Socialism exposed

Socialism exposed

by Cassivellaunus, 25 December 2012

Socialism is falsely projected by its sponsors, followers and supporters as a benign system aiming to raise the living standard of all citizens through equal access to resources, etc. In particular, it is said to be a working-class movement whose special concern is the welfare of the working classes.

In reality, none of the current main branches of Socialism such as Marxism (a.k.a. Communism), Social Democracy or Fabianism were founded by working-class people.

The founder of Marxism, Karl Marx, was born into a wealthy middle-class family, was employed as a journalist by liberal financial interests, lived off his inheritance and off the fast-dwindling fortune of his aristocratic wife and was financially supported for the rest of his life by his friend and collaborator Friedrich Engels, a wealthy textile magnate.

The founder of German Social Democracy, Ferdinand Lassalle, was similarly from a middle-class background and a lawyer by profession.

The founders of British Fabianism, too, were middle-class and had very little contact, if any, with working-class people.

Socialism and high finance

Particularly revealing are the connections of these key figures of Socialism with financial interests.

Both Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels had started their journalistic careers at the Rheinische Zeitung of Cologne, a radical paper owned by liberal financial interests (Ratiu, p. 23) and Marx was later in the pay of the New York Tribune.

The Tribune’s owner, Horace Greeley and its editor, Charles Anderson Dana were close collaborators of Clinton Roosevelt (Sutton, 1995, p. 45), a radical Democrat member of the well-known Roosevelt Clan whose main areas of interest were banking and politics.

Similarly, the founders and leaders of British Fabian Socialism had close links to liberal financial interests.

Fabian Society co-founder Hubert Bland, was a bank-employee-turned-journalist who worked for the London Sunday Chronicle, a paper owned by newspaper magnate Edward Hulton, formerly of the Manchester Guardian.

Bland’s friend Bernard Shaw was working for the London Pall Mall Gazette, which was edited by Rothschild associates William T Stead and Alfred (later Lord) Milner and owned by millionaire William Waldorf (later Lord) Astor. Shaw became a close friend of Astor’s son Waldorf and his wife Nancy, and married Charlotte, daughter of Horace Payne-Townshend, a wealthy Stock Exchange investor.

Shaw’s friend and fellow Fabian Society leader Sidney Webb married Beatrice, daughter of Richard Potter, a wealthy financier with international connections who served as chairman of the Great Western and Grand Trunk Railways of England and Canada. Beatrice was also a close friend of Rothschild associate and Conservative Prime Minister Arthur Balfour.

In other words, personal self-advancement took precedence over the advancement of the working classes who were to remain subordinated to a non-working, ruling elite with links to financial interests.

This situation has remained unchanged ever since as can be seen from the following examples:

Former Prime Minister Tony Blair, a Fabian Society member, earns £2 million a year for his contribution as Chairman of J P Morgan International Council (part of the Rockefellers’ JPMorgan Chase Bank) and has represented J P Morgan/Chase interests in Libya and other oil-rich states. Even before becoming Labour Party Leader and Prime Minister, Blair was a member of the World Economic Forum’s (a Rockefeller-dominated organisation) Global Leaders of Tomorrow group.

Tony Blair’s political mentor Lord (Peter) Mandelson is employed as a senior adviser to the Rothschild-Rockefeller-associated banking group Lazard.

Similarly, Germany’s leading Socialist Gerhard Schröder, a close collaborator of Blair and Mandelson, has been on the payroll of Rothschild operations like TNK-BP and Rothschild & Cie., Paris (Nauer, 2010), etc.   

A working-class ideology?

Another revealing aspect of Socialism is the nature and origin of its ideology of which writings like the Communist Manifesto are a case in point.

One of the earliest Socialistic publications was Clinton Roosevelt’s (see above) booklet The Science of Government (1841) which advocated a totalitarian system similar to the one suggested in Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto (Sutton, 1995, p. 26).

In 1843, another booklet, entitled Principles of Socialism: Manifesto of Democracy in the Nineteenth Century, was published by a certain Frenchman of the name Victor Considerant while Marx and Engels were working for the Paris Franco-German Annals.

This booklet was reprinted in 1847 when Marx and Engels, who were then in exile in Brussels, joined the London Communist League. In November, the duo was commissioned by the League’s Central Authority to compose a document presenting a statement of its beliefs and aims.

Engels had already produced a draft document called The Principles of Communismin October and the duo used this as a basis for their Manifesto of the Communist Party – which was sent to London for printing in February 1848.   

As shown by W. Tcherkesoff in his Pages of Socialist History (1902), the Manifestois in fact based on Victor Considerant’s Principles of Socialism and therefore cannot be the original work of Marx and Engels (Sutton, 1995, pp. 38-40).

The ideology presented in the Manifesto was no less dubious. It is obvious from the text what the main concerns of its authors were. They speak of large, centrally-organised and -controlled industrial production, of centrally-controlled credit, of armies of industrial workers, of centralisation of means of communication and transport, etc.

It is important to note that none of the above were working-class objectives. Marx and Engels themselves in the same Manifesto tell us that the farmers, artisans and lower middle classes were “conservative,” even “reactionary,” seeking to “turn back the wheel of history.”

