I The Basic Principles and Ideals of National-Socialism
National-Socialism is a 'world-view' or 'philosophy of living'. Its primary concern is practical - the peoples of European (or Aryan) descent, their present civilization, and the future civilizations they may create. A National-Socialist movement is a means whereby the principles and ideals of National-Socialism can be put into practice within a particular society or societies.
In essence, National-Socialism is a conscious and practical expression of the wisdom of civilization - it enshrines, in its philosophy, principles and ideals, those factors which make civilization possible, which create civilizations, and which maintain civilizations.
One of the most fundamental principles of National-Socialism - expressing thus the wisdom of civilization - is that each individual is a part of, and has duties and obligations to, their folk or race. That is, that the individual is not an isolated being, concerned only with their own self-centred desires and feelings (including their own 'happiness' and material well-being), but rather belongs - and that this belonging, involving as it does duties and obligations toward their folk and thus the civilization that folk has created, is necessary for a healthy existence: of the individual, the folk and the civilization.
National-Socialism accepts that a healthy life - for the individual just as much for the community to which that individual belongs or is a part of - is one which expresses or seeks to express the natural balance between the individual, the community, the folk and what is beyond even all these: Nature, or 'the gods/God'. This way of living is a total contradiction of the materialist self-centred one that has come to dominate present day societies, and it is essentially a higher, more spiritual, more noble way of being. And one, moreover, founded on wisdom, on the reality of life and civilization as they are and not as sentimental, life-denying dreamers wish them to be. National-Socialism, being a practical expression of the wisdom of civilizations, represents the joy, vitality, nobility, and quest for excellence and beauty that are the hall-marks of civilization.
One of the most important truths that expresses the reality of civilization is that of race. Race is a representation of the natural order - of how evolution works, and how Nature [ or the gods/God] are expressed, manifested or ' presenced ' on Earth.
In simple terms, race and folk-communities are expressions of evolution in action. Race is a move toward a higher level of existence - a move away from primitive and pre-conscious living, toward civilization.
Civilization:
Civilization is a term often mis-understood and often incorrectly used. In essence, a civilization does not mean Art, art-objects, literature or material comfort - rather, these and other such things are consequences of civilization, its creations, and not its essence.
Correctly understood, a civilization is a certain way of living, and arises when a challenge or series of challenges has been successfully overcome as a result of two fundamental qualities [heroism, and creativity], and when these qualities and embodied and maintained within the communities or folk who have overcome the challenge or challenges. A civilization requires for its creation and its maintenance, a heroic attitude among its peoples, as it requires those peoples to have within them the spark of creativity. Further, a civilization is an evolution of existence - an ordering of consciousness, an evolutionary leap forward, which by its very existence enables the individuals within it to fulfil - or have the possibility to fulfil - the potential of existence latent within them.
A civilization can be considered simply as a higher form of living, a move upward from the primitive culture where life consists of a daily struggle to obtain the bare essentials of existence: food, shelter, a mate. A culture is a stage between savagery and civilization, and what distinguishes a culture from a civilization in one important communal respect [i.e. excluding heroism and creativity, which are traits of individual character] is that a civilization is dynamic and expansionist, whereas a culture is relatively static and such changes and movement within it as do occur, do so slowly. Furthermore, a civilization also possesses a heightened sense of identity among its communities, and a sense of Destiny (which is however often instinctive) which aids its feelings of superiority - or rather, which aids its peoples in believing their societies are superior to those of the 'barbarians' who surround them.
The way of living which marks a civilization is determined by this sense of Destiny, and by the behaviour which goes with it. There are certain limits or standards for both individual and communal behaviour, limits or standards set by two fundamental qualities which express both the essence of the feeling of Destiny and the essence of civilized behaviour. These qualities are honour and nobility. These two qualities, the heroic attitude, the sense of Destiny, means that in its origins a civilization enshrines the ethos of the warrior. The customs, the civic life, the structure of the societies themselves, reflect this ethos - that is, the status of the warrior. There is a desire to emulate the noble, heroic deeds of one's ancestors and one's community. Furthermore, this ethos is not only important in the creation of a civilization, but also in maintaining it - that is, as long as the ethos of the warrior survives, as long as honour and nobility are the determining factors in the lives of the individuals and the communities of a civilization, the civilization will not only survive, but flourish, enabling prosperity both material and creative.
Nobility means two essential things - a sense of natural justice ( or 'fair-play') and a willingness to die for a cause or a person who is not immediate kin. In brief, there is a loyalty which transcends personal feelings and personal (or self) interest. In a civilization, this loyalty is to something which is beyond the immediate family - to the folk-community as a whole (that is, to one's own racial kinfolk) and to the expressed or felt Destiny of that community and thus the Destiny of the civilization itself.
These qualities describe a certain personal character, a certain type of person, and it is individuals of such character who fundamentally express the essence of civilization. Without such individuals, there is no civilization, and a civilization survives so long as its communities and institutions (public and private) aspire to produce such persons of noble, heroic and creative character who themselves aspire to champion the values of civilization and its Destiny. Such individuals guide and inspire others.
National-Socialism:
National-Socialism expresses all these truths - all the understandings and wisdom which has resulted from thousands of years of civilization. One of these truths is that civilization means that the factor which decides an individual's behaviour and actions is honour - it is honourable to do certain things, dishonourable to do other things. Dishonourable behaviour is not only 'uncivilized' it is also symptomatic of a certain type of person - the type which a civilized community actively discourages. When honour is no longer an ideal aspired to, when dishonourable individuals flourish because of a decline in idealism and standards, then civilization begins to decay.
For any civilization, it is honourable, a moral duty, to aid one's own folk or race and thus the civilization is has created. It is dishonourable, and immoral, to act against one's folk and so undermine the civilization and the communities within that civilization which do and have striven with hardship and sacrifice to preserve and extend the noble way of living that the civilization represents.
National-Socialism asserts that each individual Aryan has a moral duty to aid the folk because without the folk the present civilization we have inherited would not exist, future civilizations would be impossible, and we have a debt to our ancestors. We as Aryans have this moral duty because without the Aryan there would be no civilization: no natural justice, no creativity, no heroic defiance on a scale large enough to create and maintain civilizations. Nature, evolution [or the 'gods/God' ] has/have worked over millennia to produce the Aryan race: to evolve and refine Aryan peoples, enabling through this race and this race alone the present, and other past civilizations to be created and maintained. Further, in the Aryan lies the hope for future civilizations - that is, the future of civilization is bound up with the future of the Aryan.
In effect, National-Socialism believes that the Aryan has a unique Destiny, and that a part of this Destiny is a civilizing mission. Thus, National-Socialism is the embodiment of a natural, evolutionary, imperative - for the triumph of National-Socialism means the triumph and extension of civilization and civilized values.
Fundamentally, National-Socialism does not depend on whether or not some so-called fashionable 'scientific' fact or some academic theory confirms or seems to confirm its truths. It is above and beyond all such things because it is fundamentally spiritual - an expression of the Destiny of the Aryan, of whether or not the Aryan wishes to continue to exist. For, quintessentially, National-Socialism is the affirmation of Aryan existence and a desire to see the Aryan survive and flourish and reach the heights of evolution; it is a desire to continue the process of evolution, to maintain and extend the civilizing virtues: honour and nobility. It is a desire to make even better civilizations in the future by creating better, more noble, more honourable, beings.
This Destiny is not a question of academic debate, but logical fact - either the Aryan, and the civilization at present existing (and the future civilizations that can be created by this creative race) survives, or the Aryan does not. To enable the Aryan to survive, National-Socialism must triumph simply because anything other than National-Socialism implies the decline and fall and ultimate destruction of this race. Only National-Socialism recognizes the problem and has a cure for it. For National-Socialism to triumph, a National-Socialist revolution must occur.
By conforming to natural law, to the principles of evolution itself [ or expressed another way - by conforming to what is divinely ordained] National-Socialism alone can ensure the survival of our race and civilization. For we, as beings, are not - as is commonly and incorrectly assumed - somehow "above" this natural law: we do not and cannot control it by fancy academic abstract ideas, by simply believing we are somehow exempt or can somehow alter this law by trying to implement some unnatural, fancy academic and totally abstract idea. We have not somehow ' conquered ' Nature [ or done away with the divine/the gods ] - we have only learned how to work with Nature, as Nature is, by dis-covering things about Her. To believe otherwise - and to act on such a false belief - is supreme arrogance, an excessive folly: an attempt to appropriate to us as mortals what rightly belong to the gods [ or God ]. This is an upsetting of the natural balance, the natural order of things, and it can only end in retribution, or vengeance, by Nature - by the natural processes of evolution reasserting themselves in the long term.
For National-Socialism, the supreme folly is miscegenation - the undoing, by racial mixing, of what evolution [ or Nature] has done over thousands of millennia. In a very important sense, miscegenation is what the ancient Greeks called - insolence, toward the gods [ or what most people prefer today to call 'Nature' ], an act of supreme outrage against natural law, and one which would assuredly result in Nemesis: a retribution by those gods [ or Nature ]. The Nemesis which awaits the present and future dishonourable acts of outrage which are miscegenation, is the downfall of our civilization and ultimately the destruction of the Aryan race itself. Of course, there are many people - belonging to other races - who would welcome this, and who indeed encourage this outcome, as there are today many Aryans so besotted by unnatural, artificial ideas that they regard miscegenation as desirable. All Aryans have a choice - they can do nothing, continuing with their life of selfish indulgence and decadence; they can actively encourage the demise of their own civilization and their race by passively accepting miscegenation (or by encouraging it from whatever motive); or they can fight against that demise of their own race and civilization by becoming active National-Socialists and so aid that National-Socialist revolution which will ensure the survival of the Aryan, civilization itself and those values which create and maintain civilizations.
