South Carolina lawmakers have a proposal in their legislative pipeline that would nullify the federal Obamacare law.
Observers say the state likely will be the first in the nation to exempt citizens and businesses from participation in Obama’s Affordable Care Act.
Critics already have declared the bill is racist and argue that federal law trumps state law. They charged that state lawmakers can’t opt out of the law because they don’t like President Obama.
The South Carolina bill prohibits state agencies and officers from implementing any portion of the federal mandate, outlaws state insurance exchanges and directs the state attorney general to sue over selective enforcement of the Affordable Health Care Act.
Supporters of the bill contend it aligns with a Founding Father’s solution for states confronted by an unwarranted federal law.
From James Madison come the instructions:
“Should an unwarrantable measure of the federal government be unpopular in particular states, which would seldom fail to be the case, or even a warrantable measure be so, which may sometimes be the case, the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand. The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps, refusal to co-operate with the officers of the union; the frowns of the executive magistracy of the state; the embarrassments created by legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions, would oppose, in any state, difficulties not to be despised; would form, in a large state, very serious impediments; and where the sentiments of several adjoining states happened to be in unison, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter.”
House Bill 3101, called the South Carolina Freedom of Health Care Protection Act, already has passed the House 65-34 and soon heads to the Senate.
The bill’s chief sponsor, state Sen. Tom Davis, said there are several components which “in my judgment are legal, effective and within the state’s power to do.”
First, it prohibits agencies, officers and employees of the state from incorporating Obamacare requirements. Only federal officials could implement each of the myriad functions of the program in the state.
Davis explained that case law establishes Washington cannot force states to enforce federal laws. Administration officials, he pointed out, acknowledged that limitation when they set up a federal exchange because so many states refused to establish their own.
Get “Taking America Back,” Joseph Farah’s manifesto for sovereignty, self-reliance and moral renewal
Other provisions outlaw state exchanges, issue tax deductions for those penalized and direct the attorney general to pursue certain lawsuits.
The South Carolina Senate has a GOP majority so the plan is expected to pass and then be signed by Republican Gov. Nikki Haley, who opposes Obamacare.
Michael Maharrey, a spokesman for the Tenth Amendment Center, which advocates for states rights, told WND there’s a similar plan under development already in Oklahoma.
The center’s analysis of Madison’s writing outlines what it believes is the proper course for states.
The organization points out that “unwarrantable” literally means “unjustifiable.”
“Madison was clearly talking about federal acts with no constitutional justification. … But notice something interesting, Madison implies that state governments can even resist a ‘warrantable’ or justifiable federal act. So what does Madison suggest states do when the feds overstep their authority? Oppose it!”
The nullification idea already has been applied to issues ranging from gun regulation, driver’s license requirements and most recently, marijuana laws. The federal government folded when Colorado and Washington state made marijuana legal, despite a ban by the federal government.
The center’s model legislation for accomplishing nullification includes a rejection of the federal law, a specific act implementing the nullification and legal challenges as needed.
The idea had been promoted in a movie, “Nullification: The Rightful Remedy,” which notes Thomas Jefferson was among the early Americans who acknowledged the strategy.
“His draft of the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 first introduced the word ‘nullification’ into American political life, and follow-up resolutions in 1799 employed Jefferson’s formulation that ‘nullification … is the rightful remedy’ when the federal government reaches beyond its constitutional powers,” it explains. “In the Virginia Resolutions of 1798, James Madison said the states were ‘duty bound to resist’ when the federal government violated the Constitution.”
The foundation for the idea is that states predate the union, and the Declaration of Independence speaks of “free and independent states” with “power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do.”
Thus, the union does not own the states but represents and protects them and their actions.
WND has reported previously on nullification, including when a poll said 29 percent of registered voters believe an “armed revolution” may be needed in America to restore liberties. A second poll said Americans already have figured out a solution – reject federal laws that are unconstitutional.
A Washington Times editorial at the time said supporters of nullification “see it as a necessary and effective tool to protect states and citizens from the every-growing power of the federal government.”
Even in left-leaning California, the state Senate has joined dozens of other states in approving legislation designed to prevent the president from executing the indefinite detention provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act.
Fox News reported that in Missouri, a proposal declares all federal gun regulations unenforceable.
Missouri state Rep. Doug Funderburk said: “We have the authority to enforce these laws. We are trying to position us so that we in this state can have safer neighborhoods.”
A commentary by the non-profit tea party group FreedomWorks noted the federal government “only has about 30 enumerated powers delegated to it in the Constitution.”
According to the Tenth Amendment, any issue not found in the U.S. Constitution should be left up to individual states to decide.
Now, FreedomWorks said, the United States has “gone grossly astray,” with the federal government “involved in nearly every aspect of our daily lives from what foods we put into our bodies to what we’re allowed to watch on television.”
FreedomWorks said the attitude was expressed by Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., when he said, “The federal government can do most anything in this country.”
The earlier poll on armed revolution was by Fairleigh Dickinson University. It said that among Republicans, 44 percent think armed revolution soon might be needed.
On the general question of “nullification,” 44 percent believe states should have the right to block any federal laws they disagree with on legal grounds. Thirty-six percent disagree and 20 percent are undecided, the pollsters said.
Weighing in on the subject, WND columnist Walter Williams argued that “moral people” can’t rely only on courts to determine what is right and wrong.
“Suppose Congress enacted a law – and the Supreme Court ruled it constitutional – requiring American families to attend church services at least three times a month,” he wrote. “Should we obey such a law? Suppose Congress, acting under the Constitution’s commerce clause, enacted a law requiring motorists to get eight hours of sleep before driving on interstate highways. Its justification might be that drowsy motorists risk highway accidents, and accidents affect interstate commerce. Suppose you were a jury member during the 1850s and a free person were on trial for assisting a runaway slave, in clear violation of the Fugitive Slave Act. Would you vote to convict and punish?
“A moral person would find each one of those laws either morally repugnant or to be a clear violation of our Constitution. You say, ‘Williams, you’re wrong this time. In 1859, in Ableman v. Booth, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 constitutional.’ That court decision, as well as some others in our past, makes my case. Moral people can’t rely solely on the courts to establish what’s right or wrong. Slavery is immoral; therefore, any laws that support slavery are also immoral. In the words of Thomas Jefferson, ‘to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions (is) a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.’”
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/12/s-carolina-aims-to-nullify-obamacare/#xUO0vp4hKzGZF464.99
Shades of Vietnam: Spike in U.S. troop deaths tied to stricter Soros – Obama Muslim rules of engagement
The number of U.S. battlefield fatalities exceeded the rate at which troop strength surged in 2009 and 2010, prompting national security analysts to assert that coinciding stricter rules of engagement led to more deaths.
A connection between the sharp increase in American deaths and restrictive rules of engagement is difficult to confirm. More deaths surely stemmed from ramped-up counterterrorism raids and the Taliban’s response with more homemade bombs, the No. 1 killer of NATO forces in Afghanistan.
But it is clear that the rules of engagement, which restrain troops from firing in order to spare civilian casualties, cut back on airstrikes and artillery strikes — the types of support that protect troops during raids and ambushes.
“In Afghanistan, the [rules of engagement] that were put in place in 2009 and 2010 have created hesitation and confusion for our war fighters,” said Wayne Simmons, a retired U.S. intelligence officer who worked in NATO headquarters in Kabul as the rules took effect, first under Army Gen. Stanley M. McChrystal, then Army Gen. David H. Petraeus.
“It is no accident nor a coincidence that from January 2009 to August of 2010, coinciding with the Obama/McChrystal radical change of the [rules of engagement], casualties more than doubled,” Mr. Simmons said. “The carnage will certainly continue as the already fragile and ineffective [rules] have been further weakened by the Obama administration as if they were playground rules.”
Troops say the bureaucracy has cost lives: Each Taliban fighter allowed to escape is one more terrorist free to attack Americans by fighting battles or planting bombs.
Troops say the bureaucracy has cost lives: Each Taliban fighter allowed to … more >
As President Obama’s troop surge began in 2009, so did new rules of engagement demanded by Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who was responding to local elders angry over the deaths of civilians from NATO airstrikes and ground operations.
Mr. Karzai now is refusing to sign a status of forces agreement for U.S. troops to remain in his country after 2014, even though Mr. Obama personally pledged to him in a letter that Afghan homes would be mostly off-limits to ground forces.
Even before the president’s edict, commanders since 2009 had to insure that a Taliban fighter was carrying a weapon before they could authorize direct fire. A unit engaged in combat on the ground and requesting airstrikes must convince commanders — and lawyers — back at headquarters that no civilians would be harmed.
Warriors say this chain-of-command bureaucracy has cost lives: Each Taliban fighter allowed to escape is one more terrorist free to attack Americans by fighting battles or planting homemade bombs.
“We handcuffed our troops in combat needlessly,” said retired Air ForceLt. Gen. Thomas McInerney, a fighter pilot in Vietnam. “This was very harmful to our men and has never been done in U.S. combat operations that I know of.”
In 2010, the first full year of the troop surge, 499 Americans were killed, according to the research website icasualties.org. That is about five times the annual death toll compared with 2006-2007 and three times the number in 2008 — yet U.S. troop strength roughly doubled, from 40,000 to 85,000.
In 2011, as U.S. troops peaked at 100,000, 419 Americans were killed. In 2012, as the troop count began to decrease, the death toll fell to 319, three times what it was in 2006-2007.
The battle of Ganjgal in Afghanistan’s Kunar province proved to be historic. An Army captain and a Marine earned Medals of Honor for their efforts in the 10-hour firefight.
The September 2009 battle also stands as a stark example of the effects the restrictive rules of engagement had on troops under fire, fighting for their lives.
Former ArmyCapt. William Swenson, who last month pinned on the Medal of Honor, repeatedly called headquarters to request airstrikes but was denied for hours, as more than 150 Taliban fighters surrounded and attacked his position.
Mr. Swenson vented his frustration in an after-action investigation.
“It’s not JAG [military attorney] responsibility to interject to say, ‘Hey, we are concerned that you’re going to hit a building,’” he said. “I can tell you that I am concerned with saving as many lives as I can, not necessarily one. Unfortunately, this is combat. I can’t be perfect, but I can do what I feel what’s right at the time.”
