Revolutionaries And Reformists: Eastern And Western Socialism

 

“Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you.” – Nikita Khrushchev

Introduction

Since progressive “social democratic” socialism has unfortunately become the dominant political and economic ideology in most western nations today, I feel that it is imperative for people to understand the virus that we are facing. Although this virus is most likely incurable, or perhaps it has already infected so much of the system as to make it irreversible, we can at least try to mitigate it by understanding exactly what we are up against. Like I mentioned before, my education was in the field of sociology, so unfortunately this is a subject that I have studied at great length. I am sadly well acquainted with progressive socialist indoctrination, to include entire class on Karl Marx and Marxism. So comrades, here we go…

Poison Fruit From The Same Tree

As I have previously discussed, progressive “social democratic socialism” and “authoritarian-communism” are merely different points in the same general direction along the same economic and authoritarian slope or gradient. In certain applications or contexts, the words socialism and communism may even be interchangeable. Both systems and ideologies seek to empower the centralized state and collective over that of the individual, and inevitably will lead to the individual being robbed of their rights, liberty, and property.

Now obviously there are certain differences between these systems, as well as differences in the various implementations of these systems by different governments, but as far as their place along the political scale, they fall in the same quadrant along the same slope. This is because both systems share a common ideological father–Marxism–and also because socialism is generally considered to be the halfway point between capitalism and communism.

It is also important to note here that I am referring to “authoritarian-communism” and not “true-communism” or “anarchist-communism”, which consequently has never been achieved by a large-scale society or government, is totally incompatible with human nature on a large-scale and is therefore totally impossible, and lastly is not even the intended end goal of progressive socialists. Democratic socialism (or reformist as we will soon see) is therefore the slow and incremental approach to “authoritarian-communism”. It is the gradual conditioning and indoctrination of the masses to accept total government control, and the slow erosion and destruction of their individual rights and liberty. A frog slowly boiled in the pot…as the saying goes.

Make absolutely no mistake about it, the progressive socialist ruling elites in this country, both political and academic, have in their minds the end goal of establishing a single-party (vanguard) ruled state, an all-powerful central government, a centrally planned and controlled economy, a centralized redistribution of wealth and resources, a state controlled media, a state controlled education system (indoctrination), and a population totally dependent and subservient to the state. That, my friends, is “authoritarian communism”, and it is straight from the mind of Karl Marx.

The progressive elites desire this, because in their psychopathic minds they imagine that they will be the ones in control of the system, and they also believe that they are the most enlightened and qualified to run it. They imagine themselves as the political leaders, the members of the politburo, the bureaucrats, and the academic elites. These elites will use the liberal “bleeding hearts” and social justice warriors of the progressive movement as pawns and “useful idiots” in their sick game, because it ultimately serves their end goals. And that is the key distinction between eastern and western socialism, revolutionary and reformist, and how we have gotten to where we are today.

Karl Marx

Common Roots: Marxism

As I stated before, eastern “authoritarian communism” and western “socialism” (and communism and socialism in general) share a common ideological father in Marxism. Marxism–the political and sociological ideas and principles of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels written in the mid-1800s–is the predominant root ideology of all anti-capitalist systems. This essay is not about Marxism in and of itself however, (a topic that I sadly had the displeasure of studying ad nauseam and perhaps will write more in depth about in the future) but a little overview is still required. For to understand Marxism is to understand the goals of progressive socialism.

The central fundamental principle of Marxism is “class conflict”, which is essentially the simplistic view that all history can be boiled down to a struggle between classes. Marxism states that capitalism arose during the industrial revolution, when efficient mass production began to replace merchant and manufacturing guilds, and industrialized farming began to replace traditional agricultural systems. The factory owners, land owners, and tycoons, or those who controlled “the means of production”, began taking over the political power of the old feudal aristocracy and nobility.

This is not to say that the old aristocrats and new tycoons were not some of the same people, but merely that the system of power was changing. Therefore, in this new system, the control of capital equaled social power. Marx referred to the new class of production owners as the “bourgeois”, and the workers as the “proletariat” class. He believed that the greed and expansion of the bourgeois would inevitably lead to the destruction of the middle class and small business merchants, thereby leaving only these two classes. He also believed that the expansion of capitalist markets and globalization was spreading bourgeois greed and exploitation all over the world.

