A Change In Themes


If you follow my blog you will have noticed that after over a year of regular posting I have suddenly stopped for several months. This is not because I have abandoned the Thought Foundry Blog or socialism but because my interests and life in general has changed slightly and I did not know how to integrate this change into this blog.

I recently have suffered a very deep personal tragedy and have been trying to cope with it. I am the kind of person who gets deeply absorbed in learning. I have always found certain subjects that captivate me to such an extent that I get lost in them. I have a deeply ingrained need to learn everything there is to know about them. Politics has been one such thing. I am a Marxist but my life does not necessarily revolve around Marxism. I am a person first and I have many interests. I have recently been swept away in learning many new things, in updating my knowledge in some areas and exploring new fields of study.
In the past few months I have written several posts for the Thought Foundry Blog but have discarded them for one reason or another. I have sought out to drastically improve the quality of my posts and have gone back and deleted old ones which did not meet my current standards of professionalism.

The topics and posts of this blog are still going to be socialistic in nature but are going to go even deeper in its critique of modern society and the existing socioeconomic and political order than my previous posts. They are going to be less radical in some regards, and more radical in others. Among these topics are: digital rights, mass surveillance, libertarian Marxism, tribalism, the information and telecommunications revolution, the automation revolution, and other critiques of advanced industrial society. Digital rights, technology, and the Internet will be a particularly large subject in the future.

Currently I am working on a manifesto regarding the information and telecommunications revolution in which I attempt to address our current predicament and the measures necessary for the long term survival of the human species and the protection of civil liberty. It is a work in progress. But to my readers let me be clear, the Thought Foundry Blog is not dead. It is not going away, and for the foreseeable long term future it will not go away.

Who Cares What “The Founding Fathers Wanted”? It’s Irrelevant!

Who Cares What “The Founding Fathers Wanted”? It’s Irrelevant!

There is, in actuality, nothing sacred or divine about the American political system. It’s constitution and it’s “founding fathers”, as such, are irrelevant to what is best for the people as a whole. The bill of rights (declaration of formal negative liberty) and the established limitation of state power in such affairs is the only good thing for the future that has come of such foundational doctrines of our republic. People need to stop glorifying the past in saying “this or that is what the founding fathers wanted”. Well, let me tell you, the founding fathers were a group of slave owning 1%ers who drafted a constitution to look after their own interests, the interests of private property and capital, their own ability to exploit the majority, above the interests of the people as a whole. I am not a Kantian in my analysis of American history. This was a necessary stage in human development, necessary for the time, but necessary no longer. They were bourgeois in the undeveloped world, in a world that needed capitalist development to transform the world into what it is today. But now our system is bourgeois in the developed world, and more and more it is proving itself to have outlived its usefulness.
A key founding principle of the bourgeois declaration of negative liberty is that the rights of the individual cannot be violated except in certain instances, for the common good. In general, such a principle is correct. What makes this bourgeois, however, is that such a principle was designed first and foremost not to protect the rights of the people in general, but to protect private property and the exploitation of the minority by the majority in particular. What we have here is a phenomenon that has emerged in this stage of historical development that is fundamental to human progress, that is, unrestricted negative liberty (what the west calls human rights) for the masses. But socialism in the 21st century goes beyond this, it declares not only this liberty, but also the right to have the means to realize this liberty in actuality and not merely on paper, a fundamental right of humanity. In this way, genuine socialists criticize the “freedom” of capitalist society, as espoused by the “founding fathers”, as being too limited in scope. Liberation is possible only on the basis of bourgeois society as its foundational base, directly or indirectly, and with it, the industrial and social (negative liberty, literacy, education, etc.) development that comes with it.
Americans will find their guide to the future development of human society not in 18th century enlightenment philosophy, but in the lessons and tragic mistakes of Marxism and scientific socialism, that is, in the establishment of industrial, and not merely political democracy.
The Four Prerequisites to Full Democracy And A Reason Why Stalinism Failed