He added: “I am not a politician. I am just the guy on the ground asking for that ammunition to be dropped because it’s going to save lives.”
Mr. Swenson recalled other instances in which the brigade command would not authorize airstrikes on targets he identified.
“I just get the craziest thing across the radio sometimes,” he said. “Just people second-guessing.”
Of 13 U.S. forces at Ganjgal, five were killed. The Afghan National Army lost eight soldiers.
Another soldier said in the same after-action report that there was a dwelling in Ganjgal used by the Taliban — including women — as a safe haven from which to fire rocket-propelled grenades and other weapons. Yet the command would not target the building.
“Let’s focus on [rules of engagement] because there is no reason you can’t level a house if they are shooting from it,” the soldier said. “I’ve never heard of a rule that would not allow [you] to fire on a house. They always teach you that you always have the right to defend yourself. Let commanders on the ground make decisions. We are using lawyers to make tactical decisions.”
He added: “You have the right to stay alive or keep your guys alive. We failed them by not keeping them alive because we didn’t provide them what they need to come out alive.”
The linking of an increase in American deaths to restrictive rules of engagement emerged a month before Ganjgal, when Marine Lance Cpl. Joshua Bernard was ambushed and killed in southern Afghanistan while on patrol.
Weeks earlier, his father, a retired Marine sergeant, wrote members of his Maine delegation in Washington to say that new rules against air and artillery support would get troops needlessly killed because the Taliban now enjoyed new safe havens among civilians.
“The rules of engagement are so convoluted, so open-ended, that it puts the people on the ground at risk no matter what they do,” said John Bernard, according to the Marine Corps Times. “It’s insane. You don’t let your guys languish there when these things happen. You err on the side of your guys, not the civilians.”
Mr. Simmons, who did intelligence work in Afghanistan, said new restrictions for 2014 and beyond spell trouble for thousands of U.S. troops who could remain.
“The carnage will certainly continue as the already fragile and ineffective [rules of engagement] have been further weakened by the Obama administration as if they were playground rules,” he said.
James Russell, an instructor at the Naval Postgraduate School who has conducted research in Afghanistan, said: “I know of no way to quantify or gather evidence that would demonstrate a correlations between more casualties and a changed [rules of engagement].”
Mr. Russell believes the main reason for increased casualties in 2009 and 2010 was that troops conducted operations in Helmand province, which had been taken over by the Taliban.
“So we went looking for the enemy to take him on in the ground he controlled. Not surprisingly, we encountered a much more violent environment, which led to more casualties,” he said. “A restricted [rules of engagement] to reduce collateral damage and civilian casualties certainly complicated our operations, but I don’t think you could attribute our increase in casualties to this kind of single factor.”
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/dec/5/increase-in-battlefield-deaths-linked-to-new-rules/?page=3#ixzz2nNAj6V6K
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
If we knew everything in the past and the future there would be little need for freedom. If we could accurately know all that preceded our fleeting moment upon life’s stage, if we could know all the consequences of our present desires, and if we could know what we would desire in the future we could then chart a course to perfection without any detours and so freedom of action would be unnecessary and central-planning would make sense.
Freedom would not only be unnecessary it would be very inconvenient. One free agent on this express to perfection would be the fly in the ointment and the monkey wrench in the gears. That one free person would rage against the machines, and would inevitably make an unforeseen choice and all the perfection would silently slip away.
In order to have the freedom to succeed there must also be freedom to fail. We all need the freedom to act upon circumstances that we don’t fully understand to attain goals whose consequences we can’t fully appreciate. Without this there is no freedom. We can pretend as the progressive advocates of central-planning do that we can accurately predict the consequence of every action; however this is contrary to our real-world experience.
The reason failure is so prevalent is due to the fact that every individual is operating with imperfect knowledge of what is best or of what will eventually yield the best outcome that we must allow people the freedom to act upon their ignorance. In this way the independent and competitive choices of many individuals will eventually lead through trial and error to the development of the best. Since so many times the best emerges through accidental or unforeseen results of actions taken without complete knowledge of what the outcome would be we must leave room for accidents often guided by ignorance so that knowledge can grow.
It is an incontrovertible fact that as the fund of human knowledge grows the percentage that any one person can effectively know becomes smaller. In other words, as general knowledge increases individual ignorance also increases. Add to this the constantly increasing complexity of our civilization and it becomes obvious that people must be allowed to act upon the knowledge they possess without regard to the vast amount of knowledge they do not possess. Otherwise no advancement would be possible, and we would live in a static society doomed to eventual demise.
It is this freedom to act in ignorance of all the consequences of their actions that allows the space for individual innovation. The greater the freedom of individuals to interpret the world according to their imperfect knowledge and to organize their efforts based upon their understanding of the world as they see it the greater the opportunity for the accidents which make up the majority of progress. If we take away the freedom to act upon our imperfect knowledge, if we take away the freedom to fail we will also take away the engine of progress and condemn ourselves to a stagnant world of limited possibilities.
As one person tries something another may build upon their result whether it succeeds or fails. The ability to learn from and build upon the experience of others is the seedbed of innovation and the font of discovery. It is our ignorance of all but a small fragment of reality that causes probability and chance to play such a large portion in our activities. It is within this realm of probability and chance that the future grows.
This applies to social as well as technical fields. The favorable accidents which become the building blocks of a vibrant, successful society do not just happen. They are the result of someone taking a risk, doing something that hasn’t been tried before without the complete knowledge of what the result will be. They include the chance of failure as well as of success and often the success achieved is not the desired end result of the action when it was initiated. Freedom increases the opportunity for risk and opens the door to possibility.
When we look at the vast amount of knowledge that makes up the common store of information in the modern age and then look at the miniscule percentage that any one person could possibly gain, retain and understand we see that the difference between what the wisest knows and what the least wise knows is comparatively insignificant. Everyone is operating based upon imperfect knowledge and the acceptance of grand assumptions.
To tell you the truth I am not really sure how electricity works. Yet most of my life and lifestyle is predicated on the availability and use of electricity. Most people have no idea how the economy works yet we all base our lives upon the fact that it does. If we refused to act in areas where we had less than perfect knowledge we would do nothing. One of the big differences between an advocate of liberty and an advocate of central-planning is that those who see liberty as man’s natural state understand that no one person or group is wise enough to make all the decisions for everyone. Central planners by definition believe they are wise enough to do so.
The case for liberty made by such Enlightenment thinkers as John Milton and John Locke provided the philosophical foundation for the Framers as they wrote our Constitution. They based their arguments for liberty on the realization that human ignorance and our need to act in the face of ignorance is a basic component of reality.
Every application of the tenants of Liberty reflect our need to give these actions based upon ignorance the widest possible scope to interface with chance and probability not certainty. Certainty is unattainable in this life outside of a cultural straightjacket that restricts choice and eliminates the freedom to fail. Such a society will be stagnant, stunted and doomed. Without the freedom to fail on an individual basis and then fall forward from that failure a society has short-circuited the conveyor belt of individual success and charted the course to eventual systemic failure. The former USSR was a text book example of this scenario.
If we wish to avoid the trash heap of History we must be wise enough to learn that though acting upon ignorance may increase the odds of failure if we try to eliminate failure so that everyone gets a trophy and everyone succeeds we have consigned ourselves to the dead end that always awaits anyone or any society that believes perfection is attainable on this earth.
For it isn’t failing that marks a failure it is the refusal to rise from failure and move on to success. We learn by failing. We achieve by using our freedom to fail as a launching pad for success. We fail because of our ignorance. We succeed because of our failures.
Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion. He is the Historian of the Future @ http://drrobertowens.com © 2013 Robert R. Owens email@example.com Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook or Twitter @ Drrobertowens / Edited by Dr. Rosalie Owens
How to Profit During High Inflation
Anyone with a technical degree will admit that college programmed them to consider “sell” a dirty word—to think salespeople use trickery to lure consumers into buying things they don’t need. It makes no difference whether it’s an investment product or a Pet Rock; anyone involved with selling or its evil twin marketing is guilty until proven innocent.
I spent the majority of my first career in sales and marketing, where I focused on negotiations and pricing. My clients included 40 of the top 500 US corporations. Now I work alongside some of the best economists and analysts in the world, and well, let’s just say I bring a different perspective and experience base to our meetings.
That difference became apparent during a recent discussion on how our subscribers can protect themselves and even profit from inflation. We were all in agreement on several key points:
The government cannot continue to print money as it is without high inflation resulting.
Traditional investments like precious metals will soar when the world finally discovers the US dollar is worthless. Own them, be patient, and when it hits, what a ride it will be.
Billions of dollars will flow out of the stock market as interest rates begin to rise.
Certain companies and industries fare better than others in an inflationary environment. Success means investing in those companies whose stock prices and dividend appreciation will grow ahead of the rate of inflation, giving investors true gains.
Investors should look for:
Companies with a worldwide presence to hedge against the US dollar;
Companies with a history of regular dividend increases ahead of the inflation rate; and
Companies that can quickly pass through their cost increases to the market.
Take oil companies and airlines, for example. When oil companies notice some saber-rattling in the Middle East, the price at the pump can go up a nickel or more the next day. Contrast that with the airline industry, which does a very poor job in this regard.
Why do air travel and gasoline—both considered commodities—perform so differently when their costs are rising? The major oil companies understand market dynamics as well as any industry I’ve served. If an event is going to cause their costs to rise for whatever reason, it only takes one company to raise its prices, and the competition immediately follows. Market share is generally unaffected, but the entire industry makes money.
Price fixing is illegal, and that’s not what oil companies are doing. Go to the Weather Channel, surf around, and you can find the best gas prices in any given ZIP code. If you’re a dealer, you adjust your prices accordingly. After all, how far is a customer going to drive to save a couple cents per gallon when gas is priced over $3/gallon? It sounds crazy, but gas customers don’t have as much mobility as one might think. They risk spending more in gas driving around than they might save at the pump.
The airlines used to do the same thing when they were a regulated industry. One company would announce a fare increase, and all the competition would follow. Now unregulated, some airlines have significant cost advantages over their competition. A few years ago, Southwest Airlines made a huge bet on the direction of fuel prices and guessed right. It had a terrific advantage over the competition, and it was reflected in its pricing.