National-Socialist Revolution:
The practical aim of a National-Socialist movement is not some temporary gaining of political power or influence in one or more societies in order to simply re-distribute power or wealth or assure a certain material standard of living. Neither is the aim solely to change the type of government.
Rather, the aim is to return to Aryans their sense of Destiny and their resolve - and then revolutionize the societies of the civilization as the prelude to creating an entirely new type of society based on National-Socialist ideals.
The fundamental aim of any National-Socialist movement is to win over the hearts and minds of our racial kin-folk to the noble National-Socialist cause - to free them from the slavery of the 'social engineers' and those doctrines of 'democratic' liberal-marxism so detrimental not only to our Aryan civilization but also to our Aryan soul. For only thus by capturing the hearts and minds of our Aryan kin-folk can a genuine National-Socialist society be created - that is, one that represents the noble aspirations of a united folk. The aim if not, of course, what our opponents, with their almost total control of the Media [books, television, newspapers, cinema etc.], claim our aim to be - they represent it as some sort of 'ruthless tyranny'. This, like so many things to do with National-Socialism (such as the myth of the 'holocaust') is a lie invented to discredit National-Socialism and to try and prevent the majority of Aryans from discovering the truth.
A National-Socialist society enables a genuine Aryan way of living - a return to the values of civilization. A National-Socialist society is a healthy one united by a desire to achieve and so fulfil its Destiny - and which understands that Destiny. It is a society which enables Aryan to be really free, to express their aspirations and ideals. Aryans today are not free - and they never will be really free until they are nourished again by what is genuinely representative of their own racial soul - that is, until they live within a National-Socialist community. Today, Aryans are forced to live in societies where everything anti-Aryan is championed and where abstract and unnatural values and ideas, such as miscegenation, are imposed upon them by the full force of the 'Law'. These decadent societies represent everything which is contrary to our natural instincts, hopes, dreams and aspirations.
The natural instincts, hopes, dreams and aspirations of the Aryan - and of this present civilization - are embodied in National-Socialism and only in National-Socialism. Every other form, political or philosophical or religious - all other principles and ideals - are irrelevant and indeed counter-productive because only National-Socialism is a pure expression of Aryan Destiny: only National-Socialism represents an unequivocal affirmation of Aryan existence, and expresses that existence in action.
National-Socialism makes the Destiny of this civilization, and the Aryan, real and realizable. Everything else is fundamentally irrelevant at this moment in the history of evolution. One either is, or chooses to become, a National-Socialist - and thus fights, overtly or covertly, for the Aryan and civilization itself - or one is opposed to National-Socialism, directly or by inaction, and thus becomes a party, consciously or otherwise, to the decline and destruction of civilization and the Aryan race with its potential to create future civilizations.
For an Aryan, there is no higher honour than to be a National-Socialist and to fight for the principles and ideals which National-Socialism represents. A National-Socialist is someone with a Destiny, a sense of higher purpose - an heroic individual whose life has meaning: someone who by their actions is contributing to evolution, who is fulfilling a divine purpose by maintaining and expanding civilization and the civilizing values themselves. For above all else, a National-Socialist embodies those ideals which have made our race, and our civilizations, great - honour, loyalty, duty.
As a National-Socialist, I am loyal to National-Socialism, to Adolf Hitler and to my Comrades; I have a duty to fight for what and who I am loyal to; and I am obliged by my honour to act, in all that I do, in a noble way. But perhaps most significant of all I - like all genuine National-Socialists - am prepared if necessary to die rather than be dishonourable, disloyal and shirk my duty. In these things lies the nobility and the sublime beauty of National-Socialism and the assurance of its ultimate victory.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
II Social Engineering and Zionist Control
The term 'social engineering' refers to the changing and re-structuring/re-building of societies in accordance with certain abstract ideas, and is a description of what has happened to all Western (that is, all Aryan) societies in the decades since the Second World War. Social Engineering is, in effect, the implementation of marxism by stealth.
So successful have the social engineers and their supporters been over the past decades, that the natural and consequently healthy beliefs of those of the Western or European civlization are now seen by the majority of Aryans themselves as somehow 'wrong' or 'perverted'. So successful have the social engineers been in changing beliefs and attitudes, that those who champion the true values of civilization ( such as honour, duty, loyalty) and who express the genuine wisdom of civilizations (such as the truths about race and nobility) are branded as "extremists" - and there is no shortage of volunteers, of European race, so mentally controlled by the alien ideas of the social engineers, to attack or demonstrate against those real champions of European values, the National-Socialists. Furthermore, effective expression of genuine pro-Aryan beliefs and ideals is now illegal in many Western countries, making the work of the social engineers much easier, and their ultimate goals more obtainable. There is an intent behind this social engineering - a deliberate purpose - and in order to understand this it is necessary to understand what social engineering is and how it works.
Social engineering goes largely unnoticed - it is, in fact, social revolution by stealth. It is the subtle re-structuring of societies and the creation of a new type of society out of the old, a type of society which seeks to maintain its status quo by the repressive force of Law. The basic principles of social engineering are simple. First, there is the creation of various abstract and invariably unnatural ideas which are given the appearance of being 'idealistic' - and for the 'good of humanity in general'. There follows the dissemination of books and other material in support of these abstract ideas and 'theoretical moral systems'. Soon, there is agitation for and on behalf of these principles - the gaining of support for them throughout the various levels of a particular society. Gradually, support for them grows among the peoples where the agitation takes place, for by and large the systems seem to appeal to their 'better instincts' (or so at least they are told by the adherents of these systems) - the new supporters often feel themselves to be idealistic pioneers striving to create a better world for everyone. Right from the very beginning these new abstract ideas are anti-national and anti-racial, their concern being for 'everyone, regardless of race' . Soon, the ideas are taught in Universities and other places of learning - and so shape the outlook of those who work in such places, these people then using their influence to inculcate others with these ideas. An 'intellectual climate' develops over a period of time wherein these ideas, and only them, are cast in a positive light - they are seen as the 'right principles', and morally superior to all others, for in the meanwhile those principles and ideals which stand in opposition to these abstract ideas have been subject to a ceaseless campaign of vilification on all levels: and those who support those principles and ideals attacked by all means possible, verbally and physically.
This campaign for the abstract ideas - and the campaign against those who oppose them and who propound natural, civilizing ideals - is aided by the social engineers, and their supporters, having a virtual monopoly on Media outlets like publishing, television, newspapers and so on. The opponents of the abstract ideas of the social engineers are always cast in negative terms, and being denied means of mass expression, these opponents rarely if ever get a chance to express their views to any significant number of people. Should they attempt to do so, there are always those ( who support extreme versions of the abstract ideas of the social engineers ) prepared to use force and terror to stop them.
It is not too long before the moral 'force' of these abstract ideas holds sway to such an extent that they are taught openly in Schools - and Laws are enacted, in the societies infiltrated by the social engineers, which seek to change the society so that it conforms more to these ideas.These Laws are, for the most part, 'social' ones, dealing with attitudes and behaviour; but some are more direct, outlawing certain views and expressions of opinion. All these changes, and the repressive State apparatus to enforce them, are for the most part welcomed by those in positions of authority in the society, and by parts of the society itself, because they are seen as 'progressive' or 'morally right', contributing to 'creating a better world'. Once Laws are enacted, the work of the social engineers becomes easier - for their opponents are now seen as 'criminals'. Any attempt to counter the ideas, and thus those behind them, is at best stifled and at worst, illegal. Troublesome opponents can be dealt with quite easily - by invoking the new Laws and sending the troublemakers to prison.
What has actually happened is that over a period of time, abstract ideas, and the theories deriving from them, have been used to influence some people and indoctrinate others. With the suppression, intimidation and outlawing of opposing views, the result is control of minds, something more effective than overt, direct physical control because it is for the most part unnoticed by the majority. The peoples within a society or societies have been conditioned to think and act in certain ways by the ceaseless propagation of the abstract ideas: in books, newspapers, by teachers in Universities and Schools, by films, television ..... Once the control is sufficiently established, and the 'moral high ground' assumed by the proponents of these abstract ideas, then the trouble-some minority who can actually think for themselves and who are thus un-influenced by the propaganda of the social engineers, can be dealt with. If they are vocal in their opposition, and try to do something to change the status quo, they can be arrested and almost certainly sent to prison under the new Laws which make overt, vocal opposition to the doctrines of the social engineers illegal. If they are less sure of themselves and their own beliefs, they can be 're-educated' and made to see the error of their ways.
One example will make all this clear. The idea that "all races are equal" is one abstract idea created by the social engineers. Following from this is the belief that the concept of racial superiority is "morally wrong", an "outrage" against "humanity" ["humanity" being another abstract, and thus artificial, idea ]. Thus, new doctrines are born, new ideas - the study of "racialism" and "racism" in societies. Books are written, research undertaken, numerous articles appear: the study of these things becomes a respected academic field, and an ever increasing number of individuals beaver away to advance the cause of "equality". Society, history, civilizations are "re-interpreted" - evidence found to prove "racist" attitudes in the past and to show that racial prejudice, as it is now called, is wrong, offensive and so on. Gradually, these ideas gain influence and increasing respectability. The idea of a "multi-racial society" is born - as is the belief that to achieve such a society (which is seen as necessary and desirable from a 'moral' point of view) there must be "education", the eradication of "racist" views and attitudes. This will require Laws - the making of criminals out of those who oppose these doctrines of "equality". It will require a certain compulsion - the teaching of the doctrines in Schools and elsewhere with no attempt made to present an alternative view (partly because the opposing view has been made to seem morally reprehensible and "uncivilised" [note the spelling] ). In time, a smug moral climate is created, aided by the so-called 'educated classes' - opposition to the abstract idea and its doctrines is viewed by them (and others) as "unenlightened" and socially unacceptable. During this time of the idea gaining influence, the 'studies' published in support of the doctrines have been accorded 'scientific' respectability [ whereas in reality they are pseudo-sciences ] and a super-abundance of books, articles and programmes expounding the doctrines appears.