The Four Prerequisites to Full Democracy And A Reason Why Stalinism Failed

There are, in my view, four prerequisites to democracy that unfold historically with the progression of human social development, each progression allowing for a fuller democracy. Mankind has found democracy to be the most ideal system, the system that best represents the will of the majority of the population. But democracy under capitalism is limited, is a democracy that de facto serves only the capitalist class. Let us look at what these prerequisites are, and how each stage represents an ever increasing democratic progression, from feudalism to capitalism to socialism and finally, to stateless communism. In this, I also will attempt to explain the inherent lack of liberty and genuine democracy in the 20th century Marxist-Leninist states. This is a new theory.

1: Industrial Development And The Social Development That Accompanies It (Feudalism to Capitalism) As The First Prerequisite To Democracy

The industrial revolution, and the decline of feudalism, brought forth the initial prerequisites of bourgeois democracy on a massive scale. Industrialization, and the social consequences that come with it (literacy, increases in the average knowledge of each individual, education, etc.) provided a solid foundation for the emerging dominance of the capitalist mode of production. But this alone was merely the necessary prerequisite for bourgeois democracy. Democracy did not come about merely from this new emergence in human society. It is also worth noting, that the lack of these characteristics largely explains the failures of U.S. imperialism’s attempt at grafting liberal democracy onto backward nations such as Iraq, and why dictatorship is sometimes necessary before liberal democracy can come about (see South Korea)

2: Declaration Of The Rights Of Humanity (Negative Liberty, Human Rights) As The Second Prerequisite To Democracy (Capitalism)

The great bourgeois revolutions of the late 18th century introduced the idea of negative liberty into human society. With these social explosions, notions of what we would call human rights came about. Individuals were granted the freedom of speech, protest, press, religion, etc. Of course, these freedoms remained mainly bourgeois in character, because they were only in actuality, privileges mainly of the bourgeois class. Built into the doctrine of these great social advances, is the right, or more accurately put, the privilege, of the ruling class to own private property. In a word, the entitlement to all a worker produces solely by owning the means of production is written into the bill of rights itself. Private property rights are negated with the transcendence of this stage, into a more democratic society.

These two developments form the necessary prerequisites not only for bourgeois democracy, but for democracy in general, excluding as aforesaid, private property “rights”. No form of democracy, neither bourgeois or proletarian, can exist without sufficient industrial development and the social development that comes with it, as well as the negative liberty that bourgeois revolutions establish (excluding private property).

I hope the reader will forgive me for using this quote again by Rosa Luxemburg,

“Freedom only for the supporters of the government, only for the members of one party – however numerous they may be – is no freedom at all. Freedom is always and exclusively freedom for the one who thinks differently. Not because of any fanatical concept of “justice” but because all that is instructive, wholesome and purifying in political freedom depends on this essential characteristic, and its effectiveness vanishes when “freedom” becomes a special privilege…

Without general elections, without unrestricted freedom of press and assembly, without a free struggle of opinion, life dies out in every public institution, becomes a mere semblance of life, in which only the bureaucracy remains as the active element.”


But with this alone, private property and all, the Fukuyamaists declare liberal capitalism to be the end of history! They declare neoliberal capitalism to be the highest stage of human development! They declare bourgeois democracy to be the epitome of democratic institutions! But as we shall see, these are opinions blinded by historical limitations.

“Bourgeois democracy”, says Lenin, “although a great historical advance in comparison with medievalism, always remains, and under capitalism is bound to remain, restricted, truncated, false and hypocritical, a paradise for the rich and a snare and deception for the exploited, for the poor.” In fact, bourgeois democracy is only different from the democracy of the Greek Slave states in that it takes on a truly national character, in that it guarantees the formal rights of the oppressed classes. It is a “democracy” all right, but a democracy for who? What social class does it represent? In ancient Greece, the answer is simple: the ruling class, the slave owners. In America, the answer is the same: the ruling class, the capitalists. The image below shows beyond doubt the bourgeois character of the American government, the true nature of this so-called “bastion of democracy”.