Unlike a driver needing gas, an air traveler has time to hop on the Internet and compare airfares quite easily, and price is a major factor when buying a plane ticket. While costs increase in the industry, those who maintain a cost advantage over their competition use that as an opportunity to increase their load factor. Instead of raising prices quickly, they lag behind. Fill just two or three more empty seats on a flight, and that income is straight profit. It is a very difficult industry in which to pass through cost increases quickly. Instead, for years the industry has scrambled to cut costs to remain profitable.
At this point, I shared what I consider to be the best place to look for companies that will beat inflation with the team. I started with two fundamental truths about cost and pricing:
In business, the cost of producing your product or service should tell you only one thing about how you should set your price: specifically, the price you don’t want to sell it for.
The selling price should be the value of your goods or services in the mind of the customer, as tempered by competition.
Too many businesses set their selling price as a formula called “cost plus,” which is the wrong way to go about it. Your cost information tells you when you’re losing money on every sale. There are companies that price their goods below cost with the intention of building up enough volume to bring their unit cost down in order to become profitable. Sometimes it works. But the sooner it does so the better, because these companies cannot continue losing money forever.
Take Amazon.com, for example. It used price as its main competitive advantage for years, delivering few if any profits for the better part of a decade as it grew. There can really be only one strong price leader, and that leader will condemn itself to being a low-margin, low-profit business so long as it competes on price alone.
From a marketing perspective, there are two different types of markets: concept and brand markets. In a concept market, a new idea, technology, philosophy, or methodology is sold. A brand market is an established market where competitors are fighting for market share.
The iPad is an easy example. The iPad was a new concept called a tablet computer. The competition was a different technology—an expensive notebook computer, your home computer, or a smartphone. In a concept market, many times you’re creating a market (tablets) at the expense of another market (portable computers). Personal computers, for their part, completely destroyed the typewriter market.
Apple is a great marketing company, its technology is excellent, and it understood it could price the new gadget below its true competition (computers) and still make terrific margins.
As a new market is created, competition sees the opportunity and jumps in. In the early stages, it validates the concept, and the total market growth accelerates even faster. Competition normally prices its product under the pricing umbrella of the market leader. At the same time, they may drop off a feature or two to keep their costs down. That further reinforces the market leader as the technology leader.
Eventually the market is created, and competition begins fighting for market share. Look at what’s happened to the printer business. Printers have now turned into a commodity—almost a disposable product, really. The market is now a brand market. Capitalism creates competition, which benefits the consumer. Each competitor is trying to convince consumers that their brand is better than the competition’s, and price is an important factor in that contest.
The next thing I look at is who dominates the market. You may be surprised to find the company with the highest quality and highest price is also a low-cost producer because they have the lion’s share of the market. Rather than cut price, Apple continues to upgrade the quality of its products to keep the competition in continual catch-up mode as opposed to leapfrogging their technology.
Because the dominant market leader provides the pricing umbrella for the industry, this creates an interesting Catch-22 in an inflationary environment. As production costs rise, the longer the dominant player hangs on, the more difficult it is for the competition, because they cannot pass on their cost increases to the consumer. If they raise prices, they will lose market share. Once the big boy announces a price increase, the rest of the market generally follows.
The dominant market leader also recognizes there are certain segments where price is a major consideration. There is now a market niche for basic, low-cost tablets. If the leader tries to cut its price to capture that segment, it has to determine how much additional share it would gain to offset the margin loss on the share it currently has. In addition, there are laws concerning predatory pricing, meaning pricing your products with the intention of driving your competition out of business. Concept sellers are generally content to open up a new market, and expect some loss of market share as it matures.
Let’s look at some real numbers:
Apple’s share price rose with the iPad very well, and it’s holding good margins. Now the iPhone5 is out, and the company is hoping for similar results.
There are many examples of concept sales in the technology sector (with which BIG TECH and Casey Extraordinary Technology subscribers should be familiar); however, concept sales take place in many markets. One of our holdings in the Money Forever portfolio has developed a new type of noninvasive medical test that gives better results with much less trauma to the patient. Its main competition is not a similar test, but rather the older, less-effective technology. As this new test becomes the standard, various brands will begin fighting over market share. In the meantime, the company is rapidly growing and maintaining excellent profit margins along the way. In turn, its shareholder value is really accelerating.
There are countless TV commercials for products and services like online dating services, reverse mortgages, or hair color for men, all of which are still in the concept stage. The companies are all still selling their idea as opposed to why they are better than the competition. Much of their success will depend on the size of the market they create with their ideas. Direct competitors offering a lower price to garner market share is of little concern.
Companies that create new concepts by finding large markets with needs begging for solutions will prosper. That’s one reason the technology sector is ripe with these success stories. How many products do we use today that were not even invented 20 years ago?
Our research team is constantly on the lookout for concept sellers in all markets throughout the world. Those who recognize the opportunity ahead of the crowd (before we learn about them on television) will see some extraordinary gains. They will thrive in any market, even during high inflation.
Concept sellers range from smaller companies with new ideas or technologies to huge companies like Apple or Sony that develop new products to fill needs they see in the market. When one finds a need and develops a product that’s in high consumer demand, its stock will generally rise, even in a tough market, and its gross margins will be protected because it can more easily pass cost increases to the customers.
If you’re not already a subscriber to BIG TECH or Casey Extraordinary Technology, I urge you to subscribe and take advantage of the 90-day money back guarantee. Both newsletters have spotted new tech trends well ahead of the crowd, and their subscribers have made spectacular profits because of it.
On the Lighter Side
Thank you to everyone who sent along positive feedback about the Oxford Club Wealth Survival Summit. If you missed it, you still have time to watch it here.
If you’re looking for a good Christmas gift, Doug Casey’s new book Right on the Money will be released on December 16. Right on the Money is the second book in the Conversations with Casey series. This time, the conversations focus on speculating, economics, investing, politics, and how to profit in times of political and economic chaos. The book is a set of keys to a potential fortune, available only to contrarians who are brave enough to use them during a time of chaos and volatility gripping our world. Click here for more information.
It looks like winter has hit a good portion of the country. Donna, our media relations manager, said the skiing in Stowe was great over the weekend.
No skiing in Florida, but I did enjoy watching football games played in blizzards. I can’t imagine 60,000 semi-sober fans leaving the stadium, finding their cars covered by a foot of fresh snow, and then trying to exit the parking lot.
The Monday night game in Chicago had a wind chill of 9 degrees below zero. Right after I married Jo, I decided to take my bride and stepdaughter Holly from Fort Myers, Florida to Chicago for a Bears game. The wind chill was well below zero, and we were bundled up as well as Floridians could be.
After the game, we went with the Bears Fan Club to Butch McGuire’s, where the team’s president gave our club president a game ball. I have a photo of Holly sitting on one of the player’s laps, grinning from ear to ear. Despite the cold, they loved it. The girls were really good troupers. But if we want to watch the Bears now, we wait until they come to Florida! I’m giving in to Father Time when it comes to cold weather.
Speaking of time, I read some material about being politically correct. Apparently words like “old,” “fat,” “bald,” and “hard of hearing” are now offensive.
If that’s the case, your follicle-impaired, calorically gifted, chronologically blessed, and audio-challenged scribe wants to tell everyone Happy Holidays!
Until next week…
Most people on the left of the political spectrum would agree wholeheartedly with the above quote. But they run into an unexpected problem when someone asks "why is he considered such a great statesman?"
The problem is that Mandela, apart from having a likeable personality, has achieved next to nothing in his relatively short political career which saw South Africa rapidly decline to the status of the world's most violent and crime-ridden country, and, to add to the confusion, his greatest friends are communists and dictators like Fidel Castro, Moammar Qaddafi, Yasser Arafat and Saddam Hussein. His ex-wife Winnie Mandela, whom he quickly jettisoned when it became clear she was a considerable embarassment to his political career, is a self-confessed advocate of terrorism and violence and has even committed murder.
In his public statements and speeches Mandela is always critical of the democratic countries of the west, but has nothing but praise for the remaining communist dictatorships of the world. He condemns mistakes and controversial policies of the west, but refuses to publicly condemn the genocides and brutal repression of current or former communist countries; he is supposedly a "champion of freedom and democracy", the "hero of oppressed people everywhere" but considers dictatorships like Cuba and Libya shining beacons of freedom and justice...
Perhaps this is what makes Mandela such a revered statesman - chameleon-like he can advocate democracy and freedom as the highest ideals one day and hold up Cuba or Libya as shining examples for the world to follow the next day. And his admirers do not even notice the contradiction, or worse, they agree with him...
Many of his apologists optimistically claim that Mandela may well have had "communist leanings" in his past, but that he has since put all that behind him and become a moderate in his political beliefs. They are perhaps unaware of his fulsome praise of a communist dictatorship as late as 1991 when he and Winnie went to what they called their "second home" - Cuba - to celebrate the communist revolution with Fidel Castro. In his speech Mandela said:
"Long live the Cuban Revolution. Long live comrade Fidel Castro... Cuban internationalists have done so much for African independence, freedom, and justice. We admire the sacrifices of the Cuban people in maintaining their independence and sovereignty in the face of a vicious imperialist campaign designed to destroy the advances of the Cuban revolution. We too want to control our destiny... There can be no surrender. It is a case of freedom or death. The Cuban revolution has been a source of inspiration to all freedom-loving people."
Mandela's adulation of Castro and Cuba almost outshines that of his own admirers. In May of 1990 Mandela, visiting America, went on record, referring to Cuba:
There's one thing where that country stands out head and shoulders above the rest. That is in its love for human rights and liberty.
A week later in Libya, he lauded Qaddafi's:
Committment to the fight for peace and human rights in the world.
While in America Mandela also made public statements that amounted to support for violence and terrorism in the furtherance of political aims. In a speech in Harlem, referring to four Puerto Rican terrorists who shot and wounded five US Congressmen in 1954, he said:
We support the cause of anyone who is fighting for self-determination, and our attitude is the same, no matter who it is. I would be honored to sit on the platform with the four comrades you refer to.
Suitable "comrades" for Mandela indeed. He was himself originally incarcerated, not for his political views, but for involvement in 23 different acts of sabotage and conspiring to overthrow the government. He and his fellow conspirators of the ANC and the South African Communist Party were caught by the police while in the possession of 48,000 Soviet-made anti-personnel mines and 210,000 hand-grenades!*
It is also interesting to note that in later years Mandela was offered his freedom by none other than the South African President Botha if he would simply renounce the use of terrorism, but Mandela refused to do this.