With enough influence gained, and with the moral climate created, 'Race Relations' legislation becomes Law, making discrimination (against non-Whites) illegal, and creating new crimes, such as "incitement to racial hatred". The repression involved in these Laws goes almost unnoticed - for the social and moral climate, created over decades by the adherents of the original idea, conditions those with power and influence, and a sizeable proportion of the majority of Aryans. They are taught - and it is endlessly repeated by all forms of the Media - that "racial hatred" is vile, that racial prejudice (favouring one's own race and people before other races) is "evil"; that such Laws are necessary for harmony and to ensure equality. In short, that the freedom of those individuals or groups who transgress the new Laws is rightfully forfeit.
Thus, in this case, society is fundamentally changed - towards a "multi-racial" one, to achieve which any dissent must be ruthlessly stamped out, in all walks of life: public, social and private. The freedom of the society means the freedom to believe in the ideas and doctrines which now underpin that society - and no others, on pain of imprisonment at worst, and at best losing one's employment or place of residence (as happens when local Council's evict "racist" tenants). Publication of material which challenges the ideas behind this society, is now illegal - and any public demonstration or meeting against these ideas and doctrines can effectively be banned by the Police who act (either consciously or otherwise) as agents of what has become a tyrannical society. Furthermore, the moral climate is such that self-righteous groups, imbued by the social engineers with an almost messianic zeal, are prepared to violently attack and try to silence by physical force anyone or any group whom they see as propagating "racist" views. These groups or individuals, of course, cannot effectively defend themselves from such attacks, since other Laws have been passed ('Public Order Acts') making effective defence illegal. All these things are justified in the name of this new society.
The social engineering that has re-structured the societies of the West is real, and this re-structuring has been for a purpose other than to achieve a mythical 'harmony'. That is, it has been done with intent. The ideas behind the mental control by which the social engineers have achieved their aims have three fundamental things in common, and an appreciation of these enables the purpose or intent of the re-structuring to be understood.
Firstly, they represent a particular 'view of the world'. Second, they are all contrary to the natural spirit, ethos or world-view of those of European race and thus the present civilization. Third, they are all the creations of one particular race.
The 'view of the world' is essentially 'liberal-marxist': it is Utopian, believing that individuals are determined by environment/society and are or can become equal in all things, provided the right social conditions exist. It is supra-national, and supra-racial. It is idealistically materialistic, believing material needs and values determines society and individuals. It is 'peace-loving' in the sense that some mythical world-peace is seen as a goal.
These doctrines have profoundly changed Western societies - from being basically Imperial in attitudes and aims (by which is meant expansionist, imbued with a civilizing mission and putting their interests before those of other races and nations) the societies of the West have become committed to abstract concepts like 'world-peace', 'equality', consumer-materialism and 'democracy' (by which is meant the freedom to believe the doctrines of the new societies and no others). In essence, the ethos of all Western societies has been changed - from a war-like expansionism and pride of nation/race, to a neurotic life-denying materialism. The ideal for the former societies was the heroic fighter/explorer; the ideal for the present socially engineered societies is either the greyless professional politician or the self-satisfied, materially well-off family
man/woman. In former times, Western societies were geared for War, and were for the most part led by Statesmen who adhered to traditional Aryan values like honour. Now, Western societies are geared for 'peace' and are led (or appear to the majority to be led) by individuals devoid of combat experience who have no personal concept of honour and certainly no racial loyalty.
Fundamentally, all Western societies have been weakened. They have lost their vigour, their assurance, their exclusiveness. In the natural scheme of things, they have become sick - infected with diseases that can only result in the destruction of those societies, the Aryan peoples within them and the civilization those Aryans have created.
Any civilization survives for only as long as its peoples are vigorous and not only defend, by war, their communities, but also believe in themselves and their civilizing mission. That is, survival depends on expansion, on the peoples being imbued with spirit or elan. Once a civilization ceases to possess elan, once it ceases to revere war and those who fight war, forgets or is made to forget its sense of superiority and begins to assimilate aliens, then it declines to its end. No amount of wishing thinking, sentiment or abstract idealism can change this fundamental fact of Nature. It is a hard, often brutal, reality - a fact of existence. Once the forward momentum of a civilization has been lost - the thrust of exploration and conquest - then the multitudes external to the civilization, envious of the seeming material achievements of the civilization that the sacrifices and struggles of the peoples of the civilization have achieved, intrude, are assimilated and eventually overwhelm.
What has happened is respect of the Western civilization, is that the doctrines of the social engineers have changed the attitudes of the majority of the peoples of the civilization. The genuine ethos of the civilization - its innate, often instinctive, values and beliefs- have been at first distorted and then replaced. It is no coincidence that the 'ethos' that has come to replace it - and which has profoundly changed all Western societies - is essentially based on the 'christian view of the world'. Christianity, stripped of its theological garments and pagan adornments, is fundamentally a utopian liberal-marxist doctrine: a contradiction par excellence of the warrior values and the warrior way of life. Furthermore, it is this warrior way, this warrior ethos, which is the true ethos of the Western civilization, and not - as many assume - christianity itself. Christian values and ideals are anathema to the noble, conquering spirit of any civilization, let alone the Western one. The noble ideals of the warrior are un-dogmatic, based on experience, character and excellence. They are tolerant of other beliefs and views so long as those beliefs and views do not undermine their own warrior goals and their own society (one thinks here of the Romans). The christian way is and always has been dogmatic: believe, or to condemned.
The doctrines of the social engineers belong to the same world as christianity - they are dogmatic and messianic; they believe that those doctrines and only them are morally right. They are utopian and liberal-marxist, concerning themselves with 'equality for all'; they are supra-racial and supra-national, seeking to undermine and eventually destroy separate races by inter-breeding and creating 'multi-racial' societies. The aims of the doctrines are not to promote the goals of a particular civilization, but to re-make society for the benefit of 'all mankind', even if in the process they destroy those things which make civilization itself possible. Fundamentally, the doctrines, like christianity, describe 'the world', its processes, societies and individuals, in a pre-determined way, according to an abstract theory: those facts, or knowledge or experiences, which do not "fit in" with its abstract ideas and theories are re-interpreted, ignored or suppressed, for belief, dogma and utopian dreams are seen as more important than a genuine understanding or knowledge.
The doctrines breed an almost religious fervour in their adherents, a smug self-righteousness. Genuine critical judgement and instinct deriving from personal experience are replaced by an often stubborn arrogance masquerading as either 'academic' knowledge or hopelessly idealistic sentiments. The doctrines impose, by projection, a set of explanations upon society, history and individuals, and the believers busy themselves with 'proving' that society, history and individuals do indeed behave/work in that way, even if history has to be re-written and pseudo-sciences (like 'social anthropology' and sociology) created to explain inconvenient facts away. This spurious academic knowledge, these pseudo-sciences and these 'proofs' give support to their views on how societies can be changed to make their abstract ideas reality - or rather, on how societies must be changed, by education, Laws and so on.
What, then, are these doctrines? They are essentially the marxian ones of environment before nurture; of racial equality; of economic welfare before racial identity; of supra-national forms before self-governing nations; of a material utopia of plenty and the 'brotherhood of mankind'; of commonality instead of the quest for excellence and élitism. But perhaps most significantly, of a mechanistic redemption, for all 'mankind', achieved through changing individuals and societies in accord with utopian ideas. These doctrines express the marxist attitude (even if not described by adherents as being marxist) in total contradistinction of the warrior ethos of the West.
All these doctrines (which include christianity and the various forms of liberalism and marxian-socialism) contradict the ethos of our own civilization. This ethos is Promethean (or, better, Thorian, from Thor, the Norse god); it is a warrior ethos, exemplified by a dynamic questing for heroism, excellence and exploration. It is aristocratic, in the true meaning of that term - that is, noble. It asserts breeding and personal character. It values the overcoming of adversity. It is, in fact, a continuation of the warrior ethos of the Aryan created Hellenic civilization, an ethos evident, for instance, in Homer's Iliad and Odyssey.
Essentially, the doctrines of the social engineers have been used and are being used to control the societies of the Western civilization and thus its peoples. Why? Because the social engineers believe it is necessary to achieve their aims. The then Chief Rabbi of the United Kingdom, Dr. Jakobovits, in an interview published in The Guardian newspaper (London) on 7th August 1982, stated that the Jews were chosen to act as pathfinders for the world, and that Israel [and thus Zionism] had a special place as an instrument to effect the Jew's social engineering upon the world.
The control exercised by the doctrines of the social engineers is fundamentally a Zionist control. This control, however, does not mean that Zionists themselves personally control the levers or instruments of power or even those things, such as newspapers and television, which support those power-structures which adhere to and seek to implement the doctrines. Such overt control is not really necessary - at least on a large scale. There are sufficient Europeans who fervently believe (for whatever motive) in the doctrines of the social engineers to ensure control and conformity - just as there are sufficient Europeans who for dishonourable personal reasons or just plain stupidity do nothing to counter this control and conformity (particularly if in the process they gain some material advantage).