Marx believed that this new and expanding capitalist system led to inherent inequality and the “centralization of capital”, or essentially that a huge inequality existed between the bourgeois, who owned and controlled the majority of the capital, property, land, and “means of production”, and the proletariat, who did not own property and therefore had to sell their own labor as a commodity. Marx felt that this inequality within the capitalist system was intentional, because it allowed for the exploitation of workers who had no other option than to sell their labor in order to survive. Marx believed that because there was a surplus of workers compared to the demand for work, the bourgeois could exploit their workers by paying them only what they needed to survive, thereby maximizing profits. This surplus also meant that workers had little bargaining room in the labor contract, and were therefore expendable. Marx also believed that the exploited workers produced far more value and capital for the bourgeois than they were compensated for, which he referred to as “surplus value”.

Due to the gross inequalities of the capitalist system, Marx believed that the system was sowing the seeds of its own inevitable destruction. He believed that the oppression and exploitation of the proletariat by the bourgeois would inevitably lead to an uprising and revolution, which would overthrow the capitalist system and grant political power to the proletariat. Marx believed that this revolution and unification of the proletariat required a spark however, and therefore must be organized, managed, and led by a revolutionary communist party (vanguard), who acted on behalf of the proletariat and represented their interests. The goals of this Marxist communist revolution were to emancipate the proletariat and seize political power, abolish all private property (not personal), and to destroy all remnants of the bourgeois capitalist system, to include: free markets, laws, morality, family, traditional male/female relationships and marriage, religion, god, and culture.

The ultimate and final goal of this communist revolution was the establishment of a completely egalitarian, classless, and stateless society, also known as “true” or “pure” communism. However, Marx was realistic. He understood that this transition, from capitalism to “pure communism”, could not happen right away, and that there had to be an intermediate transitional state. Marx referred to this intermediate state as “socialism”, however as we will soon see, the intermediate system that he described and advocated for is actually “authoritarian communism”.

Marx stated that upon seizing political control from the bourgeois, the proletariat, led by the communist party, should establish a single-party communist controlled state. He stated that all private bourgeois capital, property, and land should then be taken by force as quickly as possible, and control of which should then be centralized in the hands of the state. By his own admission, Marx acknowledged that this could not take place “except by means of despotic inroads”…i.e. authoritarianism.

Upon the establishment of a centralized “authoritarian communist” state, Marx laid out a list of ten other policies that the state should implement, to include: the institution of a progressive and graduated income tax, the abolition of all inheritance, the centralization of all credit and the establishment of a national bank, the centralization of transportation, the centralization of communication (a state controlled media), the state control and central planning of all agriculture and industry (the sickle and hammer), and public education (indoctrination). If some of these items sound hauntingly familiar, they should, but more on that later.

Marx believed, incredibly naively and stupidly I might add, that this transitional socialist system would only last until the means of production became totally communal, and class distinctions no longer existed. The “authoritarian communist” system would then gradually disappear into the “true anarchist communist” utopia which I referenced above. In his extremely simplistic understanding of history and politics, Marx naively believed that the only reason political power existed was for one class to oppress another, and therefore when a classless system emerged, centralized authoritarian power would simply melt away.

To believe this absurdity is to totally deny human nature and history, in believing that those who accumulate total centralized authoritarian power over a nation will simply willingly give it up one day. This is the reason why “true communism” has never and can never be achieved, and why communism has never gone beyond the supposed “transitional stage” of “authoritarian communism”. History has shown us time and again, that once total authoritarian power over a nation has been achieved, those in power will never willingly relinquish it, and will resort to all manner of atrocities and human rights violations to maintain it.

Revolutionaries And Reformists

Marx was not the only communist philosopher of his day, and there were many other socialist and communist ideologies spreading around during that time. Marx however was highly critical of most of them, even going so far as to refer to some of them as “emasculated”. Marx’s main issue with many of these other ideologies was that they denied his notion of “class conflict” and the antagonism between the bourgeois and the proletariat, or at the very least, they did not acknowledge it’s importance enough. He also hated the fact that many of these other ideologies, namely the more moderate social-democrats of the day, wanted to work within their existing social frame works in order to reform these systems from within, in order to establish socialism and communism. Many of these reformists did in fact acknowledge Marx’s concept of “class conflict” as a social problem that needed to be solved, however they did not believe that violent revolution was the best course of action to fix it.

Marx however was adamantly opposed to any moderate reform ideology, believing instead that violent revolution was the only way possible for the proletariat to emancipate themselves from oppression and to seize power. His famous work, “The Communist Manifesto”, was a call to arms for the proletariat worldwide to rise up in revolution, and ended with the famous battle cry “workers of the world, unite”

(If you have any doubt about what I have written thus far, I encourage you to read “The Communist Manifesto” by Marx and educate yourself).

During the latter half of the 19th century and the turn of the 20th century, various world socialist organizations and parties made efforts to reconcile the ideological differences between the revolutionary communists and the more moderate reformists, in order to form broad coalitions for socialist change. However these efforts eventually ended in a major schism between the two sides following the outset of the First World War. This divide largely mirrors the distinction between eastern and western socialism and communism, to which I have previously referenced, and also still exists today in certain contexts.

Vladimir Lenin

Vladimir Lenin

Eastern Communism: Revolutionary

The Second International was a coalition of various socialist parties and organizations, mainly European, which formed at the end of the 19th century. The goal of this coalition was to reconcile ideological differences between the radical revolutionaries and the more moderate reformists, in order to provide a united front to enact socialist change. The outbreak of World War I in 1914 severely strained this effort, and ultimately resulted in a deeper division between the revolutionaries and the moderate reformists, eventually leading to the dissolution of this coalition during the course of the war. The main reason behind this schism was due to the fact that the revolutionaries of the coalition, including Vladimir Lenin and the Russian Bolsheviks, were calling for the war to become a united world proletariat revolution, while the more moderate reformists tended to side with their respective countries during the war, thus enraging the revolutionaries.

Imperial Russia during World War I however, was a country ripe for revolution. It was still a largely feudal society, ruled by a monarch and with the wealth concentrated in the hands of a small nobility and aristocracy. This created huge economic disparities and social hardship among the population, which was still largely rural, and the overwhelming majority of which were still considered peasants. Along with being socially backwards, Imperial Russia was also extremely technologically and industrially retarded, when compared to the other European powers of the day. By 1917, Russia was doing very badly in the war, suffering defeats, heavy casualties, and gross military mismanagement. The war was also extremely unpopular on the home front, which along with the ongoing social, economic, and political instability of the day, contributed to the revolution in early 1917.

The Russian Revolution and ensuing civil war culminated in 1922, with a victory by the communist Bolsheviks led by Vladimir Lenin, the destruction of the tzarist monarchy, and the establishment of the Soviet Union. Lenin, a die-hard Marxist revolutionary, was placed in charge as chairman of the newly established “authoritarian communist” government. Lenin immediately began to consolidate his authoritarian power by establishing a single-vanguard-party controlled state, eliminating his rivals, eliminating rival parties, establishing a secret police force, implementing censorship, and by basically applying the mindset that “the ends justify the means”.

He also interpreted and implemented many of Marx’s recommendations for the post-proletariat-revolution authoritarian transitional state, including the centralization of state power and authority, the state seizure of private property, the centralized planning of the economy, as well as various other authoritarian state policies. Lenin’s interpretation of Marxism, known as Leninism, became a classic example for future communist leaders to follow.

However, unlike Marx had naively written nearly a century earlier, this “transitional” authoritarian state known as the Soviet Union did not eventually relinquish its control over the people in order for the society to move slowly towards “true communism”, but rather it moved further into authoritarianism, atrocity, and oppression instead. Under Lenin’s successor, Joseph Stalin, the authoritarianism, oppression, and atrocity of the Soviet Union on its own people increased dramatically, with purges of political rivals, mass genocide, and the consolidation of absolute authoritarian power. Yes, the Soviet Union eventually did collapse, but not because it transitioned to a “true communist state” as Marx had envisioned, but rather because its own people grew tired of living under the boot of oppression from the “temporary” “authoritarian communist” state.

Along with the Soviet Union, other eastern countries, most notably China, also followed the Marxist revolutionary model in establishing “authoritarian communism”. Like Imperial Russia, China at the turn of the 20th century was also still a feudal, agrarian, and technologically retarded nation. Following the end of the last Chinese dynasty in 1911, a power vacuum existed in China and civil war broke out between the Marxist revolutionary communists and the nationalists.

The civil war raged on for decades, except for a brief truce during World War II when both sides united to fight the Japanese, and culminated with a communist victory in 1949 (the nationalists formed a government in Taiwan). The Chinese revolutionary Marxists were heavily inspired by Lenin and the Soviet Union, and received a great deal of support from the Soviets during the civil war. Mao Zedong, a Marxist-Leninist die-hard, was appointed chairman of the Chinese communist party, and implemented many similar authoritarian policies as Lenin did years earlier. He also committed many of the same atrocities as his Soviet role-models, to include: consolidating absolute power, eliminating his rivals, mass genocide, and human rights violations and oppression. To this day, the “authoritarian communist” single-party Chinese state also has yet to relinquish its “temporary” control over its people, and although their economy has moved in a more capitalist direction, the state is still heavily authoritarian and oppressive under the rule of the communist party.

Along with the two major examples of the former Soviet Union and China, other examples of eastern nations which would later follow the Marxist revolutionary and authoritarian single-party model following World War II include: North Korea (inspired by Soviet occupation following WWII), Vietnam, Laos, and at one point Cambodia and Burma. A non-eastern example would also include Cuba. These nations all followed the violent revolutionary Marxist model, as opposed to the moderate reformist model. As a result of the revolutionary model, oppressive authoritarian single-party ruled states were established in these eastern nations, the end result of bloody revolutions and civil wars. And they were founded on the brutal principles of Marx, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao.

Once their domestic power is well established, the authoritarian governments of these revolutionary Marxist countries, have a great tendency to become extremely nationalistic, militaristic, socially conservative, conformist, and expansionist. This is especially observable in the former Soviet Union and China, but also to a lesser extent with North Korea and Vietnam. The reasons behind this are obvious and simple, the authoritarian governments of these nations must distract and divert the attention of their people away from their own oppressive circumstances with the unifying rallying cry of nationalism, militaristic pride, and collective conformity.

Socially liberal and permissive policies, which can often be helpful to the reformist Marxists in undermining a democracy, will only hurt the authoritarian Marxist state. Perestroika and Glasnost during the fall of the Soviet Union illustrate this perfectly. Therefore, these authoritarian states must be heavily restrictive of individualism, free expression, media, culture, and human rights. They also must be especially brutal when dealing with any form of dissent, criticism, or protest, so as to maintain the authority of the state and its control over the people. Freedom and individualism cannot be allowed to exist in an authoritarian Marxist state, contrary to what any “useful idiot” liberal social-justice-warrior may think. Those liberals who are academically honest enough to admit that these atrocities exist, yet cognitively dissonant enough to still desire the “authoritarian communist” state, will rationalize them away by claiming that they are merely incidental and necessary for a communist utopia to exist.

Franklin Roosevelt

Franklin Roosevelt

Western Socialism: Reformist

On the other side of the Marxist ideological divide that arose around the turn of the 20th century are the more moderate reformist Marxists. These reformist Marxists still desired the same end results as the revolutionaries—an authoritarian centrally planned and controlled state and economy—but they had different ideas and tactics on how to go about achieving it. The moderate reformist Marxists tended to stem more from Western European countries, which tended to be more urban, as well as more socially and technologically advanced than their eastern counterparts. These western nations also had in place more representative democratic parliamentary systems, as well as a greater history of capitalism, free markets and trade, and a more vibrant merchant middle class and stable social structure.

In essence, these western nations were not as feudal as their eastern counter parts. Due to this, the moderate reformist Marxists and socialists believed that socialism could be achieved without a violent revolution, but rather by reforming and restructuring the current system from within. Theses reformists were focused on welfare, social activism, social justice, workers’ rights, better working conditions, unions, wealth redistribution, and women’s suffrage. Many, but not all reformists, agreed with Marx’s concept of “class conflict”, and still generally believed in the end goals of Marxism, just with a slower more measured approach towards implementing them as opposed to violent upheaval.

The United States during the early 20th century was not immune from the ideologies of Marxism, and it had its own factions of revolutionaries and reformists. Like Western Europe of the day, the reformists were far more common and mainstream than were the revolutionaries. This is not at all surprising because the US was far more similar to Western Europe at the time–as far as democratically, economically, technologically, industrially, and socially–than it was to the east, so therefore like Western Europe, the reformist movement won out. However, during this time in the US, the words Marxism, communism, and socialism were considered dirty words and were not considered mainstream ideas. Progressivism however, which was essentially a re-branding and a much more moderate version of reformist Marxism, was becoming mainstream in the US. Progressives gained popularity in the US by seeking to end capitalist corruption and political corruption, with a series of populist policies and government interventions. Notable presidents such as Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Franklin Roosevelt were considered progressive.

During the “Progressive Era” in the US, roughly the early 1900’s to the start of WWII, many reformist ideas gained traction, and a series of many reformist policies and reforms were passed by government. These included such things as: the expansion of workers’ rights and unions, women’s suffrage, anti-trust laws, the expansion of the federal bureaucracy, the implementation of the income tax (straight out of Marx’s playbook), the establishment of the Federal Reserve (also straight out of Marx’s playbook), and culminated with the “New Deal” and Social Security under FDR. Up until the passage of the “New Deal”, most of the previous progressive reforms were considered moderate and had general bi-partisan support. It was not until the “New Deal” debate did the contemporary meaning of the terms “liberal” and “conservative” even become mainstream. In all honesty though, the progressives of this era would still be considered “right wing” conservative by today’s standards, especially when compared to the modern Democrat Party and progressives. Even during this time, revolutionary radical Marxism and socialism in general, were not considered mainstream ideas in the US, and the progressives of the day were generally still considered patriotic, capitalist, and pro-business.

Adolf Hitler

Adolf Hitler

During the period after World War I, the reformists and social-democrats gained ground in Europe. The rise of Nazism, or National Socialism, in Germany is perhaps the best example illustrating the distinction between the reformists and the radical revolutionary communists during this time. This is a topic I plan on writing about in detail later, so I will be brief here. Hitler was a socialist, but he was not a Marxist, and although Nazi Germany shared some similarities with the Soviet Union at that time, the two were inherently different. Nazism established an authoritarian socialist fascist militaristic single-party controlled state, however Hitler did not believe in the Marxist idea of “class conflict”.

Hitler believed in and established a stratified merit based mixed economy, where each segment and class knew its place and role, but Hitler did not believe in Marxist “class conflict” because he felt that it weakened the idea of nationalism, national unity, and racial pride. Hitler felt that each class in the economy–workers, farmers, merchants, owners, military, etc.–should take pride in their role contributing to the greater national good, and that upward mobility should be based on merit. Hitler was opposed to pure capitalism because he felt that it inspired greed, corruption, cultural degradation, and hurt national unity, but he also understood the need for capitalist innovation and technological advancement. Therefore, he established a mixed economy which still allowed for private ownership and innovation, but also allowed for government planning, control, and worker protections based on merit. As a reformist socialist, Hitler achieved the end goal of establishing an “authoritarian socialist” state through reforming the system without Marxism and the violent Marxist revolution. Hitler and Nazism illustrates perfectly that the so called “moderate” reformists can be just as evil as the more radical revolutionaries, and that the evils of “authoritarian socialism communism” can be achieved by unchecked reformists just the same as revolutionaries.

The decades following World War II were a politically and socially tumultuous time in the US and Western Europe. The height of the cold war, Soviet expansion, and the red scare brought a heavy backlash against communism and radical revolutionary Marxism in the west, and therefore the reformists had to distance themselves from the radicals, and present themselves as extremely moderate and common sense oriented. The social democrats, progressives, and reformists did pick up ground in the US and Western Europe during this time, but they were extremely moderate in their approach and policies. Although the political reformists and progressives of this era were probably considered liberals at the time, by today’s standards they would be considered moderate to conservative, especially when compared to the modern progressives and modern radical Democrat Party today. The reasons behind this is what we are going to explore next.

Saul Alinsky

Saul Alinsky

Radicalization

During the 1960’s and 70’s, the civil rights, anti-war, youth and hippie movements, both in the US and Western Europe, were heavily rooted in radical Marxism. These various youth and political movements brought back a heavy underground resurgence in militant and radical revolutionary Marxist ideology. These movements as a whole were anti-establishment, anti-authority (unless it was their own version of it), anti-militarism, anti-capitalism, and anti-western as a whole. Guided by the Marxist activist leaders of the day, such as Saul Alinsky, Tom Hayden, and Abbie Hoffman, the “New Left” united the reformist agenda with a heavy influence of radicalism and revolutionary Marxism. The “New Left”, a general term for the many different radical leftist youth groups and organizations of the day (such as Students for a Democratic Society and the Weather Underground), sought to bring about social justice and Marxism through a combination of activism, agitation, protests, non-violent civil disobedience, violent disobedience, terrorism, and violent revolution. Obviously different groups used and promoted different tactics, and not all groups condoned violence, but as a whole the entire movement was rooted in a far more widespread and radical militant form of Marxism than had been seen prior in the West.

As the 1970’s drew to a close, and time moved steadily onward, the young radical Marxist “baby boomers” grew up. The radical student protesters and militants of the era eventually graduated, and then went on to become the lawyers, doctors, college professors, journalists, civic leaders, organizers, and politicians of today. Although they may have initially failed in their militant goals of the 60’s and 70’s, they eventually became the very establishment that they had railed against. They became “the man”, and slowly but surely began to infect, indoctrinate, and further radicalize our institutions, academia, bureaucracy, justice system, and politics with their radical Marxist ideology. They infected and radicalized the once moderate Democrat Party, moving it far left with their militant Marxist ideology. Although many of them may have mellowed with age and time–as is common with most people–and therefore perhaps have lost that radical and militant youthful spirit, their radical ideology remains. And now from their new-found positions of power and influence, these former radicals have realized and capitalized upon the new opportunities afforded to them by their positions, and have developed a new tactic to enact their will: combining and hiding their radical Marxist goals within the non-threatening appearance of moderate reform.

“Reformists” Today

From their positions of power and influence, the former radical Marxists became the power elite. They became the people, who in their minds, will be the ones to run the “authoritarian communist” state. Although often possessing radical Marxist views, they have embraced the reformist model which believed that the revolution was not necessary. They have instead used the shroud of social justice, fairness, activism, identity politics, race, feminism, white-guilt and self-loathing, self-righteousness, wealth redistribution, and other populist demagoguery to make political, policy, and cultural inroads. In the name of “reform”, they divide-and-conquer, play on people’s sense of envy, play on people’s sense of fairness, play on people’s dependency, and play on people’s belief of an all-power benevolent government. All the while, centralizing and consolidating the power of the state, and slowly destroying the individual.

They have used their positions within the media and journalism to subliminally indoctrinate and spread their message into the popular culture and zeitgeist. They have used their overwhelming positions in education and academia to indoctrinate legions of young people into their Marxist ideology, often without them even realizing it. They have used their power and influence within the justice system for judicial activism, to “legislate from the bench”, and to destroy the constitution. They have worked as activists, organizers, and rabble-rousers to manipulate the ignorant masses. Under the guise of populism, reform, identity politics, and demagoguery, they have been able to make political gains, win elections, and further solidify their power.

The power elites use the ignorant dependents as a guaranteed voting bloc. The elites have an entire army of “useful idiot” pawns within the progressive movement to use as activists and social justice warriors for reform, the answer to which is always more government, more regulation, more more more. The power elites are Marxist wolves in reformist sheep’s clothing. As I said before, make no mistake about it, these Marxist elites have the ultimate goal of establishing a one party (vanguard) ruled state, an all-powerful central government, a centrally planned and controlled economy, centralized redistribution of wealth and resources, a state controlled media, state controlled education (indoctrination), and a population totally dependent and subservient to the state. That, my friends, is “authoritarian communism”, and they have since realized the benefit in the slow measured reformist approach to achieving it.

Che Guevara

Che Guevara

Conclusion

As time goes by, the political winds often change course and the pendulum swings in different directions, but the progressive movement as a whole has continued to march onward. Inch-by-inch they march onward, incrementally moving us along the scale in their chosen direction. Progressivism is a movement, the end goal of which is the establishment of the authoritarian Marxist state, and the progressives, reformists, and radicals have been playing a strategic long game of chess. Perhaps Nikita Khrushchev was correct when he said that history was on the Soviet’s side, perhaps “authoritarian communism” is inevitable. Freedom, after all, is an anomaly in the course of human history. Most within the ignorant masses would choose the comfort and safety of slavery, for the uncertainty and self-determination of liberty. It is this fact, which has always allowed for authoritarianism to destroy freedom.

© 2014 All Rights Reserved, AB Nihilist

 

This entry was posted in Culture, Society, And Political Theory. Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.