Winnie Mandela has been equally fulsome in her praise of Communism and violence. In 1986 she was reported in Moscow's communist party newspaper Pravda as saying:
The Soviet Union is the torch-bearer for all our hopes and aspirations. We have learned and are continuing to learn resilience and bravery from the Soviet people, who are an example to us in our struggle for freedom, a model of loyalty to internationalist duty. In Soviet Russia, genuine power of the people has been transformed from dreams into reality. The land of the Soviets is the genuine friend and ally of all peoples fighting against the dark forces of world reaction.
and again at Munsieville, on April 13, 1986, she said:
With our boxes of matches and our necklaces we shall liberate this country.
referring here to her own specific brand of democratic political activity whereby anyone who opposed her would be bound hand and foot and then burned to death by means of a tyre filled with gasoline being placed around the neck and set on fire.
Has Mandela since changed his tune in any way?
In September, 2002, Mandela gave an interview to "Newsweek" and the following summary gives his views on the situation with regard to the Iraq crisis:
You will come to the conclusion that the attitude of the United States of America is a threat to world peace…. It (war against Iraq) is clearly a decision that is motivated by George W. Bush’s desire to please the arms and oil industries in the United States of America…When there were white (UN) secretary generals you didn’t find this question of the United States and Britain going out of the United Nations. But now that you’ve had black secretary generals like Boutros Boutros Ghali, like Kofi Annan, they do not respect the United Nations. They have contempt for it… It is the men around him (Cheney and Rumsfeld) who are dinosaurs, who do not want him (President Bush) to belong to the modern age… The only man, the only person who wants to help Bush move to the modern era is Gen. Colin Powell.
No-one will deny Mandela the right to hold views opposed to a war on Iraq, but he is here revealing his own racist attitude to world politics - only white leaders are a threat to peace, and especially so when there are black secretary generals of the U.N. And in case we don't get the message he singles out the black member of the US administration, Colin Powell, as the only exception! (And, one could add, when it suits Mandela's argument, the Egyptian Boutros Ghali, suddenly qualifies as a "black" man...) The race card is one that is always brought out by Africans when they lack valid arguments, and it has always been a standard ploy of Communist rhetoric. To Mandela's way of thinking, it is capitalist greed that is preventing a one-world U.N. Government - in February 2003 he was reported as saying:
"if there is a country that has committed unspeakable atrocities in the world, it is the United States of America...Iraq produces 64 percent of the oil in the world. What Bush wants is to get hold of that oil."
Apart from displaying his Communist sentiments, Mandela here also reveals his ignorance of world economics - Iraq produces only 5% of world oil exports, not 64%. He also makes no mention of the huge debts of money that Iraq owes France, Germany and Russia, and that it is just possible that they are opposed to the war because they would like those debts paid.
If Mandela's opposition to the United States comes as a surprise to some, or are dismissed as an expression of particularly strong feelings about the Iraq crisis, we should note that Mandela is nothing if not consistent. His views are always anti-American and pro-Communist, and always have been. In his book "The Struggle is My Life", a collection of his writings, we read in a piece dated 1958:
...the people of Asia and Africa have seen through the slanderous campaign conducted by the U.S.A. against the Socialist countries. They know that their independence is threatened not by any of the countries in the Socialist camp but by the U.S.A., who has surrounded their continent with military bases. The Communist bogey is an American stunt to distract the attention of the people of Africa from the real issue facing them, namely, American imperialism. (pp 76)
* The full list of munitions and charges read as follows:
• One count under the South African Suppression of Communism Act No. 44 of 1950, charging that the accused committed acts calculated to further the achievement of the objective of communism;
• One count of contravening the South African Criminal Law Act (1953), which prohibits any person from soliciting or receiving any money or articles for the purpose of achieving organized defiance of laws and country; and
• Two counts of sabotage, committing or aiding or procuring the commission of the following acts:
1) The further recruitment of persons for instruction and training, both within and outside the Republic of South Africa, in:
(a) the preparation, manufacture and use of explosives—for the purpose of committing acts of violence and destruction in the aforesaid Republic, (the preparation and manufacture of explo- sives, according to evidence submitted, included 210,000 hand grenades, 48,000 anti-personnel mines, 1,500 time devices, 144 tons of ammonium nitrate, 21.6 tons of aluminum powder and a ton of black powder);
(b) the art of warfare, including guerrilla warfare, and military training generally for the purpose in the aforesaid Republic;
(ii) Further acts of violence and destruction, (this includes 193 counts of terrorism committed between 1961 and 1963);
(iii) Acts of guerrilla warfare in the aforesaid Republic;
(iv) Acts of assistance to military units of foreign countries when involving the aforesaid Republic;
(v) Acts of participation in a violent revolution in the aforesaid Republic, whereby the accused, injured, damaged, destroyed, rendered useless or unserviceable, put out of action, obstructed, with or endangered:
(a) the health or safety of the public;
(b) the maintenance of law and order;
(c) the supply and distribution of light, power or fuel;
(d) postal, telephone or telegraph installations;
(e) the free movement of traffic on land; and
(f) the property, movable or immovable, of other persons or of the state.
Source: The State v. Nelson Mandela et al, Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division, 1963-1964, Indictment.
Text of the handwritten Manuscript:
HOW TO BE A GOOD COMMUNIST
A Communist is a member of the Communist Party who understands and accepts the theory and practice of Marxism-Leninism as explained by Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin , and who subjects himself to the discipline of the Party. (See notes 1, 2, 3 & 4)
The goal of Communism is a classless society based on the principle: from each according to his ability and to each according to his needs. The aim is to change the present world into a Communist world where there will be no exploiters and no exploited, no oppressor and oppressed, no rich and no poor. Communists fight for a world where there will be no unemployment, no poverty and starvation, disease and ignorance. In such a world there will be no capitalists, no imperialists, no fascists. There will be neither colonies nor wars.
In our own country, the struggles of the oppressed people are guided by the South African Communist Party and inspired by its policies. The aim of the S.A.C.P. is to defeat the Nationalist government and to free the people of South Africa from the evils of racial discrimination and exploitation and to build a classless or socialist society in which the land, the mines, the mills, our . . . . . . . (unreadable)
Under a Communist Party Government South Africa will become a land of milk and honey. Political, economic and social rights will cease to be enjoyed by Whites only. They will be shared equally by Whites and Non-Whites. There will be enough land and houses for all. There will be no unemployment, starvation and disease.
Workers will earn decent wages; transport will be cheap and education free. There will be no pass laws, no influx control, no Police raids for passes and poll tax, and Africans, Europeans, Coloureds and Indians will live in racial peace and perfect equality.
The victory of Socialism in the U.S.S.R., in the Peoples Republic of China, in Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland and Rumania, where the living conditions of the people were in many respects similar and even worse than ours, proves that we too can achieve this important goal.
Communists everywhere fight to destroy capitalist society and to replace it with Socialism, where the masses of the common people, irrespective of race or colour, will live in complete equality, freedom and happiness. They seek to revolutionise society and are thus called revolutionaries. Those who support capitalism with its class divisions and other evils and who oppose our just struggles to end oppression are called counter revolutionaries.
Comrade Liu Hao Schi, member of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, says:
we Communist Party members are the most advanced revolutionaries in modern history and are the contemporary fighting and driving force in changing society and the world. Revolutionaries exist because counter-revolutionaries still exist. Therefore, to conduct a ceaseless struggle against the counter-revolutionaries constitutes an essential condition for the existence and development of revolutionaries. If they fail to carry on such a struggle, they cannot be called revolutionaries and still less can they advance and develop. It is in the course of this … [that] … members change society, change the world and at the same time change themselves.
To succeed in conducting a ceaseless struggle against the counter-revolutionaries, and to be able to play the vital role of being the most advanced revolutionary and driving force in changing society and the world, one must put all else aside and seriously and faithfully undertake self-cultivation.
THE PROCESS OF SELF-CULTIVATION
The process of self-cultivation involves two elements:
(a) One’s steeling in the practical struggle of the oppressed people, and
(b) the cultivation of one’s ideas.
(a) ONE’S STEELING IN THE PRACTICAL STRUGGLES OF THE OPPRESSED PEOPLE.
To become the most advanced communist revolutionary, it is not enough to understand and accept the theory of Marxism-Leninism. In addition, one must take part in the practical struggles of the people against oppression and exploitation. A person who is isolated from the people’s struggles, an arm-chair politician however deep his knowledge of Marxist theory might be, is not a communist revolutionary.
It is only in the course of such practical struggles that one’s advancement and development is stimulated, that one acquires the necessary experience to guide the masses of the people in their political battles and the art and skill of being a driving force in changing society and the world. It is precisely for this reason that SACP requires its members to participate fully and without reservations in such issues as the Anti-Pass Campaigns, the struggle against Bantu Authorities, against job reservation, the Group Areas Act and in all other mass campaigns.
By consistently taking part in such struggles, Party members who may ……… whatsoever, gain valuable knowledge and get hardened for the stern mass struggles that are part and parcel of the life of every Communist revolutionary.
(b) THE CULTIVATION OF ONE’S IDEAS
Participation (in) practical mass struggles does (not) in itself enable a Party member to raise his revolutionary qualities, nor does it help him to understand the (aims) of the development of society and the laws of the revolution. Progress in one’s revolutionary qualities and knowledge of the laws of social development and the laws of the revolution will be achieved by a thorough understanding of the meaning of Marxism.
It is thus absolutely imperative for all Party members to have to make a serious study of Marxist philosophy and to master it completely. Only in this way will Party members become the most advanced revolutionaries. Only in this way will they advance and develop.
The aim of studying Marxist philosophy is to enable us to direct more effectively revolutionary mass struggles. To put it in a nutshell, Marxism is a guide to action.
Communist Party members must undertake self-cultivation whether they are new members in the Party or old ones, whether they are workers, peasants, businessmen, professional men or intellectuals, and whether they are conducting difficult or easy revolutionary mass campaigns; in victory or defeat.
Finally, self-cultivation must be imaginative and practical, and must be used to eliminate from one’s outlook and conduct unhealthy tendencies which local conditions may give rise to.