There are two ruling political parties in the United States, both are owned and controlled exclusively by the capitalist class. The recent election between the hated Donald Trump, a billionaire capitalist, and the loathed Hillary Clinton, a mega-millionaire, is evidence of this fact. The DNC rigging of the election against Bernie Sanders is evidence of this fact. The overwhelming majority of people voted for one solely out of having more hatred for the other. There is no real democracy here. Every election, regardless of size, is intangibly bound up with the interests of capital. It is built into the base of the capitalist mode of production. The inherently undemocratic nature of capitalism creates an inherently undemocratic government, or rather, one that is subservient and “democratic” only for the bourgeois class. The video below of a lecture by Richard Wolff explains the undemocratic nature of capitalism, and its effect on political democracy, perfectly.

3: Industrial Democracy (Socialism) And Positive Liberty As The Third Prerequisite To Genuine Political Democracy (Capitalism to Socialism)

Thus we come to the next stage of democratic development. It is not one independent of the previous two stages (industrial/ social development and negative liberty), but is entirely reliant on it. In an advanced capitalist country, where bourgeois democracy and industry are fully developed, it’s inherently undemocratic nature in regards to the overwhelming propertyless majority becomes increasingly apparent, and socialist revolution brings the abolition of capitalism. Despite “formal” declarations of equality, despite the bourgeois class making concessions to women, people of color, and to the poor, it still exists as an equality in spite of inequality. That is, equality in spite of the actual inequality between rich and poor. The influence of the rich in the government becomes so apparent that the existing bourgeois government is abolished by the will of the proletariat.

In its place, a new prerequisite to real political democracy is declared: industrial democracy. No more shall the capitalist be entitled to what the worker produces merely by “owning” the means of production! No more shall the capitalist fund political candidates and parties to look after their own interests! From this stage onward, the working masses themselves have democratic control over what is done with the fruits of their common labor. Negative liberty is not abolished, but on the contrary, it is expanded in this stage of development. For the first time, all are guaranteed not only the fundamental rights of man and citizen, but are provided the means to realize those rights in the form of positive liberty. The rights to housing, healthcare, food, education, labor, rest and leisure, a dignified existence, etc. are declared to be absolutely fundamental human rights. This is the only possible way for “money to be separated from politics”. Only those ignorant of the way our bourgeois society functions declare the possibility of the “separation of capital and politics” without the abolition of capitalism. Because the state in this stage of development represents the overwhelming majority of society, and is the ever vanishing dictatorship of the proletariat, the next stage begins to emerge.

4: Stateless Society And The End Of Class Society, The Abolition Of Class Democracy (Communism)

But democracy as we know it, while it is certainly a democracy, is a dictatorship of one class over another. “Democracy” in the class sense of the word, becomes superfluous. With the abolition of the state, this limited notion of democracy is also abolished. In this sense, only with the coming of stateless communism, can a “fully democratic system” emerge. While this is the withering away of democracy in one sense, it is the ultimate unfolding of the pure essence of democracy in another. At this stage, class interests cease to be, for class society ceases to be.

20th Century Marxism-Leninism: “Socialist” “Democracy” Without Any Of These Prerequisites

The socialist revolutions of the 20th century took place in the most backward countries of the world. They were as far from advanced capitalist countries as one can get (excluding, of course, war torn Germany). We have to acknowledge the fact that most of these countries were in the midst of, or had yet to have, bourgeois revolutions. A bourgeois revolution can occur, and be immediately followed by the seizure of power by the proletariat. However, if the proletariat is to have not fought in vain, the revolution must spread abroad, favorably towards the advanced capitalist countries of the earth. The imperialist world wars came as a result of the fact that the internal contradictions of the most advanced capitalist countries of the world could no longer be reconciled within the confines of the nation state. Because of this, the construction of socialism, the mode of production more efficient and advanced than capitalism, cannot possibly be completed in one country alone as the Stalinists insist.

