within this traditional family structure, everyone needs to be supported for self-actualization and this would involve sharing responsibilities. :grin: Cooperative families making a cooperative nation.

People tend to agree on some things and disagree on others. However, I think the discussion was trying to establish whether Communism in its Fabian form is a good thing and, in connection with that, what form of government we think would be the ideal one.

I believe we agreed on keeping private property. This would rule out communism. Anything else you think we agree on?

I lost interest in communism when I read it "liberated women" with a propaganda campaign declaring full-time homemakers are not valuable citizens. In the US we shortened this to "just a housewife" and effectively destroyed the value of full-time homemakers.

When the communist destroyed the value of full-time homemakers women got jobs in order to be valued citizens and they began working like men. The state had to provide child care, because someone has to care for the children.

The flood of women into the workforce increased the size of a cheap source of labor and this increased the economy. However, the divorce rate soared and so did the abortion rate. Women were not fairing better, because, with both the responsibility of caring for children and having to work, they did not have the time and energy to get an education and advance a career. Not until my X walked out and I had to care for the children and support them too, did I appreciate the value of a full-time homemaker. It would have been wonderful to come home to a clean home, a cooked dinner, and have someone else resolve all the problems that come with having children, so I could just eat and relax. I realized if the only thing I had to do was focus on supporting the family, then I would have the time and energy to develop a career. In old books about family, it was stressed how the woman should manage things so her husband was free to what he needed to do to support the family. My point is, single mothers are not liberated, women unless they can pay someone to care for the children and the home and the relations that a full-time homemaker cares for. When women are forced to both care for the children and support them, they tend to fall into poverty, and this becomes a state burden. It becomes counterproductive.

That makes communism the worst possible thing for family values and a society that values humans. We are proving Capitalism can be just as destructive to family and human values.

I think Marx and Engels needed the voice of a woman who thought her role in society as a homemaker was extremely valuable. I think the men had an exaggerated sense of their own importance.

According to Marxist feminists, women's liberation can only be achieved by dismantling the capitalist systems in which they contend much of women's labor is uncompensated. — Wikipedia

:rage: Darn right much of women's labor is not monetarily compensated for. Caring for people freely because that is what a good woman does, is not a bad thing. Turning a woman into a commodity whose function is dependent on a monetary reward destroys our human values,

:chin: Perhaps that goes with thinking a violent revolution and killing industrial leaders is a good thing, because everyone is reduced to a commodity. No one's unique human value is respected.

I am struggling to understand why anyone would think eliminating the industrial leaders would be a good thing. Marx wasn't even capable of supporting himself. Why would anyone think he could create a healthy economy for a whole nation? To be an industrial leader, first a person has to have a good idea, and the ability to promote that idea and get others to invest in it. Then create an organization that turns the idea into a reality and markets it to a population. At no point in the process does a person take a weapon and start killing people. What went so wrong that made people think a violent revolution is how to achieve anything of value? — Athena

I think you are making some very good points there. Marx was an authoritarian, domineering, and argumentative person from the start. He studied law and philosophy and tried to use philosophical arguments and legalistic language to impose his views on others. But that didn’t work out, he fell into disrepute at university and could never get an academic job. So, he turned to journalism but his revolutionary rhetoric got his paper (funded by wealthy bankers and industrialists) closed down. He then turned to revolutionary activities, used his father’s inheritance to fund insurrection in Belgium where many German factory workers lived, which failed, and he was on the run from the police ever after.

In 1847 Marx and Engels set up the Communist League in London to promote violent revolution among German workers living in England who had links to workers’ organizations in Germany and other European countries. Their plan was to infiltrate the socialist labor movement, join the Democrats to seize power from the Conservatives, and then overthrow the Democrats and install a Socialist regime run by the Communist League, i.e., by themselves.

The whole Marxist ideology was constructed for that particular purpose, to incite people to insurrection, whilst hiding the leadership’s true intentions of assuming power for themselves. They wrote the Communist Manifesto (1848) to promote their ideology. All the central concepts of Marxist political theory were formulated in ambiguous, suggestive, and misleading language.