The doctrines themselves - from christianity to Marxism to social anthropology are the creations of Jews(1). In effect, the psyche of the West has been emasculated by these doctrines and others belonging to the same world (such as Freudian psychology). Or, to be more precise, the psyche of those of European race, since the psyche is basically a representation of the instincts, hopes, aspirations and spirit of the indigenous peoples of Europe rather than a representation of a particular pre-marxist/pre-liberal society or societies. This collective psyche gave form and expression to the ethos - the genuine one - that not only created the civilization of the West, but also gave rise to the Hellenic civilization of Greece and Rome. This ethos is expressed eloquently by Homer and Virgil, and revealed in the attitudes and spirit of the Vikings and, more recently, in the exploration of Outer Space. It is what would be described, by exponents of the doctrines of the social engineers, as 'militaristic' and 'colonial', and of course, racialist. This ethos is the acceptance, instinctively or consciously, of race and individual worth. It is the acceptance of the natural order - a belief in the natural order of things, of the reality of what our ancestors called the gods and Fate. And it is this natural order which is at first distorted and then ultimately destroyed by the unnatural abstract ideas of the social engineers. All these abstract ideas are contradictory, in their essence and their effects, to the psyche or soul of the Aryan.
The success of the social engineers over past decades has meant that the natural and healthy and often instinctive beliefs of those of European descent are now seen by the majority of Europeans themselves as 'wrong' and 'uncivilised', and nowhere is this better exemplified than in their perception and 'understanding' of that one modern manifestation of the European soul and ethos - that is, National-Socialism. It cannot be repeated too often that National-Socialist Germany was the embodiment par excellence of the true European ethos: of the spirit of our own Western civilization. For National-Socialist Germany expressed the real psyche of the Aryan as no other society, since the times of the Greeks and Romans, had done. It was the embodiment of all those virtues and ideals which made the societies of Greece and Rome what they were - civilized.
Naturally, this is not how the majority of Europeans (and others) perceive National-Socialism and National-Socialist Germany. Since National-Socialism was such a genuine re-presentation of the soul of the Aryan, and thus a real threat to not only the doctrines of the social engineers but also the power of the social engineers themselves, it had to be discredited and ultimately destroyed. Even in the early days of the struggle for power in Germany, National-Socialism and National-Socialists were vilified in the Media of the day and violently attacked. Had it not been for the genius and character of The Leader, Adolf Hitler, the social engineers would surely have stifled its development. Because of his outstanding leadership and the courage of his followers, National-Socialism triumphed in Germany. With this triumph of the Aryan will, the social engineers (or Zionists to give them their political name) declared war on Germany and began, using their overt and covert control of the Media, a propaganda campaign of world-wide proportions with the aim of physically destroying National-Socialist Germany. Even by that time, the work of the social engineers was already well-advanced, and they had many converts and allies in various Western countries. Thus, National-Socialism, Germany and Adolf Hitler were constantly vilified and discredited, portrayed as the "enemies of civilisation", as "evil", and so on. Actual war against Germany was agitated for, covertly and overtly, and atrocity propaganda against National-Socialism began in earnest.
After six years, this campaign was successful. The war-hysteria whipped up by the social engineers and their allies and converts culminated in a real war. Isolationist America - without whom a war in Europe might be won by Germany - was manoeuvred into the conflict, on "the side of freedom" as the propaganda of the social engineers put it. In effect, the nations of the West went to war against National Socialist Germany at the urging of the social engineers in order to do what the social engineers wanted but could not do themselves - destroy National-Socialist Germany.
Thus was National-Socialism defeated, by the social engineers using the peoples of the West and its resources. Or at least National-Socialism as a State-form was defeated. But the social engineers meant to ensure that this vital, viable expression of Aryan and thus Western hopes and aspirations and dreams, would never again pose a threat to them and their schemes. So the myth of the 'holocaust' was born - to discredit National-Socialist Germany, and National-Socialism itself, and to further enslave the minds of Europeans by denying them truthful access to the one thing that could free them their slavery: that is, National-Socialism. This myth gave the social engineers justification for their war to destroy National-Socialist Germany, as it led to the development of 'anti-racist' laws: the "racism is evil, look what it led to in Germany, the horror of the holocaust" argument parroted by the Zionist controlled zombies who infest the West today. Furthermore, Laws have been, and assuredly will continue to be, enacted in many Western countries which makes denial of this lie of the 'holocaust', a crime - that is, which makes those who question it, from whatever motive, heretics, and heretics who require punishment. Of course, such Laws may not, in some cases (when the majority are not yet conditioned enough by the doctrines of the social engineers) directly say that denial of this holy myth is a crime: clever legal technicalities will be used, such as "defaming the memory of the dead", being an "apologist for war crimes", "expressing genocidal views" or "inciting racial hatred". But the outcome is and will be the same: any denial of the holocaust myth and legend, either in writing or in speech, is illegal.
Such, however, is the control exercised by the social engineers and their ideas, that few people in Western societies ever question the basis for such Laws demanding that everyone believe in this fictitious holocaust - and by implication the 'crimes of the nazis' - on pain of imprisonment. Here, the societies of the West, under the control of their new masters, have reverted to medieval times when it was heresy to deny christian doctrine and unbelievers could be imprisoned, tortured and killed, all legally and with the approval of the masses. The mentality is exactly the same as in medieval times - as is the mental control exercised by abstract ideas: then, it was messianic christianity; now, it is messianic marxism (often disguised with names like liberalism; democracy; socialism).
The intent of the holocaust myth was to try and eradicate from the Western or Aryan psyche the charisma of National-Socialism and Adolf Hitler - to prevent the resurgence of National-Socialism, and thus to forestall any attempt by those believing in the genuine European ethos to achieve power. In other words, to keep the peoples of the West under control - mentally. And, because there would always be some strong enough to resist and see through the lies to the truth, to make these unbelievers criminals and thus punish and control them and their influence.
On a very real level, the social engineers fear National-Socialism, as they fear the memory of Adolf Hitler. They are fearful because they know that National-Socialism, and the spirit exemplified by Adolf Hitler and his followers, is the one and only thing that can break their power and control and thus free the hearts and minds of Europeans - which can, in short, return the true values of civilization.
At the present time, and for the foreseeable future, the one and only thing that is important for both ourselves as individuals and the civilization we belong to, is this question of control by and for the social engineers or Zionists. On the resolution of this question, the future of not only this civilization but future civilizations depend. There will be either further control by Zionists in pursuit of their messianic dreams - and thus a down-turn of civilization because the genuine civilized values and ethos have been destroyed - or there will be battle against that control, successfully won, and thus a resurgence of civilization and civilized virtues. The first leads inevitably to the destruction, by miscegenation, of the Aryan, and thus means future civilizations are impossible. The second leads to an Aryan renaissance - the breeding of better individuals and the creation of even higher and more noble civilizations, galaxy-wide.
There is no middle-ground - one either fights against the control, or one does not. By doing nothing, the control increases. Further, to fight it effectively one must have the right weapon and know who the enemy is and who is aiding them for whatever reason. The enemies are the doctrines of the social engineers - and the only weapon that is effective against these is the National-Socialism of Adolf Hitler. Only by openly acknowledging what National-Socialism really is, by paying homage to the greatest man of our time, Adolf Hitler, and by being inspired by the example and sacrifices of those who fought and died for him and his Cause, only by doing these things can momentum and thus eventual victory be gained. To do otherwise is already to admit partial defeat - to not really understand what is being fought for and who it is who is being fought: for to deny National-Socialism and Adolf Hitler is to give ammunition to our enemies to use against us - the holocaust lie, the "National-Socialism is evil" lie. Whatever the outward form of the political fight, the inner inspiration must be National-Socialism and Adolf Hitler - if it is not, then one's own psyche is not really free and one is not being true to the real ethos of our race and civilization: one is being, in short, dishonourable, still infected in some degree by the alien ideas and poison of the social engineers. If one is not a National-Socialist, open or clandestine, then one's defences are still weak - one is still susceptible to the pressure/lies/control of the social engineers and their mind-controlled lackeys (such as the Police and other officials who enforce their Laws aiding and abetting Zionist control).
This struggle of two directly opposed world-views - the Zionist created one, and the National-Socialist one - is the only struggle that today has meaning. On the one side are the Zionists, and their active and passive allies, who use every means within their power, including terror. On the other side are National-Socialists, avowed or clandestine, who allegiance is to those values which are genuinely civilized and noble. The former seek to implement their messianic, uncivilized dreams. The latter seek to express the Destiny of civilizations and are thus doing the work of divine Providence.
There can be no compromise - only victory or defeat for one side or the other. What is clear, is that the real war has only just begun. What is also clear, is that once the war-like spirit of the Aryan is returned on a large enough scale, and directed properly, toward the real enemies, victory will be ours. It is our glory to live at the right time - to fight, and be remembered when that victory is won.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
III The Destiny of the Western Civilization
The Western civilization is the name used to describe the present civilization. The origins of this civilization lie in Western Europe, and the civilization is the exclusive creation of Aryan peoples. The ethos or spirit of this civilization has been described as 'Faustian', and while this is expressive to an extent, it is not accurate, since the real ethos of the West is a contradiction of christianity. The Faust legend, like nearly all medieval ones, is tainted by christianity - in fact, the Faust figure is symbolic of the Aryan striving to be free from the stifling morbid existence christianity imposed upon the basically pagan peoples of the West.
A more accurate term to describe the Western ethos would be 'Thorian', for the character of the Norse god captures the real essence of the ethos. Indeed, the early history of our civilization begins with the pagan Vikings, Angles, Danes, Saxons and Franks and other North European war-loving peoples with a sense of adventure, discovery, inventiveness and trade.
For a long time, the genuine Thorian ethos struggled with the distortion of christianity, and it is right to conceive of that religion as a sickness which affected the civilization. With the Renaissance, the Thorian ethos came into its own for the first time on a large scale. Thus, almost unhindered by the sickness, and drawing inspiration from the pagan culture of Greece and Rome, a genuine Thorian culture began to develope - expressed in science, discovery, conquest, colonization, and technology, and all for the benefit of the peoples of the civilization.