However, these prerequisites I have laid out, are not dogmas. Historical stages are not dogmas, as Trotsky points out in his history of the Russian Revolution saying,

“The privilege of historic backwardness – and such a privilege exists – permits, or rather compels, the adoption of whatever is ready in advance of any specified date, skipping a whole series of intermediate stages. Savages throw away their bows and arrows for rifles all at once, without traveling the road which lay between those two weapons in the past.”

The October Revolution was a permanent revolution, but it ceased its permanent character when the fervent pursuit of international revolution was abandoned and the Stalinist bureaucracy took power.

The socialist states of the 20th century, while basing themselves on Stalinism, decided to ‘skip over’ the advanced capitalist phase of development. While this was no doubt difficult, it was theoretically possible. With Trotsky’s genius idea of rapid industrialization, a plan implemented under Stalin, it was thought that these socialist states could emulate the capitalist stage of development without having to pass through it. But a crucial element is missing from this formula: democracy, or more specifically, the necessary prerequisites of even bourgeois democracy. So this system, by the way, was not socialist! Of course, one of the aims of this rapid industrialization was to establish the necessary prerequisites to democracy (Industrial development, literacy, education, etc.). And it no doubt succeeded in this regard. Illiteracy was abolished in the Stalinist countries, industrial output quintupled, life expectance was doubled, education was mandatory, healthcare was free for all, and other positive liberties were expanded exponentially. However, under Stalinism in these previously semi-feudal, now degenerated workers states, the negative liberty that develops naturally under capitalism was missing entirely. This negative liberty is not only a necessary prerequisite to bourgeois democracy, but to socialist democracy as well!

Socialism without negative liberty, is therefore impossible, for democracy without negative liberty is impossible. Since socialism without democracy is impossible, we cannot call those Stalinist countries that lacked negative liberty socialist, or anything other than degenerated or deformer workers states.

This is one of the key reasons why Stalinism failed. While these countries did not naturally undergo a bourgeois stage of development, and they did try to emulate the industrial and social development that comes with it, they did not emulate the exponential expansion of negative liberty that occurs under capitalism. What we were left with, is a country with positive liberty, but no negative liberty. This contradiction, as we know, was reversed entirely in 1991. The positive liberty in the former Stalinist countries was abolished in its entirety and replaced with negative liberty alone. Life expectancy dropped some 10 years in Russia, homelessness returned, and all the social ills of capitalism.

I have quoted it perhaps too often in my articles, but I hope the reader will forgive me if I quote again from Marxists Internet Archive’s encyclopedia:

“In hitherto existing Socialist states, like the Soviet Union and China, “negative freedoms” were severely restricted, while “positive freedoms” were advanced. All people had universal access to health care, full university education, etc, but people could only use those things they had in a particular way – in support of the government. In the most advanced capitalist governments, this relationship is the other way around: “positive freedoms” are restricted or do not exist all together, while “negative freedoms” are more advanced than ever before. A worker in capitalist society has the freedom to say whatever she believes, but she does not have the freedom to live if crippled by a disease regardless of how much money she has. A socialist society that has been established from a capitalist society will strengthen “negative freedoms”, while ushering in real “positive freedoms” across the board, ensuring equal and free access to social services by all.

The fullest development of positive freedom is impossible however without a further development of negative freedom – people cannot be forced to be free.”


We have never had a socialist revolution in an advanced capitalist country. When we do, the contradiction mentioned here will cease to be, and a free society such as the one mentioned above, will inevitably come about in a developed society that already enjoys negative liberty.

Onward, the historical dialectic unfolds.



A Brief Trotskyist History of The Russian Revolution

“How the hell”, ask the critics of socialism, “is the October revolution relevant to today?”, on its 100th anniversary. The October revolution, we can say looking back, was a largely premature attempt to overthrow the capitalist system, but a crucial and mostly positive phenomenon nonetheless. It was a revolution led by the working class and peasantry of Russia that happened not in the most advanced capitalist country’s of the earth, as most socialists had expected, but in one of the poorest. It attempted to introduce industrial democracy to a population where 65% of the population was illiterate. It overthrew the prevailing bourgeois notions of democracy, that is, democracy where only property owning males could vote and participate in government, or one that de facto serves only the capitalist class. It instituted a socialist democracy, meaning a democracy exclusively of the poor and working masses that make up the true majority of the worlds population. “Freedom and democracy to the working people”, was the true slogan of Bolshevism.


The United States of America, a perfect example of bourgeois democracy today

In spite of these challenges, 14 of the most powerful country’s of the earth invaded the early Soviet republic. The anti-semitic white army, loyal to the Tsar, instigated a policy of reactionary terrorism, and the bolsheviks responded in kind. After a brutal civil war, a tough victory came at the cost of millions dead on both sides. The new Soviet Union found that international revolution, the only possible hope of completing a socialist system in the USSR, did not happen. It found itself in extreme poverty, in worse shape than before WW1. It had been through a world war, 2 revolutions, a civil war an invasion from abroad, and now it was facing a terrible famine.

When Lenin died, the Russian Revolution continued to degenerate. Stalin’s seizure of power represented a sort of Soviet Thermidor (similar to the Thermidor of revolutionary France). The revolutionary terror that was necessary to defend the revolution during the civil war period was not abolished in the post-revolutionary period as Lenin and Trotsky intended, but it continued de facto as an unofficial state terror, justified and obfuscated by an intangible Stalinist bureaucracy. Even what little freedom workers had during the revolution itself was stripped from them under Stalinism. This was justified in a self-contradictory manner, in the name of Lenin, that would have, and probably did, make Lenin turn over in his grave.

Enormous gains were still made in spite of these horrors. Under Stalin, the USSR did in a decade what took the west 150 years. But of course, a socialist economic system is “characterized by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production”. Under Stalin, the means of production (factories, farms, industry, etc.) were no doubt socialized, but they were not under the democratic control of the working class. On the contrary, they were undemocratically managed by the bureaucracy itself. Without democracy, there can be no socialism. We Trotskyists do not call the USSR socialist, but rather a degenerated workers state for this reason.

Trotsky characterizes the degeneration of the Russian Revolution well saying,

“The Soviet Union emerged from the October Revolution as a workers state. State ownership of the means of production, a necessary prerequisite to socialist development, opened up the possibility of rapid growth of the productive forces. But the apparatus of the workers’ state underwent a complete degeneration at the same time: it was transformed from a weapon of the working class into a weapon of bureaucratic violence against the working class and more and more a weapon for the sabotage of the country’s economy. The bureaucratization of a backward and isolated workers’ state and the transformation of the bureaucracy into an all-powerful privileged caste constitute the most convincing refutation – not only theoretically, but this time, practically – of the theory of socialism in one country.”

The October Revolution erupted because of the problems inherent to capitalism, the economic system we live under today. During the 20th century, countless countries, like Russia, also had revolutions against capitalist and imperialist exploitation. Their model for change was not the genuine workers democracy envisioned by Lenin and Trotsky during the October revolution, or a system similar to that of the Paris Commune praised by Marx, Engels, and Lenin, but rather the political and economic model of Stalinist Russia. The countries of Eastern Europe, Asia, Latin America and Africa which had socialist revolutions were won over to the Stalinist system, and, as a result, had many of the same problems inherent to Stalinism in Russia.

Trotsky predicted either two possible outcomes for these degenerated workers states, either a political revolution led by the working class in those countries to establish genuine, unfettered democracy and freedom for working people, or their total destitution and eventual capitulation to capitalism. The cold war ended in 1991, and we know that history unfolded upon Trotsky’s latter grim prediction. In this way, we can say that history has proven Trotsky correct.

The Problems Inherent To Capitalism

I saw something recently on Facebook that very clearly shows a major flaw in the capitalist system that I wish to address here, a problem that the October revolution attempted to address. A screenshot of the post can be found below:

Screen Shot 2017-11-08 at 3.00.49 AM.png


What we see above is a prime example of how our late capitalist society values only the exchange value (profitability) of commodities, not their use value (their ability to address actual human needs). Because production is unplanned and uncoordinated, we have a crisis of overproduction, typical of the capitalist mode of production where too much of a certain commodity (in this case, bread) was produced and had to be thrown away because it could not generate a profit.

Of course, as many of us know, 1 in 5 children in our country are hungry. This commodity clearly has a use value, but because there is too much bread to meet market demand, it has negligible exchange value, and is thus thrown away. There are 5 homes for every homeless person in this country. There is a clear human need, a clear use value for those empty homes. But it is not profitable (i.e. does not generate exchange value) for the owners of those empty homes, so the homeless sleep outside in the cold. 5 men own as much wealth as the bottom half of humanity (3.5 billion people), yet we know that no 5 men could work as hard as the bottom half of humanity. These are all contradictions inherent to the capitalist system.

We produce, and have the means to produce more than enough to feed, clothe, and house every human being on this planet 5 times over. But we choose not to because it isn’t “profitable” in the monetary sense of the word.

What Is To Be Done?

All of these problems are inherent to the capitalist system, and as such, they cannot be resolved within the framework of the capitalist system. No, we don’t need a Stalinist Soviet style, undemocratically planned economy, a one-party state, or something that will bring about a restriction in negative liberty (freedoms of press, speech, protest, religion, etc.)

We do, however, need a democratically planned socialist economy to address these grave social ills. The working class, the class in our society that produces all the wealth, must have democratic control over all that is produced, and must be entitled to all they create.

I will quote from Marxists Internet Archive’s section of Freedom,

“In hitherto existing Socialist states, like the Soviet Union and China, “negative freedoms” were severely restricted, while “positive freedoms” were advanced. All people had universal access to health care, full university education, etc, but people could only use those things they had in a particular way – in support of the government. In the most advanced capitalist governments, this relationship is the other way around: “positive freedoms” are restricted or do not exist all together, while “negative freedoms” are more advanced than ever before. A worker in capitalist society has the freedom to say whatever she believes, but she does not have the freedom to live if crippled by a disease regardless of how much money she has. A socialist society that has been established from a capitalist society will strengthen “negative freedoms”, while ushering in real “positive freedoms” across the board, ensuring equal and free access to social services by all.

The fullest development of positive freedom is impossible however without a further development of negative freedom – people cannot be forced to be free.”

What we need is a socialism for the 21st century, one that addresses the horrors of our Stalinist legacy, and, at the same time, transcends the problems of capitalism today. We need a form of socialism that, like the Bolsheviks intended, would provide genuine democracy and freedom to working people. But this is not Russia. As Trotsky himself put it, “American soviets will be as different from the Russian soviets as the United States of President Roosevelt differs from the Russian Empire of Czar Nicholas II.” We have the means of production of an advanced capitalist society. Decades of rapid industrialization, of frantically creating the means of production, is not a necessary prerequisite to socialism here as it was in Russia. Everything needed to build a socialist system today is already here in America.

Lenin wanted to instigate a system of democracy similar to that of the Paris Commune. His ideal goal was one of true freedom and democracy, where there is no exploitation of man by man or oppression by the state. But semi-feudal Russia was the last place in the world where you would want a socialist revolution to break out. To say that the conditions were the opposite of ideal is an understatement. Regardless, it represents the first country in the world to be under the exclusive control of working class people, and for that, the ideas of Lenin and Trotsky are immortal.



We Are Freedom Loving Communists! You Heard That Right!

We Are Freedom Loving Communists! You Heard That Right!