Frederic L. Bender, “The Ambiguities of Marx’s concepts of ‘proletarian dictatorship’ and ‘transition to communism’”

People were not stupid. The English working classes completely ignored Marx and even among the German workers he had only a very small following. The Communist League never had more than a few hundred members. Engels in his 1890 Preface to the Communist Manifesto wrote:

“… “Working men of all countries, unite!” But few voices responded when we proclaimed these words to the world 42 years ago, on the eve of the first Paris Revolution [of 1848] in which the proletariat came out with the demands of its own.”

Manifesto of the Communist Party (marxists.org)

Of course “few responded”. Practically no one, because the German-language Manifesto (printed in London) was seized by the German police at the border, the French version remained unpublished at the time, and the English translation was published two years after the revolution!

So, Marx and Engels’ “revolution” is a myth, a fairy tale, and a hoax. It never happened, because nobody believed in it and very few had actually heard of it. Marx then turned to writing his economic theory and after about twenty years published the first volume of Capital (1867) but nobody bought that either. It was long after his death that Engels and other German socialists, with the help of the London Fabians and Russian Marxists, managed to spread the ideology of revolution to Russia where in October 1917 Lenin, Trotsky, and a few other Marxist ideologists seized power with the help of radicalized factory workers and some elements of the armed forces - all of whom were later liquidated by Stalin.

Essentially, this is what Marxist political theory can be reduced to, an ideological tool for seizing power. It has absolutely no viable political program or anything except total state control and dictatorship of the Communist Party (a self-appointed intellectual elite), not of the working classes who are simply reduced to servants of the state. Marxism comes to power through a mixture of deception and force of arms.

Engels’ definition of revolution was “the most authoritarian thing that exists; it is the act, whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon; and the victorious party must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionaries” - Engels, F., “On Authority”, 1874, MEW, Band. 18, s. 308.

Marx was also suffering from a skin disease that was causing frequent episodes of self-loathing and alienation and making him fly into a rage and behave like a tyrant even in his own home. You can almost hear his anger and frustration in some of his writings and this was reflected in the violent language that he was using to attack everyone that contradicted him.

“The nature and consequence of Karl Marx's skin disease” - National Library of Medicine

Mao is a good example of a charismatic leader with no merit. He had the power to rule but not the ability. Science is essential to democracy. We once understood this but don't seem to understand that now because half of us followed a leader who ignores science, proving what happened in China can happen in the US. That is quite frightening to me. Only democracy is protected in the classroom is it protected and I think the US stopped doing that. — Athena

Correct. Mao was just a brainwashed farmer and a Soviet Russian puppet. He was worthless without Russian backing. After the death of Stalin, the Russians started a de-Stalinization program to make Russia’s Communist dictatorship slightly more moderate. Mao went in the opposite direction and turned more and more dictatorial and bloodthirsty.

Even before seizing power, Mao proclaimed that it was “necessary to bring about a reign of terror all over the country” – S. Schram, ed., Mao’s Road to Power: Revolutionary Writings 1912-1949.

Remember that the British Fabian leadership were admirers of Stalin and thought that the Soviet Union was a “Union of Fabian Republics”. The Fabians were for violent revolution in places like Russia and Africa that didn’t affect them, but in Europe and America they advocated communism by gradual steps and by stealth, and their main tool was education.

Wells who was a master Fabian tactician wrote in New Worlds for Old:

“Unless you can change men’s minds you cannot effect Socialism, and when you have made clear and universal certain broad understandings, Socialism becomes a mere matter of science and devices and applied intelligence. That is the constructive Socialist’s position. Logically, therefore, he declares the teacher master of the situation. Ultimately the Socialist movement is teaching, and the most important people in the world from the Socialist’s point of view are those who teach—I mean of course not simply those who teach in schools, but those who teach in pulpits, in books, in the press, in universities and lecture-theatres, in parliaments and councils, in discussions and associations and experiments of every sort, and, last in my list but most important of all, those mothers and motherly women who teach little children in their earliest years. Every one, too, who enunciates a new and valid idea, or works out a new contrivance, is a teacher in this sense.