South Africa is a country where the Whites dominate politically, economically and socially and where Africans, Coloureds and Indians are treated as inferiors. It is a country torn asunder by racial strife and where black and white chauvinism finds fertile soil in which it thrives and where efforts and appeals for working-class solidarity very often fall on deaf ears.
The pamphlet compiled by the S.A.C.P. to mark the fortieth anniversary of the Communist Party of South Africa which preceded the S.A.C.P. and which was declared illegal in 1950 correctly points out that, in spite of all the formidable difficulties that face it, the C.P.S.A. had in its existence brought about profound changes in the thinking and political outlook of the oppressed people of South Africa. These achievements are being expanded and further developed by the S.A.C.P.; the worthy successor of the C.P.S.A. In spite of these advances, however, there is still the danger that the historical problems and prejudices produced by capitalist society in our country may infiltrate into our Party and influence the political outlook of our Party members.
In cultivating their outlook, our members must consciously strive to remove these particular weaknesses and shortcomings as well.
This is what we mean when we say Party members must undertake self-cultivation
2. HOW TO BECOME THE BEST PUPILS OF MARX, ENGELS, LENIN AND STALIN.
At the beginning of these lectures, we defined a communist as a member of the Communist Party who understands and accepts the theory and practice of Marxism, Leninism as explained by Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin.
Any person may become a member of the Communist Party if he accepts the Programme and Constitution of the Party, pays Party membership fees and undertakes tasks given to him in one of the Party’s organisations. These are called the minimum qualifications that every Party member must possess, but every one of our members should not be content to be a member of minimum qualifications He must strive to become a member of maximum qualifications. Every Party member should raise his revolutionary qualities in every respect to the same level as those of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin.
Some say that it is impossible to acquire the great qualities of revolutionary geniuses like Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin and that it is impossible to raise our own qualities to the same level as theirs. But as long as Party members work hard and earnestly, never allow themselves to be isolated for one single moment from the day to day struggle of the people, and make serious efforts to study Marxist literature, learn from the experiences of other comrades and the masses of the people, and constantly strive to steel and cultivate themselves, they will be perfectly able to raise their qualities to the same level as that of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin.
There are two ways of studying Marxism. One is to learn it by heart and be able to repeat mechanically the information learnt without being able to use this information for the purpose of solving problems. The second is to try to master the essence, spirit and methods of Marxism. In this second category belongs those comrades who read over and over again Marxist literature, who pay special attention to the concrete conditions existing in the country where they live and draw their own conclusions, their …… activities, their attitude towards other comrades and the masses of the people, and the whole of their lives are guided by the principles of Marxism-Leninism and aimed at one thing – national liberation, the victory of the working class, the liberation of mankind, the success of Communism and nothing else.
To reach this goal calls for a supreme effort and an iron will. It means complete dedication to the struggle for the removal of oppression and exploitation and for lifelong dedication to the study of Marxism.
3. THE ASPECTS AND METHODS OF CULTIVATION
Cultivation must be carried out in all aspects in the course of the long and strenuous struggle to free the working class and the masses of the people from capitalist exploitation. Cultivation is needed in studying Marxism and in applying it to answer questions and to solve practical problems, in sharpening one’s class outlook and political thinking, in shaping one’s moral character and behaviour; in hard work and ability to withstand hardship, in preserving the unity of the Party and conducting inner party struggle; in loyalty to the Party and complete dedication to the cause of the Communist Revolution.
The life of a Communist revolutionary is no bed of roses. It consists of serious studies in Marxist literature, of hard work and of constant participation in numerous and endless mass struggles. He has no time for worldly pleasures and his whole life is devoted to one thing, and one thing only, the destruction of capitalist society, the removal of all forms of exploitation and the liberation of mankind.
A Communist revolutionary always combines thought with practice. He studies for the sole purpose of putting into practice what he has learnt. He regards Marxism, as ….. action and takes part fully and without reservation in mass struggles directed by the party or by other political organisation outside of the Party.
In South Africa, a Communist Party member must take part in mass struggles initiated by the S.A.C.P., the Congress movement or by other political bodies within the liberation movement.
4. RELATION BETWEEN THE STUDY OF MARXIST-LENINIST THEORY AND THE IDEOLOGICAL CULTIVATION OF PARTY MEMBERS.
It is commonly thought that one’s intelligence, ability and the study of Marxist text-books are in themselves enough to enable one to master the theory and method of Marxism-Leninism. Nothing could be further from the truth. Dealing with this point, Liu Shao Chu says: -
“Marxism-Leninism is the science of the proletarian revolution. It can be thoroughly understood and mastered only by those who fully take the proletarian standpoint and who adopt the ideals of the proletariat as their own. It is impossible for anyone to thoroughly understand and master the Marxist science of the proletariat only by means of his intellect and strenuous study if he lacks the firm standpoint and …. ideals of the proletariat. This is also an obvious truth. Therefore, in studying the theory and method of Marxism-Leninism today, it is necessary that our study proceeds simultaneously with our ideological cultivation and steeling because without the theory and method of Marxism-Leninism, we should have nothing to guide our thoughts and actions and our ideological cultivation would also be impossible. These two are closely related to each other, and are inseparable.”
We do need Communist Party members who are highly intelligent and who have ability and who make it their business to have a thorough understanding of Marxist theory. But a working class revolution will be carried out successfully by those Party members who, in addition to the characteristics mentioned above, adopt without reservation, the standpoint and ideals of the working class.
Although they may be unable to recite quotations from Marxist textbooks, experience shows that Party members of working class origin have a keener interest and deeper understanding of Marxism-Leninism than those Party members of student origin provided it is explained to them in words they understand. In loyalty to the Party, in discipline and in the handling of practical problems, they often prove more correct and more in conformity with the Principles of Marxism-Leninism than others.
This is so because Party members of working class origin have a firm and pure Communist standpoint and ideals, an objective attitude towards things, and in their minds they have no preconceived ideas whatsoever, and no worries about personal problems or about impure matters.
Party members who lack a firm working class outlook, who have the habits and ….. of other classes and who have personal interests and selfish ideas are not true Communists. As a matter of fact they very often find that Marxist-Leninism principles will clash with their interests, and they invariably try to distort these principles to suit their own personal interests and prejudices.
Every Communist revolutionary must therefore, firmly adopt the standpoint and ideology of the working class. Unless he does this, it is not possible for him to understand the universal truth of Marxism-Leninism.
5. THE CAUSE OF COMMUNISM IS THE GREATEST AND MOST ARDUOUS CAUSE IN THE HISTORY OF MANKIND.
On Page One of this section we found out that our aim is to change the present world into a Communist world where there will be no exploiters and exploited, no oppressor and oppressed, no rich and poor. We also make the point that the victory of Socialism in the U.S.S.R., in China and other States in Asia and Eastern Europe proves that a Communist world is capable of attainment. Moreover, since the victory of Socialism in the U.S.S.R. in 1917, the Socialist camp has grown to become a world force with a population of more than 1,000 million and occupying a third of the globe.
But in spite of this victorious advance, the Communist movement still faces powerful enemies which must be crushed and wiped out from the face of the earth before a Communist world can be realised. Without a hard and bitter and long struggle against capitalism and exploitation, there can be no Communist world.
The cause of Communism is the greatest cause in the history of mankind, because it seeks to remove from society all forms of oppression and exploitation to liberate mankind, and to ensure peace and prosperity to all.
A Communist revolution is different from all other revolutions in history. Whereas in other revolutions the seizure of State Power is an end in itself, in a Communist revolution the seizure of State Power by the working class is a means to an end, that end being the total removal of all forms of exploitation, the liberation of mankind by building up a classless society.
Every Communist Party member must possess the greatest courage and revolutionary determination and must be prepared to play his part and carry out all political tasks without fear or hesitation.
In the struggle to transform the present world into a Communist world, we must strive consistently to combine theory with practice.
Finally, WE must live and develop in reality in fighting to change the world, we must start from the very people in close contact with us. We must thoroughly study our own situation and problems, understand them completely and work out appropriate solutions.
6. THE UNCONDITIONAL SUBORDINATION OF THE PERSONAL INTERESTS OF A PARTY MEMBER TO THE INTERESTS OF THE PARTY.
A Communist Party member must subordinate his personal interests to those of the Party. The Communist Party has no interests of its own apart from those of the working class. Therefore, the subordination of a Party member’s personal interests to the Party’s interests means subordination to the interests of the working class.
We test a Communist Party member’s loyalty to the Party, to the revolution and the Communist cause by the manner in which he absolutely and unconditionally subordinates his interests to those of the Party under all circumstances. To sacrifice one’s personal interests and even one’s life without hesitation for the cause of the Party is the highest manifestation of Communist ethics.
In the Party our members should not have personal aims independent of the Party’s interests. The desire for personal power and positions, individual heroism, conflict with the interests of the Party and the working class.
A true communist should possess the following characteristics:
(i) He must posses very good Communist ethics.
He can show love and loyalty to all his Comrades, revolutionaries and working people, help them unconditionally, treat them with equality and never harm any one of them.
He always tries to do more revolutionary work than others and to fight harder. In times of adversity he will stand out courageously and unflinchingly and, in the face of difficulties he will demonstrate the greatest sense of responsibility. He is able to resist corruption by riches or honours, to resist tendencies to vacillate in spite of poverty and lowly states and to refuse to yield in spite of threats of force.
(ii) He possess(es) the greatest courage. He can see his mistakes and shortcomings and has sufficient willpower to correct them. At all times and under all circumstances he speaks the truth and nothing but the truth. He courageously fights for it even when it is temporarily to his disadvantage to do so.
(iii) He has a thorough understanding of the theory and method of Marxism-Leninism. He has an objective attitude.
(iv) He is the most sincere, most candid and happiest of men. Apart from the interests of the Party and of the revolution he has no personal losses or gains or other things to worry about. He takes care not to do wrong things when he works independently and without supervision and when there is ample opportunity for him to do all kinds of wrong things.
He does not fear criticism from others and he can courageously and sincerely criticise others.
(v) He possesses the highest self-respect and self-esteem. For the interest of the party and of the revolution, he can also be the most lenient, most tolerant and most ready to compromise and he will even endure if necessary, various forms of humiliation and injustice without feeling hurt or bearing grudges.
The Communist Party represents not only the interests of individual Party members but also the long-range interests of the entire body of workers and the emancipation of mankind; the Communist Party has no other interests and aims. The Party must not be regarded as a narrow small group like a guild which seeks only the personal interests of its members. Whoever holds such a view is not a Communist.