But, like a virus, the sickness of christianity underwent changes - mutating into new strains which undermined the psychic health of the Aryan peoples of the civilization. These new strains were the Reformation, the Counter-Reformation, Puritanism ... Gradually, however and over many centuries, the Thorian ethos grew stronger, undermining the morbid superstitions and dogmatic constraints of what was fundamentally an anti-life religion dedicated to egalitarianism and consequently against race and excellence. The mental and psychic tyranny of christianity had almost been thrown off when a new tyranny arose to bind whole sections of the peoples of the West in chains. This new tyranny was, of course, the dogmatic messianic idea of marxism.
Marxism marks the beginning of social engineering - that is, social engineers working from within to subvert the peoples of the West in order to gain influence and control, both physical and mental, so that they could implement their messianic dreams. From Marxism, new doctrines arose to undermine and supplant the Thorian ethos - racial equality, the fraud of what is falsely described as "parliamentary democracy", liberalism and so on. All these, and the many other variants created by the social engineers, served to place the Thorian ethos on the defensive.
It is important to understand here that, for the majority, the ethos of any civilization is instinctive - a feeling; an almost intangible sense of Destiny. Generally, the ethos is expressed by the actions of the peoples of the civilization, and these actions are usually inspired by great and charismatic leaders who seem, to the majority, to embody that Destiny - as indeed, such leaders often do. Often, the ethos becomes expressed in a literary form: in a legend or legends concerning the heroic founders of the civilization, and this in itself gives inspiration to succeeding generations. Thus for example the ethos of the Hellenic civilization - the higher culture of Greece and Rome - was expressed by Homer and Virgil.
However, because of the sickness of christianity, the vigour of the West was stifled - there was no early epic to inspire, no really great leaders who truely exemplified the genuine ethos - the Destiny - of the civilization. What is remarkable, is that despite all this, despite the sickness, the Thorian ethos not only survived, but began to flourish - a tribute indeed to the inherent vigour of the Aryan peoples of the West. It was due to this ethos that Science flourished - that a genuine, conscious, understanding was possible, of many things for the first time.
In effect, the Thorian ethos has enabled us to understand our own past, our civilization and our existence itself, and it is this understanding, this wisdom, which the doctrines of the social engineers have tried to stifle. For it is this understanding which enables us to judge christianity as a sickness of our spirit - as detrimental to those things which not only create but also maintain civilizations. And it is this understanding, this wisdom, which enables us to perceive the work of the social engineers - to really know our own Destiny and to work toward a solution to the problems affecting us.
In a very important sense which few today really appreciate, the whole history of Western civilization led to Adolf Hitler and National-Socialism. He was a conscious expression of the ethos of the civilization itself. He was gifted with not only an insight into and an understanding of our civilization, but also with the genius to be able to translate that insight and understanding into a practical form by creating a movement, a Cause, which embodied, as nothing before had, the essence of our civilization: the Thorian ethos itself. But he also did much more than this - for by his own efforts, by his own will, he led the movement he had created to victory.
Adolf Hitler, by creating National-Socialism and by leading his followers to victory, gave our civilization a conscious Destiny. This is of immense importance - because of Adolf Hitler, we know what our Destiny is. It is no longer merely a vague feeling, no longer merely an instinct or some vague, ill-formed hope. Because of Adolf Hitler, we know exactly what we are fighting for and what and whom we are fighting. But there is something else - something just as significant as the creation and the victory of National-Socialism, as the conscious understanding we have thereby gained: something which makes our enemies tremble in fear. It is the inspiration afforded by the heroism of National-Socialists during that great war for Aryan supremacy [50-56 yf] and subsequently. For here, in this bitter and bloody struggle(which is not over yet) lies the greatness of epic - material enough for the Homer, the Virgil of our own and subsequent civilizations; material enough to inspire our racial kin for millennia. In a very important sense, the struggles, the blood shed, the persecutions, make our Destiny possible. The seeming defeat of National-Socialist Germany in 56 yf is, in fact, our guarantee of victory - for the spiritual victory belonged to National-Socialism and Adolf Hitler. Our opponents know or sense this because they have tried so hard to destroy every place connected with the National-Socialist struggle for power and the subsequent immolation of our Leader and the immolation of his followers in order to prevent them becoming places of pilgrimage: potent symbols of our Cause and our struggle.
Expressed simply, the Destiny of the West is the triumph of National-Socialism: that is, the creation, by Aryans conscious of their own ethos, of an Aryan State or union of States dedicated to achieving Aryan goals. In effect, this means the creation of an Aryan Imperium or Empire - the realization of The Thousand Year Reich - which gives practical expression to the Thorian ethos: that is, which continues to explore, to establish new frontiers, to create better individuals, to take our race where no one has gone before. In practice this can only mean harnessing those Thorian creations - Science and Technology - to explore and conquer the new and limitless frontier of Outer Space: breeding from this exploration and conquest new races to take our racial evolution ever further and upward. For such exploration and such conquest is the quintessence of the Thorian ethos, the real destiny which awaits us. To take up this challenge, to be successful in it, to seed our race across the galaxy, requires the triumph of National-Socialism and the implementation of National-Socialist ideals, for only National-Socialism possesses the spirit, the greatness and the nobility to make this ultimate dream a reality.
Adolf Hitler has given us back our noble vision - he has returned us to ourselves: given us the strength to dream again, to aspire to greatness, to create new civilizations and overcome new challenges. He himself always knew he was doing only what was urgently needed - that he was the drummer for another great Leader, yet to arrive. For the great Leader who will create the Aryan Imperium has yet to arrive, and this Leader will be the Destiny of the West.
Just as the whole history of this civilization led to Adolf Hitler, so will it lead to this person who will embody the Destiny of the civilization - and thus our race. This person will be 'Vindex' - the one who avenges those fallen in the many battles since 30 yf [1919]. With him, a new, higher, phase of evolution will begin
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_Principles of Communism_ was Engels' first draft of a declarative,
defining document for the communist movement. It was written when
Engels was 27-years-old, and just prior to the great European
revolutions of 1848. As such, the passionate certainty of youth,
coupled with the expectant exuberance of the times, results in a piece
bursting with confidence, if not, at times, outright naivete.
Still, it's a fascinating read from both a historical perspective --
realizing this is a precursor to the world-famous _Communist Manifesto_,
putting in perspective Marx's imprint on that document -- and for its
concise presentation of some basic ideas (later much more fully
developed) of "scientific socialism".
[ NOTE: Questions 9 and 22 never had answers written; they have not been
"left out" of this etext by mistake. ]
[ NOTE 2: For ease of computer screen reading, large paragraphs have
been broken up. To reassemble: One-space indented paragraphs are "hard"
manuscript paragraphs; attach non-indented paragraphs to the paragraph
above until such a "hard" paragraph is met; then reformat paragraph,
etc. ]
- kkc (zodiac@io.org)
INTRODUCTION
by Pluto Press, London, 1971
_Principles of Communism_ was Engels' first draft of what was to be the
_Communist Manifesto_. The final manifesto, worked on by Marx, differs
considerably from this first draft, which Engels commented on in the
following way in his letter to Marx of 23-24 November 1847:
"Think over the Confession of Faith a bit. I believe we had
better drop the catechism form and call the thing: Communist
_Manifesto_. As more or less history has got to be related in it,
the form it has been in hitherto is quite unsuitable. I am
bringing what I have done here with me; it is in simple narrative
form, but miserably worded, in fearful haste...."
Despite Engels' reservations, _Principles of Communism_ remains an
excellent introduction to Marxism, in many ways more immediately
approachable than the _Manifesto_ itself.
The first English translation by Max Bedacht was published by the Daily
Worker Publishing Co., Chicago, around 1925. Another by Eden and Cedar
Paul was included as an appendix to Riazanov's edition of the _Communist
Manifesto_ (International Publishers, 1933). A third was issued by
Guido Baracchi in Australia (Melbourne, 1933).
This edition is based on the text produced by Monthly Review as a
pamphlet in 1952. It was translated by Paul M. Sweezy, and the
following is an extract from the editors' note to that edition:
_Principles of Communism_ was written in late October 1847, and
was first published (from Engels' handwritten script) by Eduard
Bernstein in 1914 in _Vorwarts_, the central organ of the German
Social Democratic Party. It has since appeared in a number of
German versions, the definitive edition being that in the
Marx-Engels _Gesamtausgabe_, published by the Marx-Engels-Lenin
Institute in Moscow. The present translation is from the text of
the _Gesamtausgabe_, First Division, Volume 6, pages 503-522.
The editors go on to point out that Engels often uses the term
_Manufaktur_, and its derivatives, which have been translated by their
exact English equivalents, "manufacture", "manufacturing", etc. They
are used in their literal sense to denote production by hand, not the
factory production of modern capitalism, which Engels generally refers
to with the term "big industry". However, _manufacture_ differs from
_handicraft_, which refers to the pure guild production of the mediaeval
towns, carried out by independent artisans, assisted perhaps by
journeymen and apprentices who hope some day to acquire independent
status. Manufacture is carried out either by homeworkers working for
the account of merchant capitalists, or else by groups of craftsmen
working together in large workshops belonging to capitalist employers.
It is therefore a transitional form between guild production and modern
factory production.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Frederick Engels'
PRINCIPLES OF COMMUNISM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
- 1 -
What is Communism?
Communism is the doctrine of the conditions of the liberation of the
proletariat.
- 2 -
What is the proletariat?
The proletariat is that class in society which lives entirely from the
sale of its labor and does not draw profit from any kind of capital;
whose weal and woe, whose life and death, whose sole existence depends
on the demand for labor -- hence, on the changing state of business, on
the vagaries of unbridled competition. The proletariat, or the class of
proletarians, is, in a word, the working class of the 19th century.
- 3 -
Proletarians, then, have not always existed?
No.
There have always been poor and working classes; and the working class
have mostly been poor. But there have not always been workers and poor
people living under conditions as they are today; in other words, there
have not always been proletarians, any more than there has always been
free unbridled competitions.