And these Teachers collectively, perpetually renew the collective mind. In the measure that in each successive generation they apprehend Socialism and transmit its spirit, is Socialism nearer its goal.”

New Worlds for Old, by H. G. Wells (gutenberg.org)

And they do that through education, culture, politics, and pretty much every single movement or trend that they instigate, manipulate, and direct. This is the real danger of Fabianism: it advances communism and totalitarianism under the pretense of “progress” without anyone realizing it until it’s too late.

I think both of us agree having both sexes and tolerance for gender differences is a good thing. Personally, I think the traditional family of a man who supports the family and a woman who stays home to care for the family has great value. However, within this traditional family structure, everyone needs to be supported for self-actualization and this would involve sharing responsibilities. Cooperative families making a cooperative nation. — Athena

Correct. Humans have evolved into what they are now for a reason. Men and women have different roles but should be treated with equal respect. The Fabians started by claiming to change capitalism and, following their own logic of permanent revolution or permanent change, they have begun to change not only politics but also culture, society, the family, and, ultimately, man himself in accordance with their Darwinist and Eugenicist agenda of making man and woman in the image of Fabian sociopathic ideology. This is, literally, the deliberate and systematic destruction of humanity for the sake of some psychopathic dream.

I lost interest in communism when I read it "liberated women" with a propaganda campaign declaring full-time homemakers are not valuable citizens. In the US we shortened this to "just a housewife" and effectively destroyed the value of full-time homemakers.

When the communist destroyed the value of full-time homemakers women got jobs in order to be valued citizens and they began working like men. The state had to provide child care, because someone has to care for the children.

The flood of women into the workforce increased the size of a cheap source of labor and this increased the economy. However, the divorce rate soared and so did the abortion rate. Women were not fairing better, because, with both the responsibility of caring for children and having to work, they did not have the time and energy to get an education and advance a career. Not until my X walked out and I had to care for the children and support them too, did I appreciate the value of a full-time homemaker. It would have been wonderful to come home to a clean home, a cooked dinner, and have someone else resolve all the problems that come with having children, so I could just eat and relax. I realized if the only thing I had to do was focus on supporting the family, then I would have the time and energy to develop a career. In old books about family, it was stressed how the woman should manage things so her husband was free to what he needed to do to support the family. My point is, single mothers are not liberated, women unless they can pay someone to care for the children and the home and the relations that a full-time homemaker cares for. When women are forced to both care for the children and support them, they tend to fall into poverty, and this becomes a state burden. It becomes counterproductive.

That makes communism the worst possible thing for family values and a society that values humans. We are proving Capitalism can be just as destructive to family and human values. — Athena

Correct. Any system can be destructive without appropriate checks and balances. In capitalism the destructive forces are unchecked money interests. In communism it is unchecked political ideology.

What is interesting is that in answering the charge that socialism destroys the family and the home, Fabians like Wells use the argument of the Communist Manifesto which was that capitalism destroys the home anyway. As if that settled the matter. In fact, it only shifts the problem without solving it, and it really only exacerbates it.

New Worlds for Old, by H. G. Wells (gutenberg.org)

And, of course, communism never abolished poverty. Millions died of starvation under communist dictators like Stalin and Mao.

Soviet famine of 1932–33 – Wikipedia

Famine in Stalinist Russia – Images

The Soviet Union was propped up by US investments and loans from 1917 to the 1980s. In the early 1980s, Ronald Reagan found out and stopped all technical and financial assistance to Russia. Russia’s Communist regime collapsed soon after. This clearly exposes the mythology of the "superiority" of communist economics.

Ronald Reagan Won the Cold War | The Heritage Foundation

I think Marx and Engels needed the voice of a woman who thought her role in society as a homemaker was extremely valuable. I think the men had an exaggerated sense of their own importance. — Athena

Yes, Marx and Engels certainly had an exaggerated sense of their own importance, especially in relation to women. Engels was a womanizer and Marx treated his wife as a servant. Marx got his housemaid Helene pregnant and he and Engels did their utmost to cover it up, Engels even pretending to be the father to protect Marx’s so-called “reputation”.