A member of our Party is no longer just an ordinary person. He is a conscious vanguard fighter of the working class. He should prove himself a conscious living representative of the interests and ideology of the working class. He should thoroughly merge his personal interests and aims in the general interests and aims of the Party and the working class.
A communist revolutionary has his personal interests and the Party should neither eliminate his personality nor prevent personal development, as long as these do not conflict with the interests of the Party.
This is what is meant by the unconditional subordination of the personal interest of a Party member to the interests of the Party.
7. EXAMPLES AND ORIGIN OF THE VARIOUS KINDS OF ERRONEOUS IDEOLOGIES IN THE PARTY.
(i) People who join the Communist Party come from different classes of society and bring with them various habits which often clash with the basic tenets of Marxism-Leninism. Because these people do not have a firm and clear cut Communist outlook they very often waver and even desert the Party when they are faced with danger or difficulties.
The Party must pay particular attention to the education, steeling and self-cultivation of such comrades since without them, they cannot develop to be true Communists. No Communist Party anywhere in the world limits its membership only to those who have a thorough understanding of Communism. The Party will admit any person who accepts the programme of the Party and its Constitution. By serious study and hard work such comrades can develop into excellent Communists ready to give their lives for the Party and the Communist cause …. individualism and self interests in their work. In their attitude and work they place their personal interests above the Party’s interests, they worry about personal gains, they use the Party for their own personal interests.
They always want special treatment, less work and more pay. They avoid hard work and hardship; and will disappear at the first signs of danger, and yet they will want to share the honours won by their comrades for the Party through sacrifice and hard work.
Individualism frequently expresses itself in unprincipled discussions and disputes, factional struggles and in sectarian tendencies and in undermining Party discipline. A closely related mistake is that of departmentalism, in which a comrade sees only partial interests, sees only his part of the work instead of seeing the situation as a whole and of the work of others. It often leads to obstruction and must be avoided.
(iii) Others show conceit, individual heroism and like to show off. Liu Shao Chi says of these people: –
The first consideration of people with such ideas is their position in the Party. They like to show off, and want others to flatter them and admire them. They have a personal ambition to become leaders. They take advantage of their abilities and like to claim credit; to show off themselves; to keep everything in their hands and they are intolerant. They are full of vanity, do not want to keep their heads in hard work and are unwilling to do technical work. They are haughty. When they have made some small achievements they become very arrogant and domineering as if there were no one else like them in the world. They seek to overshadow others and cannot treat others on equal terms, modestly and politely. They are self conceited and like to lecture others, to instruct and boss others. They are always trying to climb above others, and do not accept directions from others, do not learn modestly from others and …….. from the masses, nor do they accept criticism from others. They like to be “promoted” but cannot stand being “demoted”.
“They can only work in fair weather but not in foul. They cannot bear attacks on injustices and are unable to adapt themselves to circumstances. They are no great men capable of asserting themselves when necessary or of keeping in the background when required. They have not yet got rid of their deep-rooted “desire for fame” and they try to build themselves up into “great men” and “heroes” in the Communist cause, and even have no scruples in employing any means for the gratification of such desires. However, when their aims cannot be achieved, when they …….. treatment from comrades in the Party, there is a possible danger of their wavering. In the minds of such persons there exists remnants of the ideology of the exploiting classes. They do not understand the greatness of Communism, nor do they have the broad vision of a Communist.
A Communist should have none of these shortcomings. Whoever possesses such weaknesses does not understand Communism and cannot rise to become as great as Lenin. In the Communist Party leaders achieve success through mass support. Mass support is earned by those Party members who have no personal interests as against those of the working class and the Party who are completely loyal to the Party, who have a high degree of Communist ethics and revolutionary qualities, who strive to master the theory and methods of Marxism-Leninism, who have considerable practical ability, who can actually direct Party work, who are not afraid of serious study and love work, and who become heroes and leaders in the Communist revolution because of the confidence and support they enjoy from the masses of the people.
The struggle to change the …….. world into a Communist world cannot be carried out by one person however able he may be and however hard he works. It can be carried out successfully only by the planned and combined efforts of millions of people.
Some Party members are contemptuous of technical work within the Party. Such an attitude is incorrect because technical work forms an important part of Party work and because a Party member should be ready and willing to do any work which is important to the Party whether or no(t) he likes to do such work.
(iv) Other comrades within the Party reflect the ideology of the exploiting classes. In their Party work and in their relations with other Party members they behave like landlords, capitalists, and fascists.
These persons seek to develop themselves by holding down others. They are jealous of those who are more capable. They are not prepared to work under other comrades or to take instructions. They secretly rejoice when other comrades fail in their political tasks and in their moral standards and conduct. They indulge in gossip and spread false information about their comrades. These are the characteristics of exploiting classes and are …….. the working class and the Party. They should be fought and exposed wherever they are found.
The working class is entirely different from the exploiting class. It does not exploit others nor does its interests conflict with those of the Party and other workers of exploited masses.
The outlook and thinking of the working class are altogether different from those of the exploiting classes. In dealing with the enemies of the people they are merciless and uncompromising, but in dealing with their comrades they are always inspired by love and the desire to assist. They are strict with themselves but lenient towards other comrades. They are strict and firm on matters of principle and always adopt a frank and serious attitude. This is the outlook of the working class and should be learnt and developed by every Party member.
(v) Some comrades still have bureaucratic tendencies. They like to run the Party by issuing edicts and directives without …….. without taking into account the views of other comrades. They resent criticism and are very harsh in dealing with other comrades. Such weaknesses are unmarxist and every communist should strive to overcome them completely.
Furthermore a Party member should be broad minded and concern himself always with the overall situation when dealing with problems. He should avoid pettiness and unprincipled discussion. He should have …….. standpoint and not a fence sitter.
Although the Communist Party is the most progressive of all political parties, and although it fights for a society which guarantees happiness and prosperity to millions of people, not everything in it is perfect. In spite of the fact that its members are the world’s most conscious and progressive revolutionaries with the highest sense of morality and righteousness, there are still defects in the Party and some of its members do not measure up to the qualifications of a Communist revolutionary. The explanation for this state of affairs lies in the fact that every Communist Party member emerges out of the very society whose evils it seeks to remove. Its members come from the various classes of that society and some of them bring into the Party the habits, prejudices and outlook on life of the class from which they came. It is precisely for this reason that Communist Party members must undertake self-cultivation.
In addition to waging struggles against counter-revolutionary forces, the Party must carry on inner-Party struggles against those comrades who are still influenced by the outlook and prejudices of the exploiting classes.
The working class is commonly referred to as the proletariat. The working class can be divided into three groups:
(i) The first group is composed of those who completely severed their ties with the capitalist class years ago. This is the core of the working class and are the most loyal and reliable.
(ii) The second group consists of those who only recently came from the non-working class, who came from the …….. the middle class and the …….. They are usually anarchistic and ultra-left.
(iii) The third group is composed of the working class aristocracy, those working class members who are best provided for, who earn high wages and whose economic position is comparatively high. They compromise easily with the enemies of the people, with the capitalist class.
Every Party member should aim to be the most loyal and reliable to the cause of Communism and to have a firm and clear-cut working class outlook.
8. THE ATTITUDE TOWARDS VARIOUS ERRONEOUS IDEOLOGIES IN THE PARTY AND INNER PARTY STRUGGLE.
Some Party members have a pessimistic view on things and they see errors, defects and a future beset with formidable difficulties and dangers. The growing strength of the socialist camp, the power influence exerted by our Party in our own country and the certainty of the final victory of Communism over Capitalism inspire them with no hope in the future.
Others see only victory and progress, and fail altogether to notice defects and errors in the Party. They become dizzy with success, become blindly optimistic and become less vigilant.
Both views are un-marxist. A Communist Party member knows that the Communist Party is the most progressive and most revolutionary Party in the world. He has complete confidence in the future and he dedicates his entire career to the cause of Communism. In spite of this knowledge he realises most clearly that in our Party there are still various kinds of errors, defects and undesirable things. A Party member clearly understands the origin of these errors and the method to be used in removing them.
The following are the various kinds of attitudes towards undesirable things in the Party:
(i) To enjoy seeing errors and defects in the Party and to magnify them to undermine the Party. This is the attitude of spies and similar elements within the Party.
(ii) Some people consider that the existence of errors and defects in the Party is to their advantage and they deliberately help to spread them and to make use of them. This is the attitude adopted by opportunists and similar elements within the Party.
(iii) To leave these errors and defects undisturbed instead of fighting against them. This is the course followed by those members who have but a weak sense of duty towards the Party and who have bureaucratic tendencies.
(iv) To harbour violent hatred towards errors and defects and towards Party members whose political outlook is incorrect. They believe in bitter struggles among Party members and expel their comrades at the slightest pretext. This is the method used by Party comrades who do not correctly understand the methods of correcting mistakes and weakness amongst comrades.
All these attitudes are incorrect and dangerous and should be scrupulously avoided by Communists. Our own attitude is as follows: -
(i) We first analyse the situation most thoroughly and decide which views are correct and which of them are incorrect and dangerous to the Party. Once we are convinced of the correct opinion we firmly uphold it to the bitter end and no matter how strong the opposition and how influential the individuals who hold the opposite point of view.
(ii) Having carefully analysed the situation and having decided which is the correct opinion, we then devote our attention to the promotion and development of the correct viewpoint. We never allow ourselves to be influenced by an incorrect point of view.
(iii) Communists are men of action. In promoting and developing the correct viewpoint we also fight actively against all the undesirable things in life. A Party member who is afraid of action and hard struggle, however brilliant he might be, can never be a Communist revolutionary. A Communist must always and under all circumstances, be ready and willing to conduct an active struggle against all forms of reaction.
(iv) Although a Communist never compromises on questions of principle, he never adopts an inflexible and mechanical attitude in his methods of struggle. The aim is always to reform and educate those comrades who still possess non-Communist tendencies.
(v) The elimination of undesirable tendencies in the Party and the building up of revolutionary qualities in our members enhances the discipline and prestige of the Party. Those Party members who fail to respond to the most patient persuasion and to efforts to educate and reform them, should be expelled from the Party.
As indicated at the very beginning of this series, a Communist is a member of the Communist Party who understands and accepts the theory and practice of Marxism-Leninism as expounded by Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin, and who subjects himself to the discipline of the Party. A good Communist is therefore one who:
(i) Is a member of the Communist Party who is absolutely faithful and loyal to the Party, who obeys without question all Party rules and regulations and who carries out all instructions issued by the Party.
(ii) Has thoroughly studied the works of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin, who understands them clearly and who knows how to carry out their teachings in the struggles of the people to defeat capitalism and all forms of exploitation.
(iii) Devotes all his time to one thing, and one thing only, the struggle against Capitalism and for a Communist world.
(iv) In their relations with Party comrades are always inspired by love and sincere friendship and the desire to be helpful.
(v) Are honest and upright and who are prepared to defend the truth at all times and under all circumstances.
Such is a good Communist.
Dialectical Materialism is the revolutionary philosophy of the Communist Party and the working class.
Dialectical Materialism was founded by Marx and Engels and is discussed and explained in the works of Lenin and other prominent leaders of the Communist Movement.
It is a dialectical philosophy because it studies things concretely and objectively and because its approach on all things in nature is always based on data established through scientific investigation and experience.
It is materialistic because it holds the view that the world is by its very nature material and that the numerous things and processes we see in the world constitute different forms of matter in motion.
In ancient times dialectics was the art of arriving at the truth by disclosing the contradictions in the argument of an opponent and solving these contradictions. This dialectical method of establishing truth was later extended to the study of nature. Using the dialectical method of study and investigation, mankind discovered that all things in nature are always in motion and always changing, and that nature develops as the result of contradictions in nature itself.
The dialectical method has four main features:
(1) The dialectical method considers that nothing can be understood taken by itself in isolation from other things or from its surrounding circumstances. A thing must always be studied and understood in relation to its environment or circumstances.
(2) The dialectical method considers everything as in a state of continuous movement and change, of renewal and development, where something is always arising and developing and something always falls into pieces or is dying away.
(3) The dialectical method holds that the process of development should be understood as an onward and upward movement, as a transition from an old qualitative state to a new qualitative state, as a development from the simple to the complex, from the lower to the higher.
(4) The dialectical method holds that internal contradictions are inherent in all things in nature. Everything has its positive and negative side, a past and future. In nature there is always something dying away and something developing. The struggle between the opposites, between the positive and the negative, between the past and the future, between the old and the new, between that which is dying away and that which is being born, is the sole reason for development and change.
Historical materialism is the application of the principles of dialectical materialism to the study of society and its history.
A Communist must strive to master completely the principles of the dialectical method discussed above and use them as a guide in his political work.
Dealing with the first proposition mentioned above, the principle of considering things in relation to actual conditions and circumstances and not apart from these actual circumstances, is always of vital importance to a Communist in deciding the simplest policy questions. A Communist is useless to our movement if he deals with policy questions in the abstract without taking into account the actual circumstances in relation to which policy has to be implemented, without understanding that the same policy can be right in one case and wrong in another depending on the concrete circumstances of each case.
In their struggle against race discrimination the oppressed people of South Africa have in the past followed a policy of peace and non-violence. They still seek peaceful solutions and they will do everything in their power to avoid violent strife and bloody revolution. But a blind and mechanical application of this policy, irrespective of actual conditions and circumstances can lead to defeat and disaster for our movement. In the past the people were able to conduct successful non-violent struggles because opportunities were available for peaceful agitation and struggle. But the policy of the Nationalist Government, which forcibly suppresses the peaceful struggles of the people, has created new conditions under which non-violent and peaceful methods of struggle have become inadequate to advance the struggle of the people and to defend their rights. Under these new conditions it is easy to understand why the masses of the people are searching for a new formula of political struggle which will enable them to hit back effectively and end the violent and reactionary policies of the Government. Whilst in the past it was correct to preach non-violence, under present conditions it is not correct to go on stressing it as if nothing has changed. There is nothing sacred or inherently superior about non-violent methods of struggle. So long as they are effective weapons to fight for freedom and democracy, they must be employed fully, but it would be wrong to persist with them mechanically once conditions demand modifications.
The second proposition is equally important. If the world is in a state of constant movement and development, if the dying away of the old and the upgrowth of the new is a law of development, then it follows that no system of society is permanent and everlasting. Just as primitive communal society was replaced by slave society, and just as slave society was replaced by feudalism, and feudalism by capitalism, so will capitalism be replaced by socialism. This is what happened for instance, in Albania, Bulgaria, China, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Hungary, North Korea, Rumania, Russia and North Vietnam. In all these countries the capitalist system was overthrown and replaced by socialism. In our own country capitalism cannot and will not last indefinitely.
The people of South Africa, led by the S.A.C.P. will destroy capitalist society and build in its place socialism where there will be no exploitation of man by man, and where there will be no rich and poor, no unemployment, starvation, disease and ignorance.
According to the third proposition of dialectical method, the process of development should be understood as an onward and upward movement, as a transition from the lower to the higher and from the simple to the complex. Hence the transition from capitalism to socialism and the liberation of the working class from the yoke cannot be effected by slow changes or by reforms as reactionaries and liberals often advise, but by revolution. One therefore, must be a revolutionary and not a reformist.
Finally, if development and change in things take place by way of collision between opposite forces, then it is clear that the struggle between workers and capitalists is natural and unavoidable. Hence we must not try to preach peace and harmony between workers and capitalists. We must stimulate and encourage class struggle. We must call upon workers to conduct a ceaseless war against the capitalist class and for socialism.
The philosophy of materialism as expounded by Marx is a way of explaining all questions, and is irreconcilably opposed to idealism. Two examples are given to illustrate the difference between the two methods of materialism and idealism, namely, what causes thunderstorms and why are some people rich and others poor?
An idealist would answer by saying that thunderstorms are due to the anger of God and that some people are rich and others poor because God made them so. The materialist, on the other hand seeks for an explanation of the natural forces and in the material and economic conditions of normal life. To a materialist, thunderstorms are due solely to natural forces and not to the anger of the Gods. He would explain that some people are poor because they are compelled by material conditions to work for low wages for the rest of their lives for the rich who own the means of production – the land, its mineral resources and its forests, the banks, mills and factories, transport and other systems of communication.
These differences have important practical results. If we accept the idealist’s explanation of thunderstorms, and of why some people are rich whilst others are poor, then there is nothing we can do about the matter except to sit, arms folded and pray to God. If we accept the materialist’s explanation, however, we will take precautions against thunderstorms such as building lightning conductors. Instead of accepting our poverty as the will of God, we will stand up and fight to put an end to a system of society which condemns us to lifelong poverty and misery.
Materialism and idealism are irreconcilably opposed. Materialism teaches: -
(1) That the world is by its very nature material. In other words the things we see in the world are composed of matter.
(2) That matter is something we can see with our naked eyes or by the aid of scientific instruments.
(3) That the world and its laws are capable of being known. That although there are things which are not yet known, such things will yet be known through scientific investigation and experience.
Idealism is essentially a belief in superstition, in the mysterious. It goes hand in hand with religion. It prevents clear thinking and confuses people. For ages it has been used by the exploiting classes to prevent the common people from thinking for themselves. It is a philosophy of the ruling classes and not of the working class. It is not the philosophy of people who fight for freedom. The philosophy of the working class is dialectical materialism, the only philosophy which is based on truth, and which is scientific and practical.
Political economy explains how men get their living.
It deals with the production and distribution among human beings of food, clothing, shelter, fuel and other things essential to human life.
An important feature about production is that it is always in a state of change and development. Furthermore changes in the mode of production inevitably result in changes in the whole system of society, in the ideas of that society, in its political views and in its political institutions. To put it simply, at different stages of development people lead a different sort of life.
Five main modes of production and five main types of society are known to history. These are primitive communal society, slave society, feudal society, capitalist society and socialist society.
PRIMITIVE COMMUNAL SOCIETY
Under primitive communal society, men of the village went out together to hunt for the animals, to fish and gather the fruit that grew wild. The land and forests in which they hunted and picked up wild fruits, the rivers in which they fished, belonged to the whole community and not to any particular individual property and was shared equally by all. For clothes they used the skins of the animals they killed, and for shelter they used caves and rocks. Their tools consisted mainly of a hunting spear and trap and of a fishing net.
This is how man produced food and shelter under primitive communal society.
There were no classes. There were no rich or poor, no exploitation of man by man, and all were equal before the law. The affairs of the village were discussed publicly in a village council and all members of that community could attend the meetings and take part fully in the discussions. In times of war they killed their prisoners. They could not enslave or exploit them because they had no food to feed them with. In those days man could only produce enough food to feed himself and could not afford slaves.
The only division of labour that existed was between the sexes. The men hunted wild animals and gathered wild fruits whilst the women managed the house, looked after children and cooked the food.
This is the sort of life man led during primitive communal …….. the earliest mode of production known in history.
In course of time some tribes developed new means of producing food and this change in the method of producing food enabled men to lead a different sort of life. They began to sow seed and rear cattle so that they should have food ready at hand whenever they wanted it. Primitive agriculture began to develop and there arose differentiation between the tribes. Some still concentrated on hunting as the principal method of producing food, but others became pastoral farmers. The latter could now produce more than required for their personal needs. They became rich in cattle and began accumulating wealth. Under these new conditions men captured in war were not killed as in former days. Now they were needed to plough the lands of their captors, to look after their wealth and to produce more wealth for the slave owners.
The division of society into classes had begun.
The land and forests in which men used to hunt in former times, and the rivers in which they fished no longer belonged to the whole community but to the slave owners. The common and free labour of all members of the tribe in the production process, which existed under primitive communal society, had now disappeared; in its place there was now the forced labour of the slaves who were exploited by their masters. There was no common ownership of the means of production or of the fruits of production. Common ownership was replaced by private ownership.
Rich and poor, exploiters and exploited, people with full rights and people without rights, and a fierce class struggle – such were the conditions under slave society.
The emergence of private property, of contrasting extremes of enormous wealth on one side and dire poverty on the other, and the class hostility that resulted, made it necessary for the slave owners to build an instrument which they could use to protect their properties and their wealth and to crush slave revolts by force. It was under these circumstances that the exploiting classes created the army, the police force, the courts and the prisons and made laws. These things put together are called the State which is an instrument used by the exploiting classes to compel others to give in to their will.
The State will last as long as class society exists. Only under Communism will the State disappear. In primitive communal society, order and discipline were maintained by tradition and custom and by force of public opinion. It was not necessary to rely on an instrument of force to suppress others. In exactly the same way, under Communism there will be no State because mankind will have reached a high level of political and cultural development and responsibility.
A significant development during slave society was the emergence of commodity production. Articles produced not for the personal use of the producer, but for exchange, are called commodities. This was a development of tremendous importance and we will discuss it very fully when we deal with capitalist society.
This was then the mode of primitive life under slave society. The system of society had changed, the people led a different way of life, new political ideas and new political institutions had arisen.
Feudal society developed out of slave society and was essentially an agricultural mode of production.
There were two main classes in feudal society. These were the Lords and the Serfs.
As in slave society, the means of production were owned by the lord of the estate. The serf was in a slightly better position than the slave because the lord did not have the power of life and death over him, and also because the serf owned the tools he used to plough the lands of his lord.
He was however, subject to cruel exploitation and restrictions. He ploughed the land of his lord in return for a piece of land which he was allowed to occupy at the pleasure of his lord, and out of which he maintained himself and his family. The piece of ground where he lived was given to him to encourage him to produce more food and more articles for the enrichment of his lord, and he thus produced better results than the slave. He was tied down to the land and could not leave without permission. He was in a similar position to our own squatters commonly found on many white farms in our country.
Under feudal society, food was grown and clothes and other articles were made to cater for the local population but the lords (or nobles as they were commonly referred to) used part of their wealth to buy all sorts of luxuries for themselves. In the course of time trade and transport developed and the desire for more wealth and luxuries increased.
The development of trade and transport led to the growth of towns and their influence. It gave rise to new classes of society and to new ideas. A new class of men who earned their living through trade and commerce arose. These were the merchants.
Feudal society became an obstruction to the expansion and growth of trade and commerce and the new ideas that were arising. The new class that was rising to power came into conflict with that class that held power. Feudal society was being challenged by the new social system of capitalism. Only by revolution could the new forces that were arising be freed. It was by revolution that the new forces challenged feudal society and replaced it with capitalism. It was also by revolution that the working class in many parts of the world replaced capitalism with the higher and democratic system of socialism.
We have now seen that five main types of society are known to history. Primitive Communal Society, Slave Society, Feudalism and Socialism. New forms of society grew out gradually from the other society and in some cases different forms existed side by side. For example, in slave society there were traces of primitive communal society, whilst traces of slave society existed within feudal society. In our own capitalist South Africa there are still Africans, and to a lesser extent Coloureds, who live and work on white farms under conditions remarkably similar to those of feudal society of the Middle Ages. In other parts of the world we see Socialist societies, and societies in transition to Socialism.
We live in a capitalist country and the chief task of our Party is to destroy Capitalism and replace it with Socialism. Capitalism is to us a …….. of …….. great imbalance. It is for this reason that we devote the greater part of this lecture to a study of this system.
Capitalism has three essential features.
(1) Wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few people who own the means of production as well as wealth in the form of money. The few people who own the means of production are called capitalists.
(2) The vast masses of the people earn their living by working for capitalists in return for wages. In Marxist language these working people are called the proletariat.
End of MS
“If there is a country that has committed unspeakable atrocities in the world, it is the United States of America.” — Nelson Mandela, Jan. 29, 2003
Nelson Mandela, the former terrorist-turned-compromiser and the so-called “father of democracy” who served as president of South Africa, hated America. But progressive liberals loved him — none more so than President Barack Obama, who ordered that flags at the White House and all Federal buildings fly at half-staff through Monday, following Mandela’s death last Thursday at age 95. But that was only the start.
Obama, like so many black celebrities and members of the white media, has personalized his relationship with Mandela beyond all reason: “He no longer belongs to us; he belongs to the ages,” Obama said upon learning of Mandela’s death. The President added, “We will not likely see the likes of Nelson Mandela again.”
I have no doubt about that last statement. Can you think of another terrorist bent on killing and overthrowing a government with bombs and armed insurrection who went on to be considered the greatest statesman ever? And just in case you think that Mandela was never a terrorist but a misunderstood man walking in the steps of Mahatma Gandhi, then you are at odds with Washington. He was on the terrorist list until 2008.
No doubt, South Africans were upset when Mandela tried to blow up a hospital in the early 1960s. The difference between Mandela then and Timothy McVeigh, who blew up the Federal Building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995, is that McVeigh was a deadlier terrorist. Later in life, Mandela did say that he was glad he was caught and did not kill all those innocent sick people. Millions of people find it heartwarming that Mandela had a change of heart.
Check one for sainthood!
In the 1980s, when the Government of South Africa said that Mandela could walk out of jail a free man if he would simply renounce violence as a means to black majority rule, the great leader said no. Apparently, his wife Winnie Mandela was too happy necklacing her black opponents with tires filled with gasoline for her husband to make a false promise.
Check two for sainthood!
Then there is the fact that Mandela is now celebrated as the greatest human being of the modern era, perhaps any era. Larry King said on CNN that he knows of no greater person who lived in the 20th century than Mandela. Apparently, King has forgotten a lot of people.
But my favorite shout-out comes from Peter Oborne, who wrote last Friday for The Telegraph:
There are very few human beings who can be compared to Jesus Christ. Nelson Mandela is one. This is because he was a spiritual leader as much as a statesman. His colossal moral strength enabled him to embark on new and unimaginable forms of action. He could lead through the strength of example alone.
Check three for sainthood!
That makes two human beings who I have heard compared to Christ: Mandela and Obama. (After all, Oprah Winfrey called Obama the “chosen one.”)
What do both men have in common? Their roots are African. And, beneath all that gloss, polish and hype, Mandela was what Obama remains: a die-hard Marxist.
Dying To Be Seen By Obama
After Obama was snubbed last summer by a then-ill Mandela, the President and the first lady were a spectacle at services for Mandela, fueling the flames of the debate over who loved Mandela more: Bill and Hillary Clinton or Barack and Michelle Obama? It was practically a repeat of three weeks ago, when the Clintons and the Obamas were almost wrestling over the eternal flame torch at the burial site of John F. Kennedy upon the 50-year anniversary of his assassination.
World leaders flew in from all corners of the world to prove they also loved Saint Nelson, despite his past proclivity for violent revolution and his enduring friendships with the late Moammar Gadhafi and Fidel Castro.
It is reality TV, the “I Loved Nelson Mandela The Most Show.” And the Big Three networks, plus CNN and MSNBC, all want to win. Thus they present a Mandela love fest (which began last Thursday and may last until his burial on Dec. 15), detailing how he single-handedly sowed the seeds that brought peace, democracy and prosperity to South Africa.
But what is the truth about Mandela?
I believe he was a changed man, a nonviolent man, by the time he was released from prison in 1990. I also believe that without him, South Africa would have disintegrated the way Rhodesia did — with mass killings and an immediate government takeover of white property. Instead, the property takeover in South Africa has happened over a decade and will probably accelerate now that Mandela is gone.
That said, no man was a greater savior to his country against oppression than Lech Wałęsa, the co-founder of Solidarity in Poland and a political prisoner under martial law imposed at the behest of the Kremlin. Wałęsa probably did more to tear down the Iron Curtain than any person, and he helped give Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe its first independence since Vladimir Lenin enslaved hundreds of millions of people.
What will happen when Wałęsa, the former President of Poland, dies? At best, he might get a mention at the bottom of Page 1 in The New York Times. There will be no flags at half-staff; neither will there be hour upon hour of specials on his life. No past or present American Presidents will speak of Wałęsa’s greatness and attend his memorial service.
But what are the core differences between Wałęsa and Mandela? One fought for democracy through peaceful means. The other used violence in an attempt to overthrow a white government and was a lifelong Marxist. One was a playwright. The other, even in old age, raised a clenched fist as a symbol of black power.
But the biggest difference is that Wałęsa is white and Mandela was black.
The Unreported Suffering Of Whites In South Africa
Have you noticed what is missing in the lionization of Mandela? There has hardly been a report out of South Africa. Perhaps that is because millions of lives were turned upside down once Mandela became President. We’ve seen no reports from the disenfranchised whites who have lost their jobs, been swallowed up by poverty or had to leave South Africa. And we’ve seen no reports on the growing poverty and crime in South Africa that has sprung up since Mandela’s African National Congress (ANC) has economically ruined the sole bright economic spot that existed in all of dark Africa. That Apartheid was evil is beyond dispute, but that the new South Africa that Mandela helped create is a multiracial democratic paradise is an outright lie. The huge transition in that country has caused terrible suffering.
My best friend of 30 years teaches overseas and speaks of South Africa often. For the past decade, at his different posts, the largest groups of expatriates he’s worked with originate from South Africa. They are whites who teach and administer in schools in Europe, the Mideast and Asia. They have been forced to leave their homes and families in South Africa because, under ANC rule, jobs have been taken from whites and handed to blacks. Freedom for all races, which Mandela bragged about for 20 years, is nothing more than affirmative action on a national scale.
Three years ago, The Christian Science Monitor published “More White South Africans Struggle In Post-Apartheid Economy,” which stated:
It was an improbable sight even 10 years ago in South Africa: white people in shacks — poor, desperate, and surviving off handouts.
But with the fall of apartheid and the transformation of the job market in favor of the majority black population, increasing numbers of white people are without work and living below the poverty line.
Recent statistics from the Bureau for Market Research show that there are 650,000 whites ages 16 or over without work, with estimates saying that total is growing by 15 percent a year.
That is not even the worst of it. Author Ilana Mercer wrote: “Since he came to power in 1994, approximately 300,000 people have been murdered.”
Given a population of only 50 million people, that many dead in less than two decades is not so different from the purges under Josef Stalin or Mao Zedong. So even if we accepted Mandela at his word as a changed man who was once a terrorist, the erasure of white society and the soaring violence against non-ANC blacks hardly make Mandela a man for the ages or a Christ-like figure.
Yet you won’t hear that from Obama or the liberal media. It is an inconvenient truth. Instead, black leaders, black celebrities and the media will keep doing what they have been doing: exacerbating white guilt over the treatment of African-Americans and pushing race relations to a new low in the United States. Divide and conquer. That was Mandela’s way. That is Obama’s way.
Yours in good times and bad,