To my critics: Yes, we are freedom loving communists! But only those who are ignorant to Marxist theory seriously advocate the idea that, because we are Marxists, that we are automatically against personal freedom, democracy, or are in favor of the reckless, totalitarian pursuit of communism. Terrible crimes were committed in the name of the totalitarian pursuit of our ideology in the 20th century, we do not deny this nor do we ascribe to a revisionist interpretation of history to portray communists in a more favorable light.
We are communists because we believe humanity can do better than neoliberal capitalism where 5 men have expropriated the same amount of wealth as the bottom half of humanity, the bottom 3.5 billion people. We are communists because we live in a world that produces enough resources to provide enough to feed, clothe, shelter, and provide a dignified, meaningful life to every human being on this planet but chooses not to because our economic system values the exchange value of commodities (profit) over their use value (usefulness). In a word, the world today cares more about profit than addressing human needs. It cares about this so much that we are rapidly accelerating into an era where capitalism has wrecked the earth to such an extent that it will no longer be hospitable to human life.
Capitalism has been the first system to show what mankind can truly achieve, but the way it organizes the vast wealth it produces is unacceptable. It is inhuman, tyrannical, and unjust. We advocate the democratization of industry as a necessary prerequisite to genuine democracy, that is, democracy that represents the working people above the rich, property owning minority that consists of 9/10 of all senators, congressmen, and “representatives of the people” in our modern bourgeois society.
We advocate the abolition of private (not personal) property, that is, the prevention of economic exploitation on a systematic basis. To quote Marx, “Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriations.” We believe in the necessity of making the state, that monstrous and tyrannical institution that has been with man since the beginning of class society, superfluous, as did Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Rosa Luxemburg, and Vladimir Lenin. We are communists today because we recognize the fact that Marx, Engels, and even Lenin never once wrote about the necessity of a one-party state, especially one that is tyrannical.
To quote from Marxists Internet Archive,

“In hitherto existing Socialist states, like the Soviet Union and China, “negative freedoms” were severely restricted, while “positive freedoms” were advanced. All people had universal access to health care, full university education, etc, but people could only use those things they had in a particular way – in support of the government. In the most advanced capitalist governments, this relationship is the other way around: “positive freedoms” are restricted or do not exist all together, while “negative freedoms” are more advanced than ever before. A worker in capitalist society has the freedom to say whatever she believes, but she does not have the freedom to live if crippled by a disease regardless of how much money she has. A socialist society that has been established from a capitalist society will strengthen “negative freedoms”, while ushering in real “positive freedoms” across the board, ensuring equal and free access to social services by all.

The fullest development of positive freedom is impossible however without a further development of negative freedom – people cannot be forced to be free.”


As you can clearly see, we are freedom loving communists through and through.
See my other article: The Marxist Case for Human Rights
Ecological Catastrophe: The Global Superstate That May Become Necessary For Our Survival

Ecological Catastrophe: The Global Superstate That May Become Necessary For Our Survival

In most of the developed world, denial of climate change is on par with denying the moon landing, the theory of evolution, or the fact that the earth is round. In America however, in the heart of world imperialism, climate change and science denial is extremely common. So common in fact, that the current President of The United States, billionaire capitalist Donald Trump, is a known climate change denier. His policies such as stripping the EPA (environmental protection agency) of funds necessary for it to function, and the American withdrawal of the Paris Agreement, are evidence of this fact.

It is well known that the fossil fuel industry, one of the leading polluting industries in the world, is in the pockets of U.S. politicians and (often debunked) scientists who promote the idea of the “climate change hoax”. We see the same thing today in America with climate change denial as we saw several decades ago when it was still widely disputed that tobacco was addictive or caused cancer. No honest climate scientist denies that climate change is happening, nor do they deny that tobacco is addictive/ causes cancer. Many scientists believe we are past the point of no return, that with rising sea levels hundreds of millions of people are going to be displaced from their homes, and this is only the tip of the iceberg (no pun intended).

One Possible Future

What I fear may eventually become essential, for the long term survival of the human species, is the pursuit of the long term survival of the human race by any means necessary. Of course, this implies a planned economy on a global scale, but more than that, maybe even a one-party state to enforce reforestation programs, the transfer to 100% renewable energy, ecological friendly industrialization, and programs for our long term survival above all else.

If we truly have passed the point of no return, then material comfort and luxury are superfluous for this entire generation, and perhaps even the one to follow our own. When this becomes the case, in the not too distant future (assuming capitalism continues), the only thing that will matter is minimizing the damage to such an extent that our great great grandchildren can have a planet to call home.

Scientific investigation, economic planning, and skepticism alone would be the guide for this monstrous superstate. To drive a gasoline car would eventually become illegal as green alternatives emerged. Massive amounts of money would go into educating a generation of scientists, finding alternative energy sources such as cold fusion, getting people to Mars, etc. This is not an ideal place to live, make no mistake. I pray to God such a thing would never, ever become necessary. I hope we never mess things up to such an extent. But I can easily imagine a world in which we have. I can envision a global state mechanism, or possibly inter-state mechanism, that enforces these aims by terror and fear alone, but doing so in such a way that the overwhelming majority recognize its necessity.

The Ideal Solution

To prevent either the eventual global totalitarian pursuit of the long term survival of the human species, or its annihilation under capitalism, an inter-state power is necessary, but the sooner this happens, the less likely such extreme measures, such as terror and authoritarianism, will become. To truly regulate and eventually abolish pollution, the state power of one country alone is simply not enough. This is a global crisis, it requires therefore, a global solution. All country’s on the earth should be held to a predetermined environmental standard set by scientists, the violation of which, necessitates a total and immediate economic embargo on the country in question by all the country’s of the earth until the crisis is resolved, or, in extreme circumstances, war and the overthrow of that country’s government, a measure which is, by the way, a violation of that nations right to self-determination, but a necessary one. In this way, we could see a world relying on 100% renewable energy, the emergence of massive reforestation programs on a global scale, industrialization of less developed country’s along ecological friendly lines, and eventually a planned economy on a global scale. The idea of such a system existing under capitalism is utopian, but the frameworks for such a system have already been laid in international organizations such as the United Nations under capitalism. Only a democratically planned economy, along with inter-state cooperation on a global scale, can ensure the abolition of the continual man-made destruction of our planet, and the long term survival of the human species as a whole.

The Internet is Humanity’s Best Achievement: Let Us Use It To Better Ourselves

The Internet is Humanity’s Best Achievement: Let Us Use It To Better Ourselves

I think the internet was humanity’s best achievement thus far. All other innovations pale in comparison. All of human knowledge is now knowable instantaneously. Never before was this possible in any previous epoch. We are all connected to one another through this medium of communication and anonymous exchange.
Let us preserve this great achievement and protect it from all governments and private interests who wish to control, censor, or profit off of it. The internet is mine as it is yours. It belongs to all of us, not to any one individual. All of us have the right to freely add to and take from it, and to hopefully use it to improve ourselves and the rest of humanity.
The internet is often something we take for granted. In the past people had to go to the library to learn about something. Now we just press a few keys and buttons and the whole of human knowledge is before our eyes, in an instant. I often say that ‘books are thought traps’. They are something sacred. You think a thought and it disappears, you tell it to another and they forget. But if you write it down and publish it, there it is on the pages for aeons and aeons after your death. The internet is like this but on a much grander scale. What is done on the internet cannot be undone, but it’s so big that it doesn’t really matter.
It is potentially the most dangerous weapon, the most toxic poison if we are not careful. But conversely, it is potentially the saving grace of humanity, a tool to exponentially increase human innovation and growth, a tool saturated in the optimism of progress. Let us take this tool and use it to better ourselves and the lives of those around us. In the name of knowledge let us demand the barriers on human thought be lifted and made free to all. Truly we are living in a remarkable age.