Helene Demuth – Wikipedia

According to Marxist feminists, women's liberation can only be achieved by dismantling the capitalist systems in which they contend much of women's labor is uncompensated.— Wikipedia

Darn right much of women's labor is not monetarily compensated for. Caring for people freely because that is what a good woman does, is not a bad thing. Turning a woman into a commodity whose function is dependent on a monetary reward destroys our human values. — Athena

Absolutely. Marx criticized capitalism for devaluing and dehumanizing people, but communism does exactly the same only worse. Man and woman in communist society only have a value to the extent they are of use to the state. Very few women made it to leading positions in Soviet Russia or Maoist China.

Communism only advocates the “liberation” of women and other groups until it comes to power. After that, it’s another story.

Perhaps that goes with thinking a violent revolution and killing industrial leaders is a good thing, because everyone is reduced to a commodity. No one's unique. — Athena

Yes, killing not just industrial leaders but everyone that has any degree of power, influence, or talent that can be inconvenient to the communist leadership. That’s why they built concentration camps long before the Nazis did.

Gulag – Wikipedia

From the early 1900s, leading international bankers and industrialists, together with their Fabian collaborators, had been planning to overthrow the Czars and make the Russian Empire into a Union of Fabian Republics run by Fabian Socialists that at the same time would serve as a big market for the bankers and industrialists who were funding the Fabians. This was what the Fabian leadership meant when it said that "Socialism is a business proposition".

The London Fabians maintained close contact with Lenin and other Russian revolutionaries through the Socialist International, the Rainbow Circle, and the Society of Friends of Russian Freedom. Wealthy Fabian Society members financed Lenin and his Russian Social Democratic Labour Party during their exile in London. The Fabian leadership, especially the Webbs through their writings like Industrial Democracy (which Lenin translated into Russian) also provided the ideology used by Lenin to win support for his revolution.

In 1917, the year of the Russian Revolution, Ford started mass-producing Fordson tractors. Because of the Civil War in Russia, it could only start selling them in 1920 after which it exported tens of thousands of Fordsons to the Soviets. After 1924 Ford licensed the production of tractors and trucks in Russia itself.

From then on, there was a steady transfer of US cash and technology to Russia into the 1980s. The groups involved were the Rockefellers (chief financers of Fabianism) and associates through banking and industrial corporations like Chase Manhattan, Citibank, Bank of America, Morgan Guaranty Trust, Manufacturers Hanover, and Ford Motor Company as well as organizations like the USSR State Committee for Science and Technology (SCST) and the US-USSR Trade and Economic Council (USTEC) which was headed by Rockefeller executives and associates.

David Rockefeller was the leader of the US financial assistance effort to Communist Russia. In the early 1970s he started to overtly finance Russia and China. In 1973 he opened a Chase Manhattan branch in Moscow and visited China to negotiate US-Chinese economic cooperation.

Rockefeller also started to promote a worldwide policy of East-West rapprochement through his close friend and collaborator and US Government adviser Henry Kissinger and through the Rockefeller-funded UN. Rockefeller’s activities saved Communist Russia and China from economic collapse.

Meantime, Ronald Reagan had been studying the Soviets for a long time and he knew that communist economy was not a functional system. When he came to power in 1981, he immediately ordered an investigation into how the Soviets financed themselves and this was when he found out that they were assisted by US finance and technology.

In May 1982 Reagan went public with his plan. Speaking at his alma mater, Eureka College, he predicted that “the march of freedom and democracy … will leave Marxism-Leninism on the ash-heap of history as it has left other tyrannies which stifle the freedom and muzzle the self-expression of the people.”

He directed his top national security team to develop a plan to end the Cold War by winning it. The result was a series of top-secret national security decision directives.

In particular, Reagan adopted a policy of attacking a “strategic triad” of critical resources –financial credits, high technology and natural gas – essential to Soviet economic survival. Author-economist Roger Robinson said the directive was tantamount to “a secret declaration of economic war on the Soviet Union.”