- 4 -
How did the proletariat originate?
The Proletariat originated in the industrial revolution, which took
place in England in the last half of the last (18th) century, and which
has since then been repeated in all the civilized countries of the
world.
This industrial revolution was precipitated by the discovery of the
steam engine, various spinning machines, the mechanical loom, and a
whole series of other mechanical devices. These machines, which were
very expensive and hence could be bought only by big capitalists,
altered the whole mode of production and displaced the former workers,
because the machines turned out cheaper and better commodities than the
workers could produce with their inefficient spinning wheels and
handlooms. The machines delivered industry wholly into the hands of the
big capitalists and rendered entirely worthless the meagre property of
the workers (tools, looms, etc.). The result was that the capitalists
soon had everything in their hands and nothing remained to the workers.
This marked the introduction of the factory system into the textile
industry.
Once the impulse to the introduction of machinery and the factory
system had been given, this system spread quickly to all other branches
of industry, especially cloth- and book-printing, pottery, and the metal
industries.
Labor was more and more divided among the individual workers so that the
worker who previously had done a complete piece of work now did only a
part of that piece. This division of labor made it possible to produce
things faster and cheaper. It reduced the activity of the individual
worker to simple, endlessly repeated mechanical motions which could be
performed not only as well but much better by a machine. In this way,
all these industries fell, one after another, under the dominance of
steam, machinery, and the factory system, just as spinning and weaving
had already done.
But at the same time, they also fell into the hands of big capitalists,
and their workers were deprived of whatever independence remained to
them. Gradually, not only genuine manufacture but also handicrafts came
within the province of the factory system as big capitalists
increasingly displaced the small master craftsmen by setting up huge
workshops, which saved many expenses and permitted an elaborate division
of labor.
This is how it has come about that in civilized countries at the
present time nearly all kinds of labor are performed in factories --
and, in nearly all branches of work, handicrafts and manufacture have
been superseded. This process has, to an ever greater degree, ruined
the old middle class, especially the small handicraftsmen; it has
entirely transformed the condition of the workers; and two new classes
have been created which are gradually swallowing up all the others.
These are:
(i) The class of big capitalists, who, in all civilized countries,
are already in almost exclusive possession of all the means of
subsistance and of the instruments (machines, factories) and
materials necessary for the production of the means of
subsistence. This is the bourgeois class, or the bourgeoisie.
(ii) The class of the wholly propertyless, who are obliged to sell
their labor to the bourgeoisie in order to get, in exchange, the
means of subsistence for their support. This is called the class
of proletarians, or the proletariat.
- 5 -
Under what conditions does
this sale of the labor of the proletarians to the bourgeoisie
take place?
Labor is a commodity, like any other, and its price is therefore
determined by exactly the same laws that apply to other commodities. In
a regime of big industry or of free competition -- as we shall see, the
two come to the same thing -- the price of a commodity is, on the
average, always equal to its cost of production. Hence, the price of
labor is also equal to the cost of production of labor.
But, the costs of production of labor consist of precisely the quantity
of means of subsistence necessary to enable the worker to continue
working, and to prevent the working class from dying out. The worker
will therefore get no more for his labor than is necessary for this
purpose; the price of labor, or the wage, will, in other words, be the
lowest, the minimum, required for the maintenance of life.
However, since business is sometimes better and sometimes worse, it
follows that the worker sometimes gets more and sometimes gets less for
his commodities. But, again, just as the industrialist, on the average
of good times and bad, gets no more and no less for his commodities than
what they cost, similarly on the average the worker gets no more and no
less than his minimum.
This economic law of wages operates the more strictly the greater the
degree to which big industry has taken possession of all branches of
production.
- 6 -
What working classes were there
before the industrial revolution?
The working classes have always, according to the different stages of
development of society, lived in different circumstances and had
different relations to the owning and ruling classes.
In antiquity, the workers were the _slaves_ of the owners, just as they
still are in many backward countries and even in the southern part of
the United States.
In the Middle Ages, they were the _serfs_ of the land-owning nobility,
as they still are in Hungary, Poland, and Russia. In the Middle Ages,
and indeed right up to the industrial revolution, there were also
journeymen in the cities who worked in the service of petty bourgeois
masters. Gradually, as manufacture developed, these journeymen became
manufacturing workers who were even then employed by larger capitalists.
- 7 -
In what way do proletarians differ from slaves?
The slave is sold once and for all; the proletarian must sell himself
daily and hourly.
The individual slave, property of one master, is assured an existence,
however miserable it may be, because of the master's interest. The
individual proletarian, property as it were of the entire bourgeois
class which buys his labor only when someone has need of it, has no
secure existence. This existence is assured only to the _class_ as a
whole.
The slave is outside competition; the proletarian is in it and
experiences all its vagaries.
The slave counts as a thing, not as a member of society. Thus, the
slave can have a better existence than the proletarian, while the
proletarian belongs to a higher stage of social development and,
himself, stands on a higher social level than the slave.
The slave frees himself when, of all the relations of private property,
he abolishes only the relation of slavery and thereby becomes a
proletarian; the proletarian can free himself only by abolishing private
property in general.
- 8 -
In what way do proletarians differ from serfs?
The serf possesses and uses an instrument of production, a piece of
land, in exchange for which he gives up a part of his product or part of
the services of his labor.
The proletarian works with the instruments of production of another, for
the account of this other, in exchange for a part of the product.
The serf gives up, the proletarian receives.
The serf has an assured existence, the proletarian has not.
The serf is outside competition, the proletarian is in it.
The serf liberates himself in one of three ways: either he runs away to
the city and there becomes a handicraftsman; or, instead of products and
and services, he gives money to his lord and thereby becomes a free
tenant; or he overthrows his feudal lord and himself becomes a property
owner. In short, by one route or another, he gets into the owning class
and enters into competition. The proletarian liberates himself by
abolishing competition, private property, and all class differences.
- 9 -
In what way do
proletarians differ from handicraftsmen?
- 10 -
In what way do
proletarians differ from manufacturing workers?
The manufacturing worker of the 16th to the 18th centuries still had,
with but few exception, an instrument of production in his own
possession -- his loom, the family spinning wheel, a little plot of land
which he cultivated in his spare time. The proletarian has none of
these things.
The manufacturing worker almost always lives in the countryside and in a
more or less patriarchal relation to his landlord or employer; the
proletarian lives, for the most part, in the city and his relation to
his employer is purely a cash relation.
The manufacturing worker is torn out of his patriarchal relation by big
industry, loses whatever property he still has, and in this way becomes
a proletarian.
- 11 -
What were the immediate consequences of the industrial revolution
and of the division of society into bourgeoisie and proletariat?
FIRST, the lower and lower prices of industrial products brought about
by machine labor totally destroyed, in all countries of the world, the
old system of manufacture or industry based upon hand labor.
In this way, all semi-barbarian countries, which had hitherto been more
or less strangers to historical development, and whose industry had been
based on manufacture, were violently forced out of their isolation.
They bought the cheaper commodities of the English and allowed their own
manufacturing workers to be ruined. Countries which had known no
progress for thousands of years -- for example, India -- were thoroughly
revolutionized, and even China is now on the way to a revolution.
We have come to the point where a new machine invented in England
deprives millions of Chinese workers of their livelihood within a year's
time.
In this way, big industry has brought all the people of the Earth into
contact with each other, has merged all local markets into one world
market, has spread civilization and progress everywhere and has thus
ensured that whatever happens in civilized countries will have
repercussions in all other countries.
It follows that if the workers in England or France now liberate
themselves, this must set off revolution in all other countries --
revolutions which, sooner or later, must accomplish the liberation of
their respective working class.
SECOND, wherever big industries displaced manufacture, the bourgeoisie
developed in wealth and power to the utmost and made itself the first
class of the country. The result was that wherever this happened, the
bourgeoisie took political power into its own hands and displaced the
hitherto ruling classes, the aristocracy, the guildmasters, and their
representative, the absolute monarchy.
The bourgeoisie annihilated the power of the aristocracy, the nobility,
by abolishing the entailment of estates -- in other words, by making
landed property subject to purchase and sale, and by doing away with the
special privileges of the nobility. It destroyed the power of the
guildmasters by abolishing guilds and handicraft privileges. In their
place, it put competition -- that is, a state of society in which
everyone has the right to enter into any branch of industry, the only
obstacle being a lack of the necessary capital.
The introduction of free competition is thus public declaration that
from now on the members of society are unequal only to the extent that
their capitals are unequal, that capital is the decisive power, and that
therefore the capitalists, the bourgeoisie, have become the first class
in society.
Free competition is necessary for the establishment of big industry,
because it is the only condition of society in which big industry can
make its way.
Having destroyed the social power of the nobility and the guildmasters,
the bourgeois also destroyed their political power. Having raised
itself to the actual position of first class in society, it proclaims
itself to be also the dominant political class. This it does through
the introduction of the representative system which rests on bourgeois
equality before the law and the recognition of free competition, and in
European countries takes the form of constitutional monarchy. In these
constitutional monarchies, only those who possess a certain capital are
voters -- that is to say, only members of the bourgeoisie. These
bourgeois voters choose the deputies, and these bourgeois deputies, by
using their right to refuse to vote taxes, choose a bourgeois
government.
THIRD, everywhere the proletariat develops in step with the bourgeoisie.
In proportion, as the bourgeoisie grows in wealth, the proletariat grows
in numbers. For, since the proletarians can be employed only by
capital, and since capital extends only through employing labor, it
follows that the growth of the proletariat proceeds at precisely the
same pace as the growth of capital.
Simultaneously, this process draws members of the bourgeoisie and
proletarians together into the great cities where industry can be
carried on most profitably, and by thus throwing great masses in one
spot it gives to the proletarians a consciousness of their own strength.
Moreover, the further this process advances, the more new labor-saving
machines are invented, the greater is the pressure exercised by big
industry on wages, which, as we have seen, sink to their minimum and
therewith render the condition of the proletariat increasingly
unbearable. The growing dissatisfaction of the proletariat thus joins
with its rising power to prepare a proletarian social revolution.
- 12 -
What were the further consequences
of the industrial revolution?
Big industry created in the steam engine, and other machines, the means
of endlessly expanding industrial production, speeding it up, and
cutting its costs. With production thus facilitated, the free
competition, which is necessarily bound up with big industry, assumed
the most extreme forms; a multitude of capitalists invaded industry,
and, in a short while, more was produced than was needed.
As a consequence, finished commodities could not be sold, and a
so-called commercial crisis broke out. Factories had to be closed,
their owners went bankrupt, and the workers were without bread. Deepest
misery reigned everywhere.
After a time, the superfluous products were sold, the factories began to
operate again, wages rose, and gradually business got better than ever.
But it was not long before too many commodities were again produced and
a new crisis broke out, only to follow the same course as its
predecessor.
Ever since the beginning of this (19th) century, the condition of
industry has constantly fluctuated between periods of prosperity and
periods of crisis; nearly every five to seven years, a fresh crisis has
intervened, always with the greatest hardship for workers, and always
accompanied by general revolutionary stirrings and the direct peril to
the whole existing order of things.
- 13 -
What follows from these periodic commercial crises?
FIRST:
-- That, though big industry in its earliest stage created free
competition, it has now outgrown free competition;
-- that, for big industry, competition and generally the
individualistic organization of production have become a fetter
which it must and will shatter;
-- that, so long as big industry remains on its present footing, it
can be maintained only at the cost of general chaos every seven
years, each time threatening the whole of civilization and not
only plunging the proletarians into misery but also ruining
large sections of the bourgeoisie;
-- hence, either that big industry must itself be given up, which
is an absolute impossibility, or that it makes unavoidably
necessary an entirely new organization of society in which
production is no longer directed by mutually competing
individual industrialists but rather by the whole society
operating according to a definite plan and taking account of the
needs of all.
SECOND: That big industry, and the limitless expansion of production
which it makes possible, bring within the range of feasibility a social
order in which so much is produced that every member of society will be
in a position to exercise and develop all his powers and faculties in
complete freedom.
It thus appears that the very qualities of big industry which, in our
present-day society, produce misery and crises are those which, in a
different form of society, will abolish this misery and these
catastrophic depressions.
We see with the greatest clarity:
(i) That all these evils are from now on to be ascribed solely to a
social order which no longer corresponds to the requirements of
the real situation; and
(ii) That it is possible, through a new social order, to do away with
these evils altogether.
- 14 -
What will this new social order have to be like?
Above all, it will have to take the control of industry and of all
branches of production out of the hands of mutually competing
individuals, and instead institute a system in which all these branches
of production are operated by society as a whole -- that is, for the
common account, according to a common plan, and with the participation
of all members of society.
It will, in other words, abolish competition and replace it with
association.
Moreover, since the management of industry by individuals necessarily
implies private property, and since competition is in reality merely the
manner and form in which the control of industry by private property
owners expresses itself, it follows that private property cannot be
separated from competition and the individual management of industry.
Private property must, therefore, be abolished and in its place must
come the common utilization of all instruments of production and the
distribution of all products according to common agreement -- in a word,
what is called the communal ownership of goods.
In fact, the abolition of private property is, doubtless, the shortest
and most significant way to characterize the revolution in the whole
social order which has been made necessary by the development of
industry -- and for this reason it is rightly advanced by communists as
their main demand.
- 15 -
Was not the abolition of private property possible
at an earlier time?
No.
Every change in the social order, every revolution in property
relations, is the necessary consequence of the creation of new forces of
production which no longer fit into the old property relations.
Private property has not always existed.
When, towards the end of the Middle Ages, there arose a new mode of
production which could not be carried on under the then existing feudal
and guild forms of property, this manufacture, which had outgrown the
old property relations, created a new property form, private property.
And for manufacture and the earliest stage of development of big
industry, private property was the only possible property form; the
social order based on it was the only possible social order.
So long as it is not possible to produce so much that there is enough
for all, with more left over for expanding the social capital and
extending the forces of production -- so long as this is not possible,
there must always be a ruling class directing the use of society's
productive forces, and a poor, oppressed class. How these classes are
constituted depends on the stage of development.
-- The agrarian Middle Ages give us the baron and the serf;
-- the cities of the later Middle Ages show us the guildmaster and
the journeyman and the day laborer;
-- the 17th century has its manufacturing workers;
-- the 19th has big factory owners and proletarians.
It is clear that, up to now, the forces of production have never been
developed to the point where enough could be developed for all, and that
private property has become a fetter and a barrier in relation to the
further development of the forces of production.
Now, however, the development of big industry has ushered in a new
period. Capital and the forces of production have been expanded to an
unprecedented extent, and the means are at hand to multiply them without
limit in the near future. Moreover, the forces of production have been
concentrated in the hands of a few bourgeois, while the great mass of
the people are more and more falling into the proletariat, their
situation becoming more wretched and intolerable in proportion to the
increase of wealth of the bourgeoisie. And finally, these mighty and
easily extended forces of production have so far outgrown private
property and the bourgeoisie, that they threaten at any moment to
unleash the most violent disturbances of the social order. Now, under
these conditions, the abolition of private property has become not only
possible but absolutely necessary.
- 16 -
Will the peaceful abolition of private property
be possible?
It would be desirable if this could happen, and the communists would
certainly be the last to oppose it. Communists know only too well that
all conspiracies are not only useless, but even harmful. They know all
too well that revolutions are not made intentionally and arbitrarily,
but that, everywhere and always, they have been the necessary
consequence of conditions which were wholly independent of the will and
direction of individual parties and entire classes.
But they also see that the development of the proletariat in nearly all
civilized countries has been violently suppressed, and that in this way
the opponents of communism have been working toward a revolution with
all their strength. If the oppressed proletariat is finally driven to
revolution, then we communists will defend the interests of the
proletarians with deeds as we now defend them with words.
- 17 -
Will it be possible for
private property to be abolished at one stroke?
No, no more than existing forces of production can at one stroke be
multiplied to the extent necessary for the creation of a communal
society.
In all probability, the proletarian revolution will transform existing
society gradually and will be able to abolish private property only when
the means of production are available in sufficient quantity.
- 18 -
What will be the course of this revolution?
Above all, it will establish a _democratic constitution_, and through
this, the direct or indirect dominance of the proletariat. Direct in
England, where the proletarians are already a majority of the people.
Indirect in France and Germany, where the majority of the people
consists not only of proletarians, but also of small peasants and petty
bourgeois who are in the process of falling into the proletariat, who
are more and more dependent in all their political interests on the
proletariat, and who must, therefore, soon adapt to the demands of the
proletariat. Perhaps this will cost a second struggle, but the outcome
can only be the victory of the proletariat.
Democracy would be wholly valueless to the proletariat if it were not
immediately used as a means for putting through measures directed
against private property and ensuring the livelihood of the proletariat.
The main measures, emerging as the necessary result of existing
relations, are the following:
(i) Limitation of private property through progressive taxation,
heavy inheritance taxes, abolition of inheritance through
collateral lines (brothers, nephews, etc.) forced loans, etc.
(ii) Gradual expropriation of landowners, industrialists, railroad
magnates and shipowners, partly through competition by state
industry, partly directly through compensation in the form of
bonds.
(iii) Confiscation of the possessions of all emigrants and rebels
against the majority of the people.
(iv) Organization of labor or employment of proletarians on publicly
owned land, in factories and workshops, with competition among
the workers being abolished and with the factory owners, in so
far as they still exist, being obliged to pay the same high wages
as those paid by the state.
(v) An equal obligation on all members of society to work until such
time as private property has been completely abolished.
Formation of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
(vi) Centralization of money and credit in the hands of the state
through a national bank with state capital, and the suppression
of all private banks and bankers.
(vii) Education of the number of national factories, workshops,
railroads, ships; bringing new lands into cultivation and
improvement of land already under cultivation -- all in
proportion to the growth of the capital and labor force at the
disposal of the nation.
(viii) Education of all children, from the moment they can leave their
mother's care, in national establishments at national cost.
Education and production together.
(ix) Construction, on public lands, of great palaces as communal
dwellings for associated groups of citizens engaged in both
industry and agriculture and combining in their way of life the
advantages of urban and rural conditions while avoiding the
one-sidedness and drawbacks of each.
(x) Destruction of all unhealthy and jerry-built dwellings in urban
districts.
(xi) Equal inheritance rights for children born in and out of wedlock.
(xii) Concentration of all means of transportation in the hands of the
nation.
It is impossible, of course, to carry out all these measures at once.
But one will always bring others in its wake. Once the first radical
attack on private property has been launched, the proletariat will find
itself forced to go ever further, to concentrate increasingly in the
hands of the state all capital, all agriculture, all transport, all
trade. All the foregoing measures are directed to this end; and they
will become practicable and feasible, capable of producing their
centralizing effects to precisely the degree that the proletariat,
through its labor, multiplies the country's productive forces.
Finally, when all capital, all production, all exchange have been
brought together in the hands of the nation, private property will
disappear of its own accord, money will become superfluous, and
production will so expand and man so change that society will be able to
slough off whatever of its old economic habits may remain.
- 19 -
Will it be possible
for this revolution to take place in one country alone?
No.
By creating the world market, big industry has already brought all the
peoples of the Earth, and especially the civilized peoples, into such
close relation with one another that none is independent of what happens
to the others.
Further, it has co-ordinated the social development of the civilized
countries to such an extent that, in all of them, bourgeoisie and
proletariat have become the decisive classes, and the struggle between
them the great struggle of the day. It follows that the communist
revolution will not merely be a national phenomenon but must take place
simultaneously in all civilized countries -- that is to say, at least in
England, America, France, and Germany.
It will develop in each of the these countries more or less rapidly,
according as one country or the other has a more developed industry,
greater wealth, a more significant mass of productive forces. Hence, it
will go slowest and will meet most obstacles in Germany, most rapidly
and with the fewest difficulties in England. It will have a powerful
impact on the other countries of the world, and will radically alter the
course of development which they have followed up to now, while greatly
stepping up its pace.
It is a universal revolution and will, accordingly, have a universal
range.
- 20 -
What will be the consequences of
the ultimate disappearance of private property?
Society will take all forces of production and means of commerce, as
well as the exchange and distribution of products, out of the hands of
private capitalists and will manage them in accordance with a plan based
on the availability of resources and the needs of the whole society. In
this way, most important of all, the evil consequences which are now
associated with the conduct of big industry will be abolished.
There will be no more crises; the expanded production, which for the
present order of society is overproduction and hence a prevailing cause
of misery, will then be insufficient and in need of being expanded much
further. Instead of generating misery, overproduction will reach beyond
the elementary requirements of society to assure the satisfaction of the
needs of all; it will create new needs and, at the same time, the means
of satisfying them. It will become the condition of, and the stimulus
to, new progress, which will no longer throw the whole social order into
confusion, as progress has always done in the past. Big industry, freed
from the pressure of private property, will undergo such an expansion
that what we now see will seem as petty in comparison as manufacture
seems when put beside the big industry of our own day. This development
of industry will make available to society a sufficient mass of products
to satisfy the needs of everyone.
The same will be true of agriculture, which also suffers from the
pressure of private property and is held back by the division of
privately owned land into small parcels. Here, existing improvements
and scientific procedures will be put into practice, with a resulting
leap forward which will assure to society all the products it needs.
In this way, such an abundance of goods will be able to satisfy the
needs of all its members.
The division of society into different, mutually hostile classes will
then become unnecessary. Indeed, it will be not only unnecessary but
intolerable in the new social order. The existence of classes
originated in the division of labor, and the division of labor, as it
has been known up to the present, will completely disappear. For
mechanical and chemical processes are not enough to bring industrial and
agricultural production up to the level we have described; the
capacities of the men who make use of these processes must undergo a
corresponding development.
Just as the peasants and manufacturing workers of the last century
changed their whole way of life and became quite different people when
they were impressed into big industry, in the same way, communal control
over production by society as a whole, and the resulting new
development, will both require an entirely different kind of human
material.
People will no longer be, as they are today, subordinated to a single
branch of production, bound to it, exploited by it; they will no longer
develop one of their faculties at the expense of all others; they will
no longer know only one branch, or one branch of a single branch, of
production as a whole. Even industry as it is today is finding such
people less and less useful.
Industry controlled by society as a whole, and operated according to a
plan, presupposes well-rounded human beings, their faculties developed
in balanced fashion, able to see the system of production in its
entirety.
The form of the division of labor which makes one a peasant, another a
cobbler, a third a factory worker, a fourth a stock-market operator, has
already been underminded by machinery and will completely disappear.
Education will enable young people quickly to familiarize themselves
with the whole system of production and to pass from one branch of
production to another in response to the needs of society or their own
inclinations. It will, therefore, free them from the one-sided
character which the present-day division of labor impresses upon every
individual. Communist society will, in this way, make it possible for
its members to put their comprehensively developed faculties to full
use. But, when this happens, classes will necessarily disappear. It
follows that society organized on a communist basis is incompatible with
the existence of classes on the one hand, and that the very building of
such a society provides the means of abolishing class differences on the
other.
A corollary of this is that the difference between city and country is
destined to disappear. The management of agriculture and industry by
the same people rather than by two different classes of people is, if
only for purely material reasons, a necessary condition of communist
association. The dispersal of the agricultural population on the land,
alongside the crowding of the industrial population into the great
cities, is a condition which corresponds to an undeveloped state of both
agriculture and industry and can already be felt as an obstacle to
further development.
The general co-operation of all members of society for the purpose of
planned exploitation of the forces of production, the expansion of
production to the point where it will satisfy the needs of all, the
abolition of a situation in which the needs of some are satisfied at the
expense of the needs of others, the complete liquidation of classes and
their conflicts, the rounded development of the capacities of all
members of society through the elimination of the present division of
labor, through industrial education, through engaging in varying
activities, through the participation by all in the enjoyments produced
by all, through the combination of city and country -- these are the
main consequences of the abolition of private property.
- 21 -
What will be the influence
of communist society on the family?
It will transform the relations between the sexes into a purely private
matter which concerns only the persons involved and into which society
has no occassion to intervene. It can do this since it does away with
private property and educates children on a communal basis, and in this
way removes the two bases of traditional marriage -- the dependence
rooted in private property, of the women on the man, and of the children
on the parents.
And here is the answer to the outcry of the highly moral philistines
against the "community of women". Community of women is a condition
which belongs entirely to bourgeois society and which today finds its
complete expression in prostitution. But prostitution is based on
private property and falls with it. Thus, communist society, instead of
introducing community of women, in fact abolishes it.
- 22 -
What will be the attitude
of communism to existing nationalities?
- 23 -
What will be its attitude to existing religions?
As is. [1]
- 24 -
How do communists differ from socialists?
The so-called socialists are divided into three categories.
[ REACTIONARY SOCIALISTS: ]
The first category consists of adherents of a feudal and patriarchal
society which has already been destroyed, and is still daily being
destroyed, by big industry and world trade and their creation, bourgeois
society. This category concludes, from the evils of existing society,
that feudal and patriarchal society must be restored because it was free
of such evils. In one way or another, all their proposals are directed
to this end.
This category of _reactionary_ socialists, for all their seeming
partisanship and their scalding tears for the misery of the proletariat,
is nevertheless energetically opposed by the communists for the
following reasons:
(i) It strives for something which is entirely impossible.
(ii) It seeks to establish the rule of the aristocracy, the
guildmasters, the small producers, and their retinue of absolute
or feudal monarchs, officials, soldiers, and priests -- a society
which was, to be sure, free of the evils of present-day society
but which brought it at least as many evils without even
offering to the oppressed workers the prospect of liberation
through a communist revolution.
(iii) As soon as the proletariat becomes revolutionary and communist,
these reactionary socialists show their true colors by
immediately making common cause with the bourgeoisie against the
proletarians.
[ BOURGEOIS SOCIALISTS: ]
The second category consists of adherent of present-day society who
have been frightened for its future by the evils to which it necessarily
gives rise. What they want, therefore, is to maintain this society
while getting rid of the evils which are an inherent part of it.
To this end, some propose mere welfare measures -- while others come
forward with grandiose systems of reform which, under the pretense of
re-organizing society, are in fact intended to preserve the foundations,
and hence the life, of existing society.
Communists must unremittingly struggle against these _bourgeois
socialists_ because they work for the enemies of communists and protect
the society which communists aim to overthrow.
[ DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISTS: ]
Finally, the third category consists of democratic socialists who favor
some of the same measures the communists advocate, as described in
Question 18, not as part of the transition to communism, however, but as
measures which they believe will be sufficient to abolish the misery and
evils of present-day society.
These _democratic socialists_ are either proletarians who are not yet
sufficiently clear about the conditions of the liberation of their
class, or they are representatives of the petty bourgeoisie, a class
which, prior to the achievement of democracy and the socialist measures
to which it gives rise, has many interests in common with the
proletariat.
It follows that, in moments of action, the communists will have to come
to an understanding with these democratic socialists, and in general to
follow as far as possible a common policy with them -- provided that
these socialists do not enter into the service of the ruling bourgeoisie
and attack the communists.
It is clear that this form of co-operation in action does not exclude
the discussion of differences.
- 25 -
What is the attitude of
the communists to the other political parties of our time?
This attitude is different in the different countries.
In England, France, and Belgium, where the bourgeoisie rules, the
communists still have a common interest with the various democratic
parties, an interest which is all the greater the more closely the
socialistic measures they champion approach the aims of the communists
-- that is, the more clearly and definitely they represent the interests
of the proletariat and the more they depend on the proletariat for
support. In England, for example, the working-class Chartists are
infinitely closer to the communists than the democratic petty
bourgeoisie or the so-called Radicals.
In America, where a democratic constitution has already been
established, the communists must make the common cause with the party
which will turn this constitution against the bourgeoisie and use it in
the interests of the proletariat -- that is, with the agrarian National
Reformers. [2]
In Switzerland, the Radicals, though a very mixed party, are the only
group with which the communists can co-operate, and, among these
Radicals, the Vaudois and Genevese are the most advanced.
In Germany, finally, the decisive struggle now on the order of the day
is that between the bourgeoisie and the absolute monarchy. Since the
communists cannot enter upon the decisive struggle between themselves
and the bourgeoisie until the bourgeoisie is in power, it follows that
it is in the interest of the communists to help the bourgeoisie to power
as soon as possible in order the sooner to be able to overthrow it.
Against the governments, therefore, the communists must continually
support the radical liberal party, taking care to avoid the
self-deceptions of the bourgeoisie and not fall for the enticing
promises of benefits which a victory for the bourgeoisie would allegedly
bring to the proletariat. The sole advantages which the proletariat
would derive from a bourgeois victory would consist
(i) in various concessions which would facilitate the unification of
the proletariat into a closely knit, battle-worthy, and organized
class; and
(ii) in the certainly that, on the very day the absolute monarchies
fall, the struggle between bourgeoisie and proletariat will
start. From that day on, the policy of the communists will be
the same as it now is in the countries where the bourgeoisie is
already in power. BOTH WORK GOOD