As the authors admit, the workers themselves, Socialism’s supposed “revolutionary” class, were totally opposed to mechanisation and industrialisation, “smashing machinery,” “setting factories ablaze” and “seeking to restore the vanished status of the workman of the Middle Ages” (Communist ManifestoMECW, vol. 6, p. 492).

In contrast, the declared goals of Socialism were quite obviously identical to those of the big industrial, banking and business interests. Like the Manifesto, Marx’s work Capital concerns itself with the establishment of a planned and efficient method of production in which large-scale labour was to be subordinated to a directing authority (Priestland, p. 38).

Who wanted armies of industrial workers, if not the big industrial interests? Who wanted the centralisation of banking, if not the big banking interests? Who wanted the centralisation of transport, if not the big railway and shipping magnates?

Socialism – the credo of international money interests

While we have no hard proof that Marx and Engels consciously promoted the interests of big industry, business and finance, they must have been aware that what they were proposing coincided with the aims of those very interests. 

At any rate, the links between leading Socialists and industrial interests are indisputable. As already noted, Engels was a textile manufacturer and so was Gustav von Mevissen, the co-founder of the Rheinische Zeitung.Other textile manufacturers involved with Socialistic movements were John Bright and Richard Cobden (who also held substantial railway interests in America).

Leading figures aiming to monopolise gold and diamond mining, steel, oil, railways and banking, as well as promoting large-scale industrial production and supporting various liberal and radical causes, included the Rothschilds, Andrew Carnegie, the Rockefellers, John Pierpont Morgan, Frederick Taylor and Henry Ford.

On their part, leading Socialists from the Fabian leadership to Lenin advocated policies that can only be described as large-scale state capitalism. Already in September 1917, Lenin had declared that State Capitalism was “a step towards socialism.” In April 1918, he reiterated his claim, announcing that “state capitalism is something centralised, calculated, controlled and socialised, and that is exactly what we lack … if in a small space of time we could achieve state capitalism in Russia, that would be a victory” (“Session of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee,” 29 Apr. 1918, LCW, vol. 27, pp. 279-313).

In his booklet The State and Revolution, Lenin explains exactly what he meant by “State Capitalism.” In the “first phase” of Communist society, he declared,

All citizens are transformed into hired employees of the state, which is made up of the armed workers. All citizens become employees and workers of one national state “syndicate.”

The idea of government by “armed workers,” of course, was as much a lie as the myth of “equality” (see below) and was cynically used by Socialist parties to win workers’ support for the Socialist state.

In reality, no Socialist state has ever been a state consisting of “armed workers.” On the contrary, the Socialist power structure has always been as follows:

1. The State made up of a non-working ruling elite living in relative luxury.

2. A relatively well-off administrative bureaucracy supporting the State.

3. A standing army of which the higher ranks enjoyed certain social and economic privileges, while the rank and file were often employed as unpaid workers in construction work and other public projects.

4. The working class proper (industrial workers, agricultural labourers, etc.), toiling for the benefit of the State and, with some exceptions, living in relative poverty.  

In a telling move, Lenin introduced the methods of mass production designed by Frederick Taylor and Henry Ford to extract the maximum output from the workers for the benefit of large-scale industrialists, that were in vogue at the time in Liberal Capitalist America. Taylor had written that “In the past, Man has been first. In the future the system must be first,” which perfectly fitted the Communists’ own philosophy.

Taylor had also influenced Henry Ford, of Ford Motor Company. In addition to being a large-scale Capitalist manufacturer, Ford was a pro-Bolshevik with links to the American League to Aid and Cooperate with Russia, a Wall Street outfit whose Progressive vice-president Frederick C. Howe had authored Confessions of a Monopolist (1906) in which he proposed methods by which monopolists could control society (Sutton, 1974, pp. 19, 154).

It follows that Socialism is simply a form of repressive State Capitalism in which the State, that is, the ruling political clique, owns and controls everything while the rest of the population toils for the State in the vain hope that things might “get better” some day.

Not surprisingly, the same financial interests have been bankrolling Socialist projects ever since. For example, the Rothschilds and Rockefellers funded the Fabian Society’s London School of Economics (LSE) – established for the express purpose of advancing the Society’s objects – from the early 1900s, as well as financing other Fabian-influenced or -controlled universities like Harvard (which interlocked with the Rockefeller Foundation). The associated Ford and Carnegie interests bankrolled similar educational establishments, etc.

It must be noted that the same interests also bankrolled Socialist revolution. For example, Rothschild agent Jacob Schiff of the banking house Kuhn, Loeb, played a key role in the promotion of revolutionary propaganda among Russia’s armed forces, in providing funds for armed groups in Russia and in providing a loan to Alexander Kerensky’s Socialist government in the wake of the February 1917 revolution (Encyclopaedia Judaica, vol. 14, p. 961). The Rothschilds themselves arranged a loan for the Kerensky government (Ferguson, p. 448) which shows that Russia’s new Socialist regime – unlike that of the deposed Tsar – was agreeable to them.

What is essential to understand at this point is that the support financial interests have provided to Socialist causes has not been motivated solely by a desire to gain influence and power, or for purely “philanthropic” reasons, but also by ideological conviction.

The “Republican” Rockefellers are a case in point. J. D. Rockefeller Jr.’s eldest son, J. D. Rockefeller 3rd, authored The Second American Revolution (1973) in which he advocated collectivism under the guise of “cautious conservatism” and “the public good” (Sutton, 1974, pp. 176-7). His brothers Nelson, Winthrop, Laurance and David all attended the Fabian Socialist Lincoln School of New York, which was founded by their father. Predictably enough, Nelson took to quoting from a copy of Das Kapitalwhich he carried around (Morris, p. 340 in Collier, p. 262), while David wrote a senior thesis on Fabian Socialism at Harvard in 1936, studied at the Fabian LSE (Rockefeller, pp. 75, 81) and – like his brother Nelson – acquired a reputation for backing left-wing projects.

The Rockefellers, therefore, may be safely identified as Fabian Socialists. Should the question arise as to why Fabian Socialists like the Rockefellers are masquerading as “Republicans”, i.e., as conservatives, the answer is simple enough. As explained by Nelson Rockefeller himself, the conservative guise allows them to pursue left-wing agendas without arousing the suspicion of conservative business (Williams, p. 13 in Martin, p. 407) which might otherwise reject and oppose their policies.

Similarly, with rare exceptions like Lord Victor Rothschild who was a member of Britain’s (Socialist) Labour Party, the Rothschilds have been no overt supporters of Socialism. However, they have a long tradition of belonging to the political Left. In Britain, they were supporters of the centre-left Liberal Party throughout the 1800s, while in America, Rothschild representative August Belmont Sr. was chairman of the Democratic Party (Encyclopaedia Judaica, vol. 14, p. 342). 

Currently, the Rothschilds are discreetly supporting policies aiming to “reform” or otherwise “improve” capitalism. This trend is perhaps best exemplified by Lynn Forester, wife of Evelyn de Rothschild, personal friend of David Rockefeller, as well as director and CEO of E L Rothschild Ltd and supporter of the Democratic Party, who has come up with the ingenious idea of “rehabilitating” capitalism (Ashton, 2012). Not any capitalism, of course, but one called “inclusive capitalism.”

Needless to say, all such efforts can only serve to push the entire political system to the left, that is, in the direction of Socialism, while claiming to promote capitalism.

That this leftward drive is intentional becomes clear from the involvement of leading Socialists like Tony Blair, Peter Mandelson and Gerhard Schröder in projects like Policy Network, a global operation promoting World Socialism. 

“Socialism for others” or equality for the masses but not for the ruling classes

In addition to political dissimulation (an established Fabian Socialist tactic) as practised by leading corporate interests like the Rockefellers, there is another key factor often causing even the most inquisitive student of Socialism to overlook or ignore the obvious links between large corporations and the promotion of Socialism, namely, the apparent contradiction between the unique degree of wealth, influence and power held by corporate leaders and traditional Socialist tenets like “equality,” “fair distribution of resources,” etc.

This paradox is easily understood, however, if we look at the history of Socialism and realise that its leaders were never serious about being in any way “equal” to the masses.

The inconvenient truth is that the founding fathers of Socialism, from Marx and Lassalle to Bernard Shaw, all considered themselves entitled, by dint of their intellectual prowess and other supposed markers of “superiority,” to a better lot than the rank and file whose sole purpose was to submit and obey. For example, the expenditure of Marx’s household was well above that of a large working-class family – he even had enough spare cash to gamble on the Stock Exchange of which his friend and supporter Engels was a leading member – while Lassalle and Shaw were positively wealthy.

Nor is it just their lifestyles which expose their true stand. Their statements, too, make it very clear that the upper echelons of Socialism had no intention to share in the “equality” they preached.

Marx, for example, completely dismissed Socialist ideas like “equal right” and “fair distribution” as “obsolete verbal rubbish.” As he explained, even a system where each received an equal quantity of products in return for an equal quantity of labourwould lead to inequalityon account of the inherent inequality of individuals, that is, one man being stronger or weaker than another (it may be added, in Marx’s case, one being cleverer and more manipulative than another), etc., “one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on” (“Critique of the Gotha Programme,” 1875, MESW, vol. 3, pp. 13-30).

The above stand has been (explicitly or implicitly) taken by Socialist leaders – who invariably happen to be those who “receive more than others,” “are richer than others,” etc. – ever since. It is a stand that is clearly shared by the leaders of the corporate community.   

But, while the power of Socialist political leaders is relative, that of corporate leaders is near to absolute and is inevitably used by them to ensure that Socialist equality does not apply to themselves.

A classic example that is as instructive as it is illustrative, is the case of Baron Guy de Rothschild, the late head of the Rothschilds’ banking empire in France. Baron Guy, a close associate of the Marxist Jacques Attali, supported the presidential campaign of the Socialist François Mitterrand, helping him to become President in 1981. In the following year, Mitterrand nationalised French banks, including Baron Guy’s Banque Rothschild.

However, Mitterrand surrounded himself with Rothschild associates like the brothers Olivier and Bernard Stirn, Henri Emmanuelli and, above all, special presidential adviser for economic matters (and advocate of nationalisation) Jacques Attali, whom the Financial Times aptly described as “the philosopher-king of Mitterrand’s court” (“Men & Matters: Sherpa Attali,” FT, 7 Jun. 1982).

Moreover, as pointed out by Rothschild biographer Niall Ferguson, there was a twist in the story. Not only were Rothschild interests outside banking left untouched but the minister responsible for the nationalisation of the Rothschild bank was Henri Emmanuelli, a director of the Paris branch of the Rothschilds’ Swiss-based Compagnie Financière Edmond de Rothschild and the nationalisation – which entailed a substantial compensation from the state – was described by some observers as a blessing in disguise for a firm that was not doing particularly well at that moment in time (Ferguson, p. 497).

Finally, Mitterrand allowed the Rothschilds to open a new banking house and the application of Socialist principles of “equality” to the leaders of finance was soon a thing of the past that no Socialist president has dared to repeat.

Socialism and World Government

In line with monopolistic money interests, all branches of Socialism have advocated world government. However, the leading elements in this effort have been Fabianismand its ally Milnerism, which revolved around Lord Milner (a Socialist and Rothschild collaborator) and his associates in the Milner Group.  

The original Milner-Fabian idea of the division of the world among four or five big powers crystallised in the Fabian document International Government (1916) which formed the basis for the League of Nations, established in 1919 and bankrolled by Rockefeller and allied interests.

The League of Nations’ successor, the United Nations, was created in 1944 by the same Milner-Fabian elements. The 1945 San Francisco Conference where the UN Charter was written, was dominated by the Rockefeller-associated Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and Rockefeller interests have played a leading role in UN affairs ever since (Ratiu, 2012).

Socialism and the New World Order

“New world order” a.k.a. “new international order,” “new social order,” “new economic order”, etc. and world government go hand in hand, the former referring to a new system of global politics and economy, and the latter to the body that is to govern that system.

Naturally, new world order came to be promoted by the same Milner-Fabian elements that were also behind the drive for world government, in particular, those involved in the League of Nations project.

Among the first proponents of a new world order were Britain’s Fabian Socialists who produced several documents like “Labour’s war Aims” (1917) and “Labour and the New Social Order” (1918), in which they prescribed sweeping Socialist policies for the British Empire and the world, including nationalisation of land, industries and transport, international legislation, an international court, international economic controls and a supranational authority (Martin, p. 44).

A key supporter of the Fabian new world order was US President Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat and political theorist who advocated centralised power and who believed that “in fundamental theory socialism and democracy are almost if not quite one and the same” (“Socialism and Democracy,” 1887).

Tellingly, Wilson was a close collaborator of financial interests like the Morgan and the Rockefeller Groups (who had backed his 1912 presidential campaign), as well as of Fabian and Milnerite elements like presidential adviser Walter Lippmann, a member of both the Fabian Society and the Milner Group. Under their influence, he became one of the driving forces behind the League of Nations.

The concept of a new world order continued to be vigorously promoted by Milneriteelements associated with Wilson’s League such as Alfred Zimmern, who gave lectures on the subject in the early 1930s, while in 1935 General Jan Smuts declared that the League “marks the visible and tangible coming of a new world order”. On its part, the Fabian Socialist British Labour Party declared that “The Labour Party will not abandon, now or ever, the vision of a New World Order” (Labour Party Annual Conference Report, 1939).

The crowning moment of the New World Order project came in 1974 when the Rockefeller-controlled United Nations (the world-government-to-be) passed the Declaration on a New International Economic Order which stated:

“We, the members of the United Nations … solemnly proclaim our united determination to work urgently for the Establishment of a New International Economic Order” (Resolution A/RES/S6/3201, 1 May 1974).

The President of the UN General Assembly at the time was the Algerian SocialistAbdelaziz Bouteflika and the Rockefeller Group had close links with the UN leadership through various channels like Leo Pierre, the Chase Manhattan (the Rockefellers’ bank) vice-president responsible for relationships with the UN or directly, through Secretary-General Kurt Waldheim with whom David Rockefeller was on friendly terms (Rockefeller, p. 248).  

The financial interests behind the new-world-order agenda also become apparent from the connections of other international key figures promoting it, from Henry Kissinger to Tony Blair (“US need for new world order,” The Times, 27 Feb. 1969; “What Kind of New World Order?”, Washington Post, 3 Dec. 1991; “Blair returns to new world order,” BBC News, 4 Jan. 2002). 

A former US Secretary of State and presidential adviser, Kissinger has been a close friend and associate of the Rockefellers since the 1950s when he worked for the Rockefeller brothers David and Nelson. He has also been identified as a Soviet collaborator by American and French sources (de Villemarest, 2004, vol. 1, p. 34).

The Socialist International

Another key instrument through which Socialism has pursued its agenda of world government/new world order is the Socialist International (SI). The SI was formed by Britain’s Fabian Society in 1951 to co-ordinate worldwide co-operation between Socialist parties and other organisations including Socialist governments.

At the 2-4 June 1962 Oslo Conference, the SI declared that: 

“The ultimate objective of the parties of the Socialist International is nothing less than world government. As a first step towards it, they seek to strengthen the United Nations so that it may become more and more effective”.

This policy was promoted by SI members around the world. For example, the 1964 manifesto of the British Labour Party (a dominant element in the SI system) read: “For us world government is the final objective and the United Nations the chosen instrument …”

As the UN is a Rockefeller operation, is it clear that the SI and affiliated organisations are promoting a world government (represented by the UN) controlled by international financial interests.

Socialism and the European Union

Like other Socialist projects, the idea of a United States of Europe originated in liberal capitalist circles, notably those around Richard Cobden, and was endorsed by leading Socialists like Engels and Wilhelm Liebknecht, founder of the Social Democratic Workers’ Party of Germany (SDAP) (Liebknecht, 1889).

By 1914, when the Fabian Society was exploring international government, the idea had become part of the official policy of the Fabian-created and -controlled Independent Labour Party (ILP) (“Review of the Week,” Labour Leader, 1 Oct. 1914). Other Socialists promoting a United States of Europe from the 1920s were the Austrian Count Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi, the Pole Joseph Retinger and the Englishman Arthur (later Lord) Salter, a former Fabian Society member.  

After World War II, the project was resuscitated by the same elements and it was imposed on Europe through the US Marshall Plan that set the economic and political unification of Europe as a precondition for financial aid.

As with the UN, the Marshall Plan was devised, promoted and implemented by elements linked to Rockefeller interests operating within the US State Department in collaboration with Socialist regimes such as that of British Prime Minister Clement Attlee, whose Fabian Socialist Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin chaired the 13 July 1947 conference that established the Committee for European Economic Co-operation (CEEC), later called Organisation for European Economic Co-operation (OEEC).

In his Philadelphia speech dubbed “Declaration of Interdependence” of 4 July 1962, US President J F Kennedy declared:

“The United States looks on this vast enterprise [the European Economic Community] with hope and admiration … To aid its progress has been a basic object of our foreign policy for seventeen years” (Monnet, p. 467). 

Kennedy’s adviser was Rockefeller associate Henry Kissinger and the State Department had been dominated by the Rockefellers’ Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) since the early 1940s when the State Department set up the Advisory Committee on Postwar Foreign Policy whose vice-chairman was CFR member and leading new world order advocate Sumner Welles (Smoot, p. 8).

Marshall Aid funds were funnelled through the CFR-controlled European Cooperation Administration (ECA) and the American Committee for a United Europe (ACUE) to various European organisations, the vast majority of which were founded and/or run by Socialists and fellow left-wingers like Jean Monnet, Paul-Henri Spaak, Joseph Retinger, Hugh Gaitskell, Denis Healey and others. (Aldrich, 1995; Dorril, 2001).  

Like the UN, the EU was run by Socialists from the time of the first President of the Common Assembly of the European Coal and Steel Community (which later became the European Parliament), the Belgian Socialist Paul-Henri Spaak, and has remained dominated by Socialists such as Roy Jenkins (former Fabian Society chairman), Jacques Delors, Romano Prodi, Javier Solana, Lord Mandelson (another leading Fabian Society member), Baroness Ashton and many others.

Socialism and dictatorship

All major forms of Socialism – Marxism, Soviet Communism, Social Democracy and Fabianism – have been associated with dictatorship. In part, this has to do with the individual personalities of Socialist founders. Karl Marx was universally described as “domineering” and “fanatical authoritarian” by various sources from police reports to statements by his employers and political rivals. Ferdinand Lassalle, the founder of German Social Democracy, was similarly dictatorial and the same applies to the founders of Soviet Communism like Lenin as well as to the founders of Fabian Socialism like Sidney and Beatrice Webb and Bernard Shaw (Ratiu, 2012).  

However, an equally important role has been played by Socialist ideology itself. Marx saw Capitalism as the dictatorship of the middle over the working classes and aimed to replace it with what he termed “dictatorship of the proletariat”. In his The State and Revolution (1917), Lenin went to extraordinary lengths to dismiss democracy as a temporary and dispensable phase in the transition from Capitalism to Communism. Similarly, Lassalle advocated an authoritarian collectivist state (albeit one headed by a monarch).

On their part, the Fabians, who were great admirers of dictators like Lenin and Stalin, believed in an authoritarian regime run by a body of economists and other “experts” in which they would discreetly pull the strings from behind the scenes (Martin, p. 340) – a goal they shared with their Milnerite allies. 

At national level, Socialism’s dictatorial tendencies are evident in policies like state-enforced mass immigration and multiculturalism, which are implemented without the consent of the populations concerned. Internationally, it is reflected in the Socialist drive for the establishment of an authoritarian world government. Socialists, their liberal collaborators and their like-minded financial backers have played leading roles in the creation of un-democratic institutions and organisations like the United Nations, the European Union and the Mediterranean Union.

Socialism and political violence

From its 19th-century beginnings, Socialism advocated the violent overthrow of the existing order by a group of armed revolutionaries. Marx called for the arming of revolutionary workers with “musket, rifles, cannon and ammunition” (Marx, 1850), while Engels defined revolution as a reign of terror, as “the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon,” declaring that the victorious party had to maintain this rule by means of “the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionaries” (“On Authority,” AlmanaccoItaliano, published Dec. 1874).

This was put into practice by Lenin and his Bolshevik comrades in Russia’s Communist Revolution of October 1917 – which followed Kerensky’s February Revolution – and has inspired many other Socialist movements and groups ever since, for example, the German Baader Meinhof Gang (which was controlled by East Germany’s Marxist intelligence chief Markus Wolf), the Italian Red Brigades, the Peruvian Shining Path and the Irish Republican Army (IRA), later known as Provisional IRA (PIRA).

While not directly involved in acts of violence, more “moderate” forms of Socialism, notably Fabianism, are clearly linked to Socialist groups advocating and practisingviolence for political ends.

For example, speaking at the 2010 “Anti-Racism Day” conference at the London School of Economics, honorary chairman of the Fabian-created National Union of Students (NUS), Ray Hill, declared:  

“Stopping extremism in this country is fundamentally about winning the arguments. Although, of course, in some cases that is not always possible … where you cannot win the arguments, it’s a question of winning the fight. If that means violence, that means violence …”

Hill’s stance was backed by Ashok Kumar, the LSE Student’s Union Education Officer, who said:

“If the English Defence League [an organisation campaigning against the spread of Islam] or any other fascist organisation attempted to apply their violent ideology on any community, the right of that community to defend itself is enshrined in law” (Young, 2010).

Kumar, of course, was being disingenuous. Hill’s remark is not about self-defence but about deliberately using violence to “win the argument” that the Left would otherwise lose. Moreover, in Socialist practice violence is often applied or threatened “pre-emptively,” with the obvious intention to suppress political opposition. One infamous instance of this was in February 2010 when the National Union of Students (NUS) blocked a proposed debate on multiculturalism at the University of Durham, threatening to organise a “colossal demonstration” with Unite Against Fascism (UAF) that might result in “students being hurt”.

With seven million members, the Labour-dominated NUS is a big bully who knows how to throw its weight about. Its allies are not far behind. The UAF is a far-left pressure group which, like the NUS, brands everybody as a “fascist” who disagrees with Socialist theory or practice. UAF is also known for its acts of “extreme violence” leading to injuries to police officers, rival protestors and members of the public (Smith, 2010).

Disturbingly, the UAF has also been linked to Anti-Fascist Action (AFA), another far-left group set up by Red Action, an “anti-fascist” organisation preaching “Socialism through terrorism” and known for its involvement in IRA bombings (Seaton, 1995).

Co-founded in 1922 by the LSE and London University (another Fabian-controlled institution with which the LSE had merged earlier), NUS is also a close collaborator of the Federation of Student Islamic Societies (FOSIS). The University Islamic Societies affiliated with FOSIS have been described as “conveyor belts” for extremism and have been linked with convicted Islamic terrorists (Afzal, 2012; Gilligan, 2013).

What emerges is a seamless continuum stretching from the high seat of FabianSocialism at the LSE to “anti-fascist” street gangs to the shadowy world of international terrorism.

Of particular interests is that the “anti-fascist” LSE and IRA have been linked with fascistic dictatorships like that of Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi. The regime provided the LSE with hundreds of thousands of pounds (Pollard, 2011), while at the same time training and supplying the IRA with arms (Harnden, 2011).

Gaddafi, of course, was an Arab Socialist and Chairman of the African Union, an organisation co-founded by member of the Fabian Society’s Colonial Bureau JuliusNyerere (Ratiu, p. 447). According to leaked diplomatic cables, Gaddafi’s son Saifal-Islam had arranged for 400 “future leaders” of Libya to receive leadership and management training at the LSE (Roberts, 2011).  

Another line of contact between the Fabian Society and Gaddafi’s murderous regime was provided by Tony Blair, a Fabian Society member, who was in close touch with Gaddafi on behalf of J P Morgan who managed Libya’s oil money (Spencer, 2011).

Thus, whatever boundaries there may have been between Socialism and international financial interests, both Western and non-Western, they are becoming very difficult to detect, to the point of being virtually invisible.

Socialism and genocide

The Marxist concept of Socialist revolution entailed the division of society into two classes, the revolutionary and the reactionary, of which the latter was to be physically eliminated in order to give way to those who were fit for the new Socialist world order (Class Struggles in France, p. 114). Engels went even further, declaring that whole nations – deemed “reactionary” – were destined to perish in a future Socialist world war and this would be a “step forward” (“The Magyar Struggle,” 13 Jan. 1849, MECW, vol. 8, p. 227).

Unsurprisingly, Stalin’s Socialist regime executed 681,692 persons for “anti-Soviet activities” in 1937-38 (one year) alone (Pipes, 2001, p. 66) and the total number of its victims has been estimated at between 20 million (Conquest, 1991) and 62 million(Rummel, 1990). Similarly, the victims of China’s Socialist regime under Mao Zedong have been estimated to number over 70 million (Chang & Halliday, 2005; Rummel, 2005).

A less well-known but equally horrific case of genocide was that of between five and six million German men women and children who perished as a result of deportation, mistreatment and starvation at the hands of Allied authorities between 1944 and 1950 (de Zayas, p. 111; Bacque, pp. 119, 204; Dietrich, pp. 107-8, 140-1).

While the chief architect of the plan resulting in this deliberate genocide was US Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau, Jr., a supporter of the American League for Industrial Democracy (LID) – the London Fabians’ “provincial society” – the collaborators in this crime included Communist Russians and British Socialists like Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin and Minister for Germany and Austria John Hyndwho, as his predecessor Lord Salter tells, kept the British-occupied population on daily starvation rations of 1,240 calories (Salter, p. 302).

The advent of mass immigration from the Commonwealth into Britain in the 1950s and 60s presented the Socialist Labour Party with another opportunity to engage in genocidal social engineering. The Party abandoned its traditional British supporters and sided with the newcomers against the indigenous population.

Ethnic relations in British cities, whose local councils were controlled by Labour, were seen in terms of the position of black (non-white) people throughout the world (Banton, pp. 106-7) and the Labour policy of “race equality” was aimed at changing the “power relations between white and black people” in favour of the non-white immigrant population – as evident from Labour programmatic papers like A Policy for Equality: Race (ILEA, 1983).

Before long, a new theory of “replacement immigration” was advanced, which was based on the idea that Europe’s falling population had to be replaced with non-Europeans. This was proposed by the United Nations Population Division in 2000and has been promoted by Socialist organisations like the Labour Party under a number of pretexts ranging from “making Britain more multicultural” to “creating economic growth”.  

The result of these policies has been that Britain currently has a non-white population of about 10 million and is expected to become a white-minority country by the end of the century. A parallel situation is found in Europe and America. Amounting to 25 per cent of the world’s total population in 1900, Europe’s population has dramatically fallen to 11 per cent and is expected to further decrease to 7 per cent by 2050(Browne 2000). 

To what extent can we say that this is a Socialist agenda? Let us recall that the LSE was founded by the Socialist Fabian Society in 1895 for the express purpose of advancing its objectives and promoting Socialism. We have seen that the LSE Student’s Union and its ally, the National Union of Students (another Fabian-created outfit) proscribe citizens concerned about mass immigration, multiculturalism and Islamisation as “fascists” who are to be silenced through violence. 

LSE chairman Peter Sutherland is the head of the UN Migration Forum, a post to which he was appointed by Rockefeller associate Kofi Annan. During a House of Lords inquiry in June 2012, Sutherland called on the European Union to “do its best to undermine the national homogeneity” of European states (Sutherland, 20 Jun. 2012). The week before, he had said that a projected migration of 500 million Africans into Europe was “a good thing” (Sutherland, 15 Jun. 2012).

Sutherland also doubles as honorary chairman of David Rockefeller’s Trilateral Commission. In 2008 he chaired the Trilateral’s European meeting at Paris, which endorsed French President Nicolas Sarkozy’s Mediterranean Union project aiming to merge the European Union with North Africa and the Middle East, describing it as a “model for the world.”

The “development” of Africa has always been a key plank in Fabian policy which has been relentlessly pursued through Fabian organisations like the Fabian Africa Bureau, the Fabian Colonial Bureau, the Movement for Colonial Freedom and the African Union. Africa’s population explosion itself, whose spillover into Europe Peter Sutherland (as UN special representative for migration and development) so enthusiastically welcomes, is in no small measure the result of the activities of foreign-aid organisations like Oxfam, co-founded in 1942 by Gilbert Murray, a friend of Fabian luminaries like H. G. Wells and Bernard Shaw. The latter was a vocal advocate of the fusion of the races, declaring that “the future is to the mongrel” (Holroyd, vol. 3, pp. 283-4).

Particularly disturbing are recent attempts to lend “scientific” legitimacy to this essentially anti-white, racist ideology. For example, a study presented in 2010 to the British Psychological Society by Cardiff University claimed that mixed-race people are “genetically fitter” and “more attractive”. The methods and findings of such studies are not only highly dubious, but they cannot be unconnected with the fact that Cardiff University operates in partnership with the UN and other Rockefeller-associated outfits like the World Health Organisation (WHO) and IBM.

Another leading organisation involved in the promotion of mass immigration and population replacement with strong links to the LSE and other Socialist institutions, organisations and individuals, as well as to the left-wing sections of the corporate community, is the Oxford Martin School

(This article was last modified on 30 September 2013)

See also Unite Against Socialism

Afzal, Hasan, “Is FOSIS Training the Violent Extremists of Tomorrow?,” Huffington Post, 3 Feb 2012.

Aldrich, Richard J., “OSS, CIA and European Unity: The American Committee on United Europe, 1948-60,” International History Review, Vol. 18, No. 4, London, Nov. 1995; also in Diplomacy & Statecraft, Vol. 8, No. 1, London, March 1997, pp. 184-227.

Ashton, James, “Lady and the banks … why Lynn Forester is trying to rehabilitate capitalism,” Evening Standard, 19 Sept. 2012.  

Browne, Anthony, “The last days of a white world,” Observer, 3 Sept. 2000.

Chang, Jung & Halliday, Jon, Mao: The Unknown Story, New York, NY, 2005.

Collier, Peter & Horowitz, David, The Rockefellers: An American Dynasty, London, 1976.

Conquest, Robert, The Great Terror: A Reassessment, Oxford University Press, 1991.

De Villemarest, Pierre, Facts & Chronicles Denied To The Public, vols. 1 & 2, 2003; English trans. Slough, Berkshire, 2004.

Dorril, Stephen, MI6: Fifty Years of Special Operations, London, 2001.

Encyclopaedia Judaica, Jerusalem, 1971.

Ferguson, Niall, The House of Rothschild, Vol. 2, New York, NY, 2000.

Gilligan, Andrew, “Baroness Warsi and the demons of hate,” Daily Telegraph, 27 Apr 2013.

Harnden, Toby, “Libyan arms helped the IRA to wage war,” Daily Telegraph, 4 Apr. 2011.

Holroyd, Michael, Bernard Shaw, 3 vols., London, 1991.

Kissinger, Henry, “What Kind of New World Order?”, Washington Post, 3 Dec. 1991.

Lenin, V. I., Collected Works (LCW), 45 vols., Moscow, 1960-70.

Liebknecht, Wilhelm, Preface to “On the Political Position of Social-Democracy,” London, 1889.

MacElroy, “A Webb of Lies,” The Free Market, Feb. 2000, vol. 18, no. 2.

Martin, Rose, Fabian Freeway: High Road to Socialism in the U.S.A., Chicago, IL, 1966.

Marx, K. & Engels, F., Collected Works (MECW) [English], 50 vols., London, 1975-2004.

Marx, K. & Engels, F., Selected Works (MESW) [English], 3 vols., Moscow, 1969.

Marx, Karl, “Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League,” March 1850, Marx, K. & Engels, F., Selected Works (MESW) [English], 3 vols., Moscow, 1969, vol. 1, pp. 175-85.

Monnet, Jean, Memoirs, English trans., London, 1978.

Nauer, David, “Die Gerhard Schröder AG,” Basler Zeitung, 10 March 2010.

Pipes, Richard, Communism: A Brief History, London, 2001.

Pollard, Stephen, “Libya and the LSE: Large Arab gifts to universities lead to ‘hostile’ teaching,” Daily Telegraph, 3 Mar. 2011.

Priestland, David, The Red Flag: Communism and the Making of the Modern World, London, 2009.

Ratiu, Ioan, The Milner-Fabian Conspiracy: How an international elite is taking over and destroying Europe, America and the World, Richmond, 2012.

Roberts, Laura, “LSE struck deal to train Libya’s future leaders,” Daily Telegraph, 3 Mar. 2011.

Rockefeller, David, Memoirs, New York, NY, 2002.

Rummel, Rudolph, Lethal Politics: Soviet Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1917, New Brunswick, NJ, 1990;

Rummel, Rudolph, “Reevaluating China’s democide to be 73,000,000,” 20 Nov. 2005.

Seaton, Matt, “Charge of the New Red Brigade,” Independent on Sunday, 29 Jan. 1995. 

Smith, Lewis, “Police blame anti-fascists for violence,” Independent, 22 Mar. 2010.

Smoot, Dan, The Invisible Government, Boston, MA, 1962.

Socialist International, “The World Today: The Socialist Perspective,” Declaration of the Socialist International at the Council Conference held in Oslo on 2-4 June 1962.

Spencer, Richard; Blake, Heidi; Swain, Jon, “Tony Blair ‘visited Libya to lobby for J P Morgan”, Daily Telegraph, 18 Sept 2011.

Sutherland, Peter, “A constructive attitude towards migration is a moral issue,” address to the International Eucharistic Congress, Dublin, 15 Jun. 2012.

Sutherland, Peter, in Select Committee on the European Union, House of Lords, “Inquiry on Global Approach to Migration and Mobility, Evidence Session No. 1, Wednesday 20 June 2012, 11.25 am, Witness: Mr Peter Sutherland, QQ 1-34”, uncorrected transcript, published 22 June 2012.

Sutton, Antony C., Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, first published in New York, 1974, reprinted in Forest Row, East Sussex, 2011. 

Sutton, Antony C., The Federal Reserve Conspiracy, first published in 1995, reprinted in Carson City, NV, 2005.

Trilateral Commission (Europe), Meeting Summary, 32nd European Regional Meeting, Paris, 7-9 November 2008.

Walters, Simon and Owen, Glen, “Blair’s Africa charity bids for share of £8 bn foreign aid budget”, Daily Mail, 13 Nov 2011. 

Williams, David C., “Rockefeller in Washington,” The Progressive, Feb. 1959, pp. 11-13.

Young, Calumn, “Anti-racism day kicks off at the LSE,” The Beaver, 24 Oct. 2010.

Author: Graham Moore

I believe in Liberty, Freedom and fairness for all. Sick of political correctness and mind and thought control. The Rule of Law, Common Law.

Leave a Reply