When Reagan increased US military expenditure by 13%, the Soviets barely reacted because they simply could not afford to keep up.

The Soviets whose economy depended on oil exports also went through an oil crisis caused by a fall in oil production and prices.

The Soviets knew that they were finished and just gave up exactly as predicted by Reagan. After seventy years of communism or Fabianism, they were forced to reintroduce capitalism and feed themselves instead of relying on capitalist aid.

To get an idea of the situation, in 1970, the Soviet Union bought 2.16 million tons of grain. By 1985 this had risen to 44.2 million tons (a 20-fold increase). There were similar increases in meat imports and other products. Basically, the Soviet State had become incapable of feeding its own people.

D. Rockefeller, Memoirs

Fordson – Wikipedia

How Ronald Reagan Won the Cold War | The Heritage Foundation

Reagan’s Secret Directive NSDD-75 Federation of American Scientists (FAS)

during the 1970 recession caused by OPEC embargoing, my family experienced serious poverty for so long I forgot how to think middle class. — Athena

Since you mentioned the 1970s oil crisis, I thought you might want to know how that came about.

Oil at the time was controlled by four major players: (1) the Rockefellers through Standard Oil (ESSO), Mobil, etc., (2) the Rothschilds through Shell and French-North African operations, (3) the Arabs trough the Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries (OAPEC), and (4) the Russians’ State Planning Committee (Gosplan).

The energy crisis actually started in 1970 - 1971 when the US oil production had peaked which meant a fall in supply and a rise in prices.

In October 1973, the OAPEC which was controlled by Kuwait, Libya, and Saudi Arabia, announced an oil embargo on some Western countries including America. The embargo wasn’t particularly well-organized or effective. It was more symbolic. But OAPEC used its influence to increase world oil prices which put a huge strain on economies around the world and affected millions of people in America and other Western countries.

However, what was happening behind the scenes was that even before the embargo was imposed, major Western countries had reached an agreement with Arab oil producers to invest the surplus obtained from higher oil prices in Western economies via the banks controlled by the same people who controlled the West’s oil industries.

The Rockefellers played a key role in this, though they were by no means the only ones. Officials of the Rockefeller-controlled Arabian American Oil Co. (ARAMCO) actually encouraged the Arabs to raise their oil prices to justify the Rockefellers’ own price increase in the USA.

According to the Washington Post, ARAMCO (consisting of ESSO, Mobil, Standard of California and Texaco), not only encouraged the OAPEC to raise prices but also neglected to invest in the maintenance of Saudi oil wells in order to hamper production.

So, whilst millions of ordinary people were reduced to poverty and destitution, the Rockefelllers made billions and expanded their banking and petroleum empire throughout the Mid East as the Arabs and Iranians deposited their oil dollars in Rockefeller banks. By 1978, Iranian deposits with Chase alone exceeded USD 1 billion.

The Rockefellers’ Soviet partners (who were key military allies of the Arabs) also profited nicely by secretly buying Arab oil at discount prices and selling it at raised prices to the West as “Russian” oil.

Reagan did well to stop the Soviets. Unfortunately, he failed to stop the Rockefellers.

L. Rocks, The Energy Crisis

D. Rockefeller, Memoirs

J. Anderson, “Details of Aramco Papers Disclosed”, Washington Post, 01/28/1974

I think you are making some very good points there. Marx was an authoritarian, domineering, and argumentative person from the start. He studied law and philosophy and tried to use philosophical arguments and legalistic language to impose his views on others. But that didn’t work out, he fell into disrepute at university and could never get an academic job. So, he turned to journalism but his revolutionary rhetoric got his paper (funded by wealthy bankers and industrialists) closed down. He then turned to revolutionary activities, used his father’s inheritance to fund insurrection in Belgium where many German factory workers lived, which failed, and he was on the run from the police ever after. — Apollodorus

I think that is a typical problem today. People thinking the right information and the right argument is what leadership is about, getting angrier and angrier when no one accepts them as a leader. This comes with education for technology but is not the result of liberal education.

In 1847 Marx and Engels set up the Communist League in London to promote violent revolution among German workers living in England who had links to workers’ organizations in Germany and other European countries. Their plan was to infiltrate the socialist labor movement, join the Democrats to seize power from the Conservatives, and then overthrow the Democrats and install a Socialist regime run by the Communist League, i.e., by themselves.

Isn't that in line with Hitler's road to power? Except Hitler appealed to the people by going throughout the country and finding out exactly what made people angry and then used that information to gain their support. It was not all, his idea imposed on others, but more skillful emotional manipulation.

The whole Marxist ideology was constructed for that particular purpose, to incite people to insurrection, whilst hiding the leadership’s true intentions of assuming power for themselves. They wrote the Communist Manifesto (1848) to promote their ideology. All the central concepts of Marxist political theory were formulated in ambiguous, suggestive, and misleading language.

And I think a recent leader was doing the same thing, only this time strongly opposing socialism, turning socialism into a strong playing card for the opposition.

So, Marx and Engels’ “revolution” is a myth, a fairy tale, and a hoax. It never happened, because nobody believed in it and very few had actually heard of it. Marx then turned to writing his economic theory and after about twenty years published the first volume of Capital (1867) but nobody bought that either. It was long after his death that Engels and other German socialists, with the help of the London Fabians and Russian Marxists, managed to spread the ideology of revolution to Russia where in October 1917 Lenin, Trotsky, and a few other Marxist ideologists seized power with the help of radicalized factory workers and some elements of the armed forces - all of whom were later liquidated by Stalin.

Essentially, this is what Marxist political theory can be reduced to, an ideological tool for seizing power. It has absolutely no viable political program or anything except total state control and dictatorship of the Communist Party (a self-appointed intellectual elite), not of the working classes who are simply reduced to servants of the state. Marxism comes to power through a mixture of deception and force of arms.

Your explanation is interesting and I am impressed by what communism had to do with giving Hitler power. It is like the US push for socialism and the opposite party pushing against it. People are reacting against each other and excessively willing to follow leaders, like an emotional melee not really an intellectual movement. Hilter was against communism.

Engels’ definition of revolution was “the most authoritarian thing that exists; it is the act, whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon; and the victorious party must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionaries” - Engels, F., “On Authority”, 1874, MEW, Band. 18, s. 308.

Oh my goodness your highlight of this reveals the tragedy of what happened. The American Revolution was a revolution of consciousness. Not exactly all of it was a revolution of consciousness because not everyone was literate. However, many of the leaders were literate in Greek and Roman classics and the philosophy of their time and they did create a new form of government built on an understanding of Athens and Rome.

Marx was also suffering from a skin disease that was causing frequent episodes of self-loathing and alienation and making him fly into a rage and behave like a tyrant even in his own home. You can almost hear his anger and frustration in some of his writings and this was reflected in the violent language that he was using to attack everyone that contradicted him.

That is sad and I don't think he was the only person with a personality/mental disorder that people have followed. Neitzche's superman is appealing to males, but really is that the thinking that is good for civilizations?

Mao was just a brainwashed farmer and a Soviet Russian puppet. He was worthless without Russian backing. After the death of Stalin, the Russians started a de-Stalinization program to make Russia’s Communist dictatorship slightly more moderate. Mao went in the opposite direction and turned more and more dictatorial and bloodthirsty.

Oh dear, that is really sad but so typical. Looking back on my observations of life it seems few people learn to handle power well. Of course, I am thinking of what happens in families where the head of a household may be a tyrant because he does not know better or when the woman dominates she may be the tyrant especially in her role as mother. When we do not learn better, we do not do better. This is tragic when the person is in a strong national leadership role.

My bell went off- time for me to run. I hope to get back to you later.

That explanation of the take over of the Soviet Union is fascinating. How many people are aware of the banking and business deals that actually rule the world? We think of our national leaders and perhaps what the masses believe, but the real power and control are not the subject of our news. That is not what the masses are directed to pay attention to.

Son of a gun, in all these years I have not come across anyone with knowledge of the oil-banking-economy reality. I learned of it through a geologist who wrote "Geodestiny". How did you come to that information? Why did you pay attention to it?