Category: Anarchism
‘Destroy barriers’: Anarchists, pro-refugee activists clash with police at Austrian-Italian border

https://www.rt.com/news/342211-border-anarchists-violence-italy/

Hundreds of anarchists and black bloc activists have spurred unrest at the Austrian-Italian border storming the train station, throwing stones, flares and smoke bombs at riot police, who used batons and tear gas against protesters.

The demonstration on Saturday at the Brenner mountain pass between Italy and Austria came in response to the enforcement of stricter border control measures to tackle the influx of refugees.

About 500 activists gathered in front of the main entrance to the train station, holding banners that read “Close the door to fascism,” “Time to launch social revolution,” “Borders down,” “Destroy barriers” and others.

At least 4 officers and several protesters were injured in the unrest, according to La Repubblica.

Hundreds of members from the so-called anarchist black bloc who came to Brenner from other Italian regions as well as from Germany, Italy and Spain to take part in the demonstration are supposedly those responsible for the clashes with riot police, Italy’s Ansa news agency says.
Dressed all in black, chanting slogans against the media and police, they began throwing stones and flares at police. Police fired tear gas at the activists. Some reporters were also assaulted, La Repubblica said.

Black bloc is a protest tactic that involves wearing black clothes and masks. Its participants are associated with anarchism, since they generally lack central organization and most often engage in the destruction of property. They claim their goal is to defend demonstrators when police turn up.

According to RTV San Marino, the protesters were also in possession of explosive devices. It was not clear what kind of devices, exactly, however.

Anarchists stormed the train station, temporarily blocking the railroad, and then dispersed in a nearby village. Police ousted the protesters using water cannons. The crowd took to the A22 highway and is now reportedly moving toward Austria.

Austrian Interior Minister Wolfgang Sobotka has ruled out the idea of building a fence on the Austrian-Italian border at a conference in Meran on Saturday, local media reported.

“There will be no fence in Brenner and the border won’t be closed,” the minister said, adding that if “Italy does its bit,” there will be no need for border controls and additional checks.

Demonstrators take part in a protest against a plan to restrict access through the Brenner Pass between Italy and Austria, in Brenner, Italy, May 7, 2016. © Dominic Ebenbichler

MORE PHOTOS

Last month in Rome, Sobotka said that at least one million migrants may try to make it across the Mediterranean Sea to Italy before continuing on to Austria this year. However, the figure might actually be much lower, Italian officials suggested.

Austria’s plan to build a fence along its border with its neighbor has been met with disapproval by Italy, as well as Germany, Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi said at the close of the talks with Angela Merkel on Thursday.

“There is a dire need for closing this route since… there will be an influx of hundreds of thousands of migrants to Austria and then to Germany,” political analyst Alexander Markovics of the right-wing Generation Identity movement told RT, adding that, although this may look like a tough measure, it is the only choice that Austria has in this “very severe security situation in both countries.”

Refugees reach Italy by both the Central Mediterranean route and the Apulia and Calabria route, with over 150,000 illegal crossings detected in 2015, according to Forex, the EU border management agency.

According to Italian Interior Ministry statistics, 16,075 migrants have already crossed to its shores this year, compared to about 10,000 during the same period in 2015.

Anti-Capitalist Activists Clash With Police at Seattle May Day Rally
Police officers arrest a man during a May Day anti-capitalism march, Friday, May 1, 2015 in Seattle.

Anti-Capitalist Activists Clash With Police at Seattle May Day Rally

© AP Photo/ Ted S. Warren
Get short URL
 

Anti-capitalist demonstrators have clashed with police in the US city of Seattle at a May Day rally, with at least five officers injured, the Seattle Police Department said.

MOSCOW (Sputnik) — According to the KOMO News portal, thousands of people are taking part in the demonstration, rallying for workers and immigration rights.

“Several reports of assaults on officers and broken windows… Continued reports of crowd throwing rocks/bottles, breaking windows,” the Seattle Police said on Twitter on Sunday evening.

​The police have issued a dispersal order and have deployed pepper spray after bricks and rocks were thrown at them. At least one person was arrested, with officers preparing to detain more people.

​”Injured officer has sustained a head/facial laceration and is now receiving treatment,” the police said.

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/us/20160502/1038934971/seattle-activists-rally.html#ixzz47YFIJpIX

Anti-Trump Protesters Clash With Police in Utah
| March 19, 2016 | 6:28 pm | Anarchism, political struggle | No comments
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump addresses the media following victory in the Florida state primary on March 15, 2016 in West Palm Beach, Florida.

Anti-Trump Protesters Clash With Police in Utah

© REUTERS/ Rhona Wise

Protesters briefly clashed with police officers providing security at the rally of Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump in the US state of Utah, local media reported.

MOSCOW (Sputnik) — A group of anti-Trump protesters broke a tent located in front of Trump’s rally in the Salt Lake City and had reportedly thrown rocks at people supporting the presidential candidate. Police were forced to push the angry crowd back, Fox 13 broadcaster reported.Trump’s campaign rallies have been repeatedly disrupted by protesters over the past several days.

Last week, Kansas City police used pepper spray to disperse large crowds of protesters who gathered outside the Arvest Bank Theatre to demonstrate against Trump. In Chicago, a similar rally was canceled after a brawl between thousands of Trump’s supporters and opponents.

Trump has been widely criticized for his inflammatory rhetoric and controversial statements, including in relation to immigrants, particularly from Mexico, Muslims, and women.

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/us/20160319/1036597184/trump-protests-utah.html#ixzz43OVu4ONK

US ‘Super Tuesday’ Presidential Primaries Likely to Shift Election Balance
| February 29, 2016 | 8:20 pm | Anarchism, Bernie Sanders, political struggle | No comments
This combination of file photos shows Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton(R) speaking at New York University in New York on July 24, 2015 and US Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump exiting the New York Supreme Court after morning jury duty on August 17, 2015 in New York

US ‘Super Tuesday’ Presidential Primaries Likely to Shift Election Balance

© AFP 2016/

Twelve US states and one territory will hold their primary contests known as “Super Tuesday” on March 1, to decide the candidates to represent the Republican and Democratic parties in the November 2016 general presidential election.

WASHINGTON (Sputnik) Super Tuesday is viewed as one of the most decisive days in the presidential primaries, with the largest number of US states voting on a single day. Additionally, nearly one half of the total delegates needed to gain the Republican nomination are up for grabs, while about one third of the Democratic delegates are at stake.The states holding both Democratic and Republican primaries on Tuesday will be Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont and Virginia. Alaska will hold its Republican caucus and Democrats will caucus in the American Samoa territory.

CLINTON, TRUMP LEAD IN MOST ‘SUPER TUESDAY’ STATES

Republican front runner Donald Trump has already dominated three of the four Republican contests leading up to March 1. According to the most recent polls, Trump appears poised to win in the majority of Super Tuesday states, with Senator Ted Cruz showing a 9 point lead in his home state of Texas, and a slight edge over Trump in Arkansas. Senator Marco Rubio consistently trails in second or third place in the polls.

Trump has already secured 82 delegates from previous wins, with Cruz holding 17 from his victory in Iowa. The Republican candidate will need a total of 1,237 delegates to take the party’s nomination at the August convention.

The Democratic polls now show Hillary Clinton ahead in the majority of the southern states up for grabs on Tuesday, with a comfortable lead of more than 20 points in Texas, Georgia, Tennessee, Arkansas, and Virginia.

Clinton’s rival, Senator Bernie Sanders, is expected to turn out a better showing in the north, where he has a slight lead in some Massachusetts polls and an average 75 point spread over Clinton in his home state of Vermont.The Democratic race appeared to shift in favor of Hillary Clinton following a major victory in the South Carolina primary. Clinton has now shored up 544 delegates to Sanders’ 85. The Democratic candidate will need 2,382 delegates to gain the party’s nomination.

WHEN TO WATCH

The polls in most of the eastern states will close at 7 p.m. or 8 p.m. EST, though some results will still be coming in early on Wednesday. Further west, Texas, Colorado, and Minnesota are scheduled to begin caucusing at 9 p.m. EST. Alaska Republicans and Wyoming voters will caucus at 12 a.m. EST.

The field of presidential contenders has been culled significantly since campaigning started in earnest during 2015, leaving two Democrats and five Republicans. Many analysts anticipate that of the remaining Republicans, Trump, Cruz, Rubio, John Kasich, and Ben Carson, another candidate or two will drop out of the Republican race following Super Tuesday.

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/us/20160301/1035563115/us-super-tuesday-elections.html#ixzz41c7I2Z4c

Sanders, Rubio Strongest Candidates in General Election Matchups
| February 5, 2016 | 8:58 pm | Anarchism, Bernie Sanders, political struggle | No comments
Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders arrives for his caucus night rally in Des Moines, Iowa, on February 2, 2016.

Sanders, Rubio Strongest Candidates in General Election Matchups

© AP Photo/ Patrick Semansky

US Senator Bernie Sanders has the highest favorability rating among top candidates on the presidency, according to a new Quinnipiac University poll.

WASHINGTON (Sputnik) — US Senators Marco Rubio and Bernie Sanders are the strongest presidential candidates in 2016 election face-offs, according to a new poll released on Friday.

“Sanders and Rubio are the strongest candidates in general election matchups,” a new Quinnipiac University poll stated.

At present, businessman Donald Trump is still leading among Republican presidential candidates nationwide with 31 percent of votes. He is followed by Senator Ted Cruz, who has gained 22 percent of votes, and Rubio, who currently enjoys 19 percent of votes, according to the poll.

Former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is still ahead of Sanders in the Democratic race, with 44 percent of support against Sanders’s 42 percent, the poll showed. In December, Clinton was leading with 61 percent, as Sanders had only 30 percent of votes.

“Sanders has the highest favorability rating among top candidates, while Trump has the lowest,” the poll added.

The 2016 US presidential election will take place in November.

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/us/20160205/1034300026/us-elections-sanders-trump.html#ixzz3zLwWGK3f

American people believe in what Congress calls ‘terribly radical ideas’ – Sanders (EXCLUSIVE)
| February 1, 2016 | 7:49 pm | Anarchism, Bernie Sanders, political struggle | No comments

American people believe in what Congress calls ‘terribly radical ideas’ – Sanders (EXCLUSIVE)

https://www.rt.com/usa/330940-bernie-sanders-ed-schultz-exclusive/
© RT
Senator Bernie Sanders spoke with RT’s Ed Schultz about how he became a serious contender for the Democratic presidential nomination from being 40 points behind in the polls, and how his “terribly radical” ideas reflect the will of the American people.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3Q5U65JfiY

The two men met in Marshalltown, Iowa on Sunday to discuss the issues that have defined the campaign so far, from college tuition and trade agreements to establishment politics and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s “damn emails,” and whether the dark-horse candidate thinks he can win.

Schultz: Eleventh hour: What’s your gut?

Sanders: My gut is, we will win tomorrow if there’s a large turnout; we will lose if there is a small turnout. Needless to say, we’re working pretty hard to make sure it’s a large turnout.

Schultz: Well, there’s an economic component to this young demographic, and that’s college tuition. Is that what you think is going to put you over the top with the young demographic?

Sanders: I’ll tell you something: We started this campaign ‒ as you recall ‒ at like 40 or 50 points behind Hillary Clinton…

Schultz: Yeah…

Sanders: And the last polls have us about even. I think there are a lot of reasons. I think that we are… we’re talking about the reality of the American economy, a middle class which is disappearing, people working longer hours for lower wages, almost all new income and wealth going to the top 1 percent. And in terms of young people –

Schultz: But do you think that that tuition theme that you’ve had is…

Sanders: Absolutely. Ugh.

Schultz:… because that’s the economic component in all of this. And they’ll turn out for that if they –

Sanders: I think they will. I think they will. Look, in the year 2016, a college degree in many respects is what a high school degree was 40, 50 years ago. Our kids need it to get a decent job. I talk to kids all over this state ‒ they are deeply in debt. Talked to a kid just two days ago, he is $60,000 in debt after two years of college. That’s insane.

Schultz: Another issue, Senator, we’re 25 miles from Newton, Iowa, where Maytag – the Maytag repairman – used to be. He’s in Mexico now.

Sanders: I know.

Schultz: Those people went across the street to work at the wind plant, and they’re making half of what they used to make. I mean, is that in Iowa? I mean, isn’t it about jobs?

Sanders: I talk about it every day. And, you know, you and I know that the media does not like talking about trade, right?

Schultz: Yeah. Well, I mean, this is right in the middle of the country. And they get it?

Sanders: Oh, people get it. Absolutely they get it! I speak about it almost every speech. Look, we have lost 60,000 factories since 2001 – 60,000, millions of jobs ‒ not all of it attributable to trade, but a lot of it. Of course people get it, and they know that it’s part of the race to the bottom, it’s why the jobs ‒ just the point you made ‒ they lost good-paying jobs. Maybe they got another job, half the wages.

Schultz: If you win Iowa and New Hampshire, is it a game-changer?

Sanders: Oh, God, yes. Absolutely. I mean, I think… Look, when we began this campaign, we were a fringe campaign and Hillary Clinton was the inevitable candidate, right? That is changing, and it’s changing all over the country. We have support not only here in Iowa and New Hampshire, but in state after state we’re doing really well.

Schultz: And finally, senator, establishment…

Sanders: Huh!

Schultz: … Does that word bother you?

Sanders: (laughing)

Schultz: Because every issue that you’re on polls in the majority, yet they say, “Well, Bernie, you know, he’s not the establishment guy.” What’s the establishment?

Sanders: Well… you’re right. This is the irony. Every issue we talk about: creating jobs, raising the minimum wage, pay equity for women, making sure that the young people can go to college tuition-free at public colleges and universities, climate change, all of these issues are issues that the American people believe in! Meanwhile, you’ve got a Congress [saying], “Oh, these are terribly radical ideas!” You know what – the American people do want to ask the wealthy and the powerful to start paying their fair share of taxes.

Schultz: The people on the campaign trail, do they believe you can break up the banks? Do they believe you can do something about Wall Street?

Sanders: Oh, yeah… They do. The point that we make, over and over again, is that I can’t do it, no president can do it alone. That’s why this title, if you like, the subtext of this whole campaign is a political revolution: No one can do it alone, we need to do it together.

Schultz: We were in a grocery store earlier today, and I asked the guy who he was [planning to caucus] with, and he says, “Well, it’s Bernie because he hasn’t changed over the years. He’s talking about the same stuff today that he did 30 years ago.”

Sanders: For better or worse, that is true!

Schultz: Does that play into the trust issue?

Sanders: I think it does. Look, Secretary Clinton, you know, has “evolved” on many issues. And I think people want somebody who they know they can trust, who has been consistent on issues regarding the well-being of working families, and I think I’m that candidate.

Schultz: I know you don’t care about the “damn emails,” but the FBI does.

Sanders: (laughing) All right.

At this point, an unknown man interrupts to ask Sanders a question.

Sanders: Excuse me. Excuse me! I’m talking to him. You know, that’s not very nice.

Schultz: All right, final point: Are you having fun?

Sanders: I love, you know, it is very nice to…you know… This is a beautiful state, and I very much have enjoyed getting to know the people. We have been meeting with, we’ve had meetings now with close to 70,000 people have come out. How’s that?

Schultz: Is it, now why would it be an upset if you won?

Sanders: I mean, when you start 40 points behind, I think that is an upset.

The Return of the American Dream
| December 23, 2015 | 9:28 pm | Anarchism, political struggle | No comments

Since the dawn of the English Magna Carta, in the 15th June 1215, we have witnessed the decentralization of political and economic power which has evolved from the concentration of sole power in one person. The previous was expressed through the power of the sole monarch to rule lower subjects or the lower social classes. However, the class between the monarch and lower persons were the wealthy barons who were landowners and holders of ‘power’ property. The introduction of the liberalization of political power allowed for the parallel introduction of economic liberalization. The gradual evolution of the Magna Carta later affected the legal revolution on American soil concerning property and labor. The previous also influenced the whole world. The timeline is presented with a summarized diagram:

  • The Barons rebellion in the 15th of June 1215 created a de facto parliament. The process of liberalization has begun to take shape. The reason for the rebellion was based on a war tax to expand and control lands in France or lands outside of the English isles. The higher taxes created the impetus for the Barons’ rebellion.
  • The new Amendment into the written social contract, the charter of liberties, occurred in the 6th of November 1217. The Amendment was the inclusion, within the Magna Carta, which occurred after the brief civil war. The term “Magna Carta” was then introduced to name the written social contract or document.
  • In 1354, The Liberty of Subject Act was included into the Magna Carta or Great Charter.
  • In 1351 and 1603, the Statutes of Labourers gave workers legal rights and decentralized or liberalized further the concentration of economic power.
  • In the 7th of June 1628, the Petition of Right was included into the charter.
  • In the 27th of May 1679, Habeas Corpus Act was included which guaranteed due process of law for English subjects. The phrase “habeas corpus” literally means deliver the body to court.
  • In the 16th of December 1689, Bill of Rights, was included as an Amendment into the Magna Carta or Great Charter. The English Bill of Rights was a blueprint for Virginia colony’s Bill of Rights and later Virginia’s Bill of Rights became a guidepost for the American or federal Bill of Rights. The reigning English monarchs – William and Mary – presided over the passage of the Bill of Rights.
  • In 1787, The American federal constitution was formed after the decade disaster of the Articles of Confederation. The Bill of Rights then adopted through the previous template from Virginia’s colony charter and the English of Bill of Rights. The previous Bill of Rights still gave the states more rights over the federal government concerning the rights of persons within state jurisdiction (It was after the American civil war, through the 14th Amendment in 1868, were state rights were curtailed concerning persons in favor of more federal protections concerning persons). The events of Shay’s rebellion, in 1786 and 1787, within the state of Massachusetts exacerbated the political event concerning the ratification of a national constitution. The meaning of “factions” within federalist papers #10 should be highlighted because it addresses the problem of selfish economic factions undermining the integrity of the American nation.
  • In the 7th of June 1832, The Great Reform Act was supported by the English monarch William the fourth.

The above evidence suggests that the Labor (union) entity is an essential part of the decentralization of power. It prevents the corruption of power especially from the holders of ‘power’ property by redistributing the wealth created by labor itself. The very same concern, the misapplication of increased taxes, was addressed later by Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations. In his treatise, Adam Smith addressed how the English monarch during his era (1776, the same year of the American declaration of Independence and the beginning of the American Articles of Confederation which lasted almost a decade), collected unreasonably, a war tax to preserve and control the expansive English territories. Adam Smith proposed, in his conclusion through his treatise, that business firms should operate freely without taxation as the previous action would usher in a world without war. It should be noted, this is the result of liberalization but in favor of the business firms over the workers. He suggested that the possible large supply of unemployed workers would allow new business firms to hire the mentioned unemployed workers. The problem with the previous is that business firms, at times, do not hire so it could accumulate wealth or increase its money supply over the supply of workers. The next strategy, adopted by business firms, is to hire cheap labor or rather hire below minimum wage. The previous is the reason why there should exist, in every nation, the existence of a robust labor union entity which would preserve the flow of wealth into the rest of the citizenry. In the introduction of his economic treatise, Adam Smith said: Wealth is Power. He repeated a paraphrase by his contemporary – Thomas Hobbes. Thomas Hobbes, in Leviathan, was arguing for the existence of the state entity which is, today, a shell of the previous monarchic structure. A democratically functioning labor union entity prevents the formation of a concentrated tyrannical regime, fueled by the concentration of political and economic power, and its preliminary danger. The preliminary danger; by the ruling class or the power elite, was the exact problem addressed in federalist #10 in 1787 by James Madison:

 

By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.

 

The issue today is the existence of anti-labor legislation which has been fueled by the gross negligence of ignorance. The ignorance of Reaganomics, or supply-side economics, has only increased the spectacle of social rebellions. Social rebellions, like the earlier shay’s rebellion, could undermine a liberal democracy in favor of a reactionary conservative political structure. The mechanism of Reaganomics is to prevent heavy taxation on the business firms or corporations because such imposition would gradually eliminate the formation of businesses and the operations of current business firms. Art Laffer, the creator of the graph presented, presented a guidepost for fiscal conservative public policy. The supply-side curve was a presentation against the existence of labor unions. The graph, even though misunderstood by then American President Ronald Reagan and many economic conservatives, was applied in part to crush the leftist movements:

 

 

 

 

The previous, at various times after the era of President Reagan, was reflected in the public policy of both Democratic and Republican presidents or political regimes. Part of the argument, proposed by those following Reaganomics or supply-side economics, is that labor unions are part of the tax scheme. In other words, labor unions are a “tax” on the actual operations of businesses. The previous is the problem with fiscal economic conservatives because such thinking has resulted in less productivity and in the increase of real unemployment. According to the graph, hypothetically, it could be argued that there is an optimal rate to maximize an ideal result. However, the previous is practically highly improbable to achieve. The practical result has been unreasonable lower tax rates for business firms therefore reducing national revenue for public projects. The propaganda of Reaganomics actually created an imbalance and even introduced a violation of the supply-side hypothesis presented above. The previous is a reflection of the disastrous public policy existing in all nations to this day to reduce or even eliminate labor unions. The result, the increased possibility of social rebellions because of the dramatic increase of real unemployment – a prediction by Karl Marx expressed in the previous. The inclusion of labor unions, within the tension of both the state and business firm entities, is to prevent any shift in the direction of either total state control or total corporate control of society through public policy. The contentious question, between Karl Marx and Adam Smith, is who controls the flow of capital or money? For Karl Marx it is the state (under the control of the workers) and for Adam Smith it should be the business firms (without any tax imposed on them). In The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte by Karl Marx he explains the antagonism between two entities:

 

The peculiar character of the Social-Democracy is epitomized in the fact that democratic-republican institutions are demanded as a means, not of doing away with two extremes, capital and wage labor, but of weakening their antagonism and transforming it into harmony.

 

According to Karl Marx, the harmonization is the root cause of massive unemployment and misery. The real question is when the mass of misery accumulates into open social rebellion? Another question formulated is how the existence of labor unions prevents the build-up of social rebellions? The previous suggestion is not the inclusive harmonization of the labor union entity but rather its empowerment to then control both the state and business firms into creating social stability.

The Art Laffer curve theory, or as it is called supply-side economics or Reaganomics, has resulted in more concentration of wealth. The overall damage is the reduction of the labor union entity from existing either in the framework of old businesses or new businesses. The previous trend, for many years after President Reagan, occurred in both types of sectors – private and public. The trend also exists whether the business firm operates in an elastic or inelastic market. The tragic decrease of Labor unions correlates with the decrease of the middle class also resulting in the increased polarization of two classes – the rich top and the poor bottom half:

If we are to observe the early American tradition, and English tradition deriving from the Magna Carta, then the idea of supply-side economics is a subversion of natural liberalization. We, as human beings, have progressed too far to regress to an earlier stage of political and economic development. The American experiment is an expression of that later stage of development as it prevented the concentration of power despite its earlier and modern imperfections. The American experiment has survived despite the attempt, by the power elite, to transform the American republic into an oligarchy. The increase of (real) unemployment creates instability and not just a supply of human capital or an available supply of workers for the business firm. The condition of the American experiment, again, is in peril not from regional “king cotton” separatists or colonial religious factions but from irresponsible multinational corporations or global business firms. By behavior, these business firms, through economic operations, exist as separate nations. I am proposing that their behavior is a subversion of the American political tradition, the universal work ethic, social values and common sense. The factional behavior is destroying not only the economic integrity of the United States but also the world. Karl Marx expressed, and predicted accordingly, that such behavior destroys the fabric of the family and therefore the root of social values – preservation of the family. Through the years, the American experiment has shrugged off its reactionaries and regressive elements in favor of progress.

 

The American experiment is the tradition of the American founding persons (rather than “fathers”). In contrast, to the “counter-tradition” – American destiny, which is an extension of religious determinism and the language of the religious class which were part of the dangerous factions expressed, previously, in Federalist number ten. One major feature, and evidence of the previous, concerning the American experiment, is when the elected president addresses congress noted in Article Two Section Three of the United States Constitution. The function of the U.S. President addressing U.S. Congress, is to present the state of the union or rather to address the current condition of the American experiment. The president is rather presenting the material condition of the American community and if the current public policies are succeeding or failing. Therefore, what is the acceptable alternative concerning the inclusion of the labor union entity as a functioning variable between the state and business firm entities?

For the true meaning of commune is addressed from the previous American experiment and experience said by James Madison in Federalist number ten:

“…the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.”

The Commune is the community of individuals working to alleviate the human condition for generation into generations through the pursuit, and preservation, of happiness. Karl Marx addressed this through his doctorate dissertation when explaining the beliefs of Epicurus. In The Difference Between the Democritean and Epicurean Philosophy of Nature, Karl Marx, highlights the modern meaning of “commune” and “community” by reviewing the ancient Greek philosophers mentioned in the title – Democritus (The founder of modern science) and Epicurus (The founder of the happiness commune). Nevertheless, the modern communist expands the meaning of both commune and community by including all of humanity, and the natural environment, through the combined workforce or organized mobilization of global labor. Therefore, the communist, by default, is an internationalist. Epicurus of Samos pursued happiness but never encountered the issue of mass production and mass introduction of new technologies into society. Epicurus, as an ancient communist, was never concerned with the operations, and the apparatus, of the state entity. Karl Marx, through modern and scientific communism, was advocating the supremacy of the workers to shape and control public policy which is the root of human happiness:

 

The attainment of true labor happiness depends on the absence of social alienation by the removals of hierarchic investiture and its complimentary companion – wages. The meaning of “social” alienation, formed through economic exchange, is when the output of the manufacturing process is made into a profit scheme for the enrichment of the business entity. In other words, the output or final product, manufactured through the hands of the workers, is sold on the marketplace and the profits are given to the owner(s) of the business firms. The reasoning for the removal, or complete elimination, of wages is because it reinforces the social and mass psychological condition of alienation through an imposed social hierarchic structure or the social class economy. In other words, wages, deriving from profits, create social unhappiness among the workers. In a controlled political and social environment such feelings of alienation will produce anti-social behaviors connected to criminal activity. Furthermore, in less controlled social environments it would create the impetus for social rebellions. The role of wages to create the social structure or hierarchic investiture is a reinforcing mechanism which must be broken by the will of the vanguard of labor. The vanguard of labor is the communist party members and cadre leadership. The purpose of the vanguard of labor is to educate, mobilize and act for the liberation of the human commune from the bondages of upper strata capital. The social and economic bondages, and limitations to happiness, are capitalism. The meaning of wealth (“% Distribution of Wealth”) is understood not to be directly from profits, which creates wages, but rather the manifestation of social wealth. The political scientist, Robert D. Putnam, in Bowling Alone terms this manifestation as social capital:

Financial capital – the wherewithal for mass marketing – has steadily replaced social capital – that is, grassroots citizen networks – as the coin of the realm.

 

The vanguard of the human commune – the communist party – is to educate and mobilize the labor entity. To safeguard its survival during the onslaught of the modern example of the poverty of philosophy – the Art Laffer curve hypothesis. The salvation of the labor entity, which is part of the holy trinity of property power, depends on the raising of social consciousness. The elevation of social consciousness comes through the previously mentioned methods by order: Educate, Mobilize, and Action (through voting out the parties representing financial capital – capitalism).

 

The Endpoint product of the Communist Party

 

The previous solution to remove the irresponsible factions, destroying the general human commune, is to uncover the shroud of enlightenment. The remedy is similar to the individualistic Epicurean Tetrapharmakos method but for society at large. Identical to the manufacturing process and the political Black Box theory, presented by the political scientist – David Easton in 1953, the communist party presents the cure to the illness plaguing humanity – capitalism:

  1. The gradual elimination of all wages
  2. The complete federalization of all public agencies.
  3. The communization of all manufacturing industries.
  4. The impeachment of all corrupt officials, including communists, who violate the human rights of citizens or persons. Rule of law and the commune social contract emphasized throughout society along with the punctuated equilibrium between America’s First Amendment rights – Free Exercise clause and the Establishment clause.
  5. The gradual elimination of private property with exception to intellectual property (which will result in no profit).
  6. The communization of the space industry which compliments the introduction of BACT (Best Available Control Technology), to earth based manufacturing industries, to eliminate pollution. The previous reinforces Simon Kuznets’ curve theory and Barry Commoner’s laws of ecology concerning the dynamics between the technosphere and biosphere/ecosphere. The encouragement of new industries, with recycling industries, which offer products to reduce pollution concerning planet earth (spaceship planet earth model).
  7. The enforcement of a communized health system with an expansive Patient’s Bill of Rights. However, with the inclusion of third-party payers recommendations. The previous would answer the scarcity question by limiting, scientifically, individual human consumption.
  8. The establishment of new nationalized industries which offer products to increase and improve the health of persons. The previous would mean the establishment of a centralized and communized food bank in cooperation with the federalized Health department. One card will be issued by the combined departments of Social Security and Health department.
  9. The elimination of private banking with its replacement by a centralized and communized bank system – state capitalism. Nevertheless, the previous only exists when there are wages. This is only temporary because the complete abolishment of wages means the complete elimination of banking (including central banking), taxation, and eventually private property. The previous, private banking, a negative side-effect of the liberalization of feudal political power presented earlier.
  10. The reasoning for the temporary existence of state capitalism would mean the necessary defense of the commune against threats around the globe which are in the control of ‘The dictatorship of the bourgeoisie’. According to Alexis De Tocqueville (agreeing with Niccolo Machiavelli), the previous would be a difficult task because of the power, of the modern barons, to gather resources to wage war is easier and quicker. Therefore, the global modern barons must be converted, initially through persuasion, by their polar opposites – ‘The dictatorship of the proletariat’.

 

The previously mentioned ten remedies, Dekapharmakos, are without the application of new technologies deriving from the functions, and outputs, of the business firms. The ten declarations also make the human being the prime priority over property. The previous ten declarations, a necessary legal revolution, would usher in the next social revolution throughout the world. Even though, the United States of America is addressed, it is the starting point to communize the rest of the world. The reason – United States of America – is the center of global commerce and its capitalistic industrial foundation is ideal for the Marxist principles to flourish and succeed.

 

The Theory of Conflict in America’s founding documents

 

Even in the Declaration of Independence, before the nineteen or several expressed grievances, the “pursuit of happiness” principle is given:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

 

The part mentioned in the United States constitution with a few exceptions tested and proven after 1776. It could be properly theorized if the writers were influenced, in some form, by the principles of Democritus and Epicurus? The previous ancient Greek philosophers influenced some of the American founders? Influenced the ones in favor of people over property? It is known, historically, the document was a compromise between property owners and those favoring individual liberty. In other words, slave holders versus non-slave holders. There were two political parties favored by the founders: Federalist and Democratic-Republican. Evidence of class conflict is known in at least two major historical events: Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 and the Dorr rebellion in 1842. These are the main two events besides the later American civil war (in which Karl Marx had written extensively).

First, the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 ended in the complete removal, from the political scene, one of the founding political parties – The Federalist Party. The Federalist Party favored centralized government but it had a strong relationship with bankers and private venture capitalists. The party members were also authors of the set of documents – The Federalist Papers. There are many hints, throughout the American constitution, of their presence. The early American exercise of ‘War Communism’ was exhibited through the law making function of the legislative branch under the control of the Federalist Party. The issue of conflict was based on competing partisan politics expressed through the newspapers. These were four bills, the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, which were passed through Congress and then signed by a Federalist partisan president – John Adams. It attacked critics of the Federalist controlled government and its “quasi war” with France. The result of such legislation created a backlash in which the Federalist Party never recovered because in the next general election voters overwhelmingly favored the Democratic-Republican Party. The issue was the attack against First Amendment rights which preserved dialogue and the social experiment concerning the exchange of ideas. The Communist Party of America, and the communist vanguard world-wide, must not repeat the mistakes of the Federalist Party. The previous social experiment, free exchange of ideas, was applied years later by the people’s lawyer – Supreme Court Judge Louis Brandeis. The exchange of ideas, through his example, presents how open scientific analysis allows mistake to be avoided and reasonable solutions to be adopted especially in the area of public policy. He called it – Laboratories of democracy – a process which allows states, within the federal union or framework, to apply specific characteristics to a general law. The scientific method has been proven when the example is given: It has been proven through the epoch of history that such policies do not work at the state level, so it should not work at the federal level. However, successful state and local laws are then adopted at the federal level. The method is also expressed in the Tenth Amendment and so the scientific method is traced back to Democritus.

Second, the next conflict was highlighted by the Rhode Island episode where non-property holders were denied voting privileges – Luther v. Borden (1849). Rhode Island’s state charter followed a statute from 1663(evidently a colonial statue deriving from the English monarch) which only allowed those to vote who possessed land value totaling $134. During that particular time, the majority of citizens, were rural farmers and could participate in voting. Many years later, after the introduction of industrialization, many migrated to urban centers. The majority of those persons who migrated to these urban centers were from other nations seeking employment. The later generations of immigrants became legal Americans and were permitted to vote but not eligible to vote because of the 1663 statute. The cost of voting, $134, was relatively high for those making minimum wage especially those living and working at the urban centers with exception of the business owners. The grievances by the working class were high concerning the colonial statute and they claimed it was unconstitutional. The state legislature (general assembly) attempted to liberalize the state constitution by eliminating the colonial statutes by removing property requirements for voting. The attempts failed based on partisan politics. The grievances turned into open social rebellion resulting in the Dorr rebellion. It almost lead to an early civil war originating from the North East which involved voting privileges based on property value. President Tyler almost sent federal troops to eliminate the rebellion because Rhode Island’s charter, and legislative procedure, is considered constitutional by the Federal constitution. The leader of the rebellion, Thomas Wilson Dorr, was a practicing lawyer and later state assembly person. During the rebellion he formed a ‘People’s Party’ and drafted a parallel state constitution which allowed voting rights for non-property landowners (the urban population). Martin Luther was a follower of Thomas W. Dorr and claimed that his property and house was illegally searched by the state of Rhode Island. Luther M. Borden was a state official searching his residence and while searching damaged some of Martin Luther’s property. Martin Luther claimed the Fourth Amendment while the actions of Luther M. Borden are based on the federal constitution of Article One Section Nine and the state constitution of Rhode Island involving public safety provision. Eventually, the lawsuit entered the Supreme Court, Luther v. Borden, but it was decided or ruled that the Supreme Court could not interfere in matters involving state legislation (law making powers) and executive decisions (extension of administrative rule making powers). In other words, a ruling which preserved the separation of powers doctrine between the three separate branches of government. Furthermore, according to the court, if the court interfered the decision would have led to the judiciary branch becoming the only branch of government through its rulings. Such action created a legal precedent of the Political Question Doctrine which is to prevent any violations concerning the separation of powers. Later, the Fourteenth Amendment, which enjoins the equal protection clause, would protect individual citizens from state encroachment on individual liberties. The previous could be observed in the Declaration of Independence:

 

…any form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new Government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

 

Even though, addressed to the English monarch, it could be applied to a state or federal government which is denying human rights to its citizens. The Communist Party’s goal is to alter the government rather than to abolish it. The foundations of the American constitution are ideal principles which could improve with the goals of the human commune. It is the duty of the American Congress, based on Article One Section 8 to promote science:

 

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

 

Even though, the previous promotes intellectual property rights, the passage expresses the demotion of religious beliefs to guide public policy. Most importantly, it allows the development of the nationalized-communized space program. The previous mention, of the absence of religion in the government process, is the next step in the American Laboratories of Democracy. The reason is because Article Six of the United States Constitution elaborates and implies the separation of Religion and State:

 

…but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

 

The problem of the natural aristocracy to prevent the next step, in social evolution, has been noted by Alexis De Tocqueville. The main question should be if there is a need for a transformative political revolution? Through the Laboratory of History, the observance has been made by Karl Marx, and even Max Weber (Karl Emil Maximilian “Max” Weber – The founder of modern sociology), that religion is embedded within the modern state governments. Karl Marx has noted this problem as the social “idols”: Religion and its complimentary Government. The disagreement between Karl Marx and Max Weber has to do with the origin of the previously mentioned “idols”. The evidence of the previous could be noted in the writings of John Locke, The Second Treatise of Government, where the intertwining of religion and state was expressly solidified through legal actions and legal interpretations by redefining “nature”, and the introduction of “property” along with the concept of natural rights, in the chapter – Of the State of Nature:

 

The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one; and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consul it, that, being all equal, and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions. For men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent and infinitely wise Maker – all the servants of one sovereign Master, sent into the world by his order, and about his business – they are his property,…

The American founding persons knew this because it was stated in the Declaration of Independence concerning the passage mentioning the “pursuit of Happiness”. For example, the notion of natural rights is “divinely” given rather than the mention of human rights. Human right obviously came years later after scientific discoveries. However, the issue of private property continues but John Locke rather mixes two concepts of natural rights and utilitarianism with private property rights in the initial chapter ‘An essay concerning the true original, extent and end of Civil Government’:

Political power, then, I take to be a right of making laws with penalties of death, and consequently all less penalties, for the regulating and preserving of property, and of employing the force of the community in the executing of such laws and in the defence of the commonwealth from foreign injury; and all this only for the public good.

This is misleading for many readers and the concept is outdated. The concept of natural rights is intertwined with the established natural aristocracy and the complimentary religiously guided government. Therefore, the ruling social class is supported by the two idols – established social religion and the religiously guided government. The ruling class, the top social class, is the natural aristocracy. The natural aristocracy, during the time of the Magna Carta, was the rebellious land owning Barons. During the time of Alexis de Tocqueville, in the 1800s, it was the industrial manufacturing owning class who employed many workers. The workers, pooled from the poor class, became the middle class.

 

Democracy in America?

 

Alexis De Tocqueville, the author of Democracy in America, wrote a book detailing his comparative political observations of the American experiment during the time of President Martin Van Buren’s administration (1837-1841). The one term administration, Van Buren’s administration, was tarnished by the Jacksonian era monetary policy in diminishing the banks by issuing, through executive order, the Specie Circular. The previous action created panics at the banks and riots at major cities. It also created an economic depression which caused Martin van Buren to lose the next election to the Whig party. It was within the previous social framework in which Alexis De Tocqueville wrote his book – Democracy in America – where he identified, through comparative study, the identity of the modern natural aristocracy. He compared the effects of the French and American revolutions during the dawn of industrialization. He compared how the equality of property (French revolution) and the equality of persons (American revolution) differed during the early onslaught of the industrial revolution. There were many predictions he offered in his conclusion and one prediction suggested that the power of the natural aristocracy would negatively alter the orientation of governments. The alteration would be guided by the natural aristocracy to form an oligarchy. Under the chapter – How an Aristocracy may be created by Manufactures – he presents the danger to democracy:

 

The territorial aristocracy of former ages was either bound by law, or thought itself bound by usage, to come to the relief of its serving-men and to relieve their distresses. But the manufacturing aristocracy of our age first impoverishes and debases the men who serve it and then abandons them to be supported by the charity of the public. This is a natural consequence of what has been said before. Between the workman and the master there are frequent relations, but no real association.

I am of the opinion, on the whole, that the manufacturing aristocracy which is growing up under our eyes is one of the harshest that ever existed in the world; but at the same time it is one of the most confined and least dangerous. Nevertheless, the friends of democracy should keep their eyes anxiously fixed in this direction; for if ever a permanent inequality of conditions and aristocracy again penetrates into the world, it may be predicted that this is the gate by which they will enter.

 

Alexis was presenting that the modern barons (natural aristocracy) are now, mostly, the owners of the manufacturing business firms. They are the natural aristocracy because of the social diffusion of property falls mostly within their hands. These few possessors of (private) property are then the true political powers behind the throne of a sitting a monarch. The previous was a description of the feudal system. Alexis was showing how this system continues through the dawning of the (urban) manufacturing age. The earlier showcase of Rhode Island’s Dorr rebellion shows how the agrarian rural barons could easily invest capital to become manufacturing urban barons. In fact, Tocqueville’s book was published in 1840 and Dorr’s rebellion occurred in 1842. The prediction has become true through the (mis)application of the Laffer curve hypothesis. Alexis also presents the problem of administrative tyranny but again this observation was done during an economic depression caused by the previous Democratic president – Andrew Jackson – through his executive order for the Specie Circular. The executive order was a tactic to enforce the gold standard and exchange of public land through gold and silver rather than paper money. The previous shows us the problem with wages. This is why Karl Marx mentions in The Poverty of Philosophy: “Money is not a thing, it is a social relation”. The meaning is simple, not every citizen could carry gold and silver as currency for exchanges. It is a summary to Proudhon’s observation (which is a copy of what Adam Smith suggested as well) that true value is in gold and silver. President Jackson’s Specie Circular executive order actually exposed the issue – only a few individuals could attain gold and silver. This in itself created a top class over others. The current system, involving paper money, has more possessors but always more at the bottom (Real Unemployment figures). Hence, the creation of a class system in which a natural aristocracy is at the top of the pyramid scheme. The Anti-Federalist papers also predicted such problems before the dawn of the Federal constitution. The Anti-Federalist papers were written by members of the Democratic-Republican Party. In its first publication, the Anti-Federalist papers, attacked the supporters of the now vanquished Federalist Party – bankers and private venture capitalists. They used the term “aristocracy” to describe them in representing the formation of a centralized government in AntiFederalist Paper #1 – General Introduction: A Dangerous Plan of Benefit Only to The “Aristocratick Combination.” The summary of the Anti-Federalist paper is that the natural aristocracy’s influences the voting pattern of the legislative body – the origin of law making. Nevertheless, the Anti-Federalist Papers, also favors decentralization by its mention of preserving the Articles of Confederation and many other failed social experiments. Furthermore, both body of works (Federalist papers and Anti-Federalist papers) actually mention the dangers of the aristocratic combinations. The book by Alexis actually predicts the undoing of democracy by the powerful few who have property to redefine the legal structures of a democratic society – Power Property. During the era of the Jacksonian economic depression, through his book, observed the creation of administrative tyranny. In other words, the Jacksonian era ushered in a manufacturing natural aristocracy and the new leviathan entity through administrative despotism. Nevertheless, the prediction continues, accurately, to include what is tyranny and its redefinition of wealth through a form of equalization or ‘universal moderation’ in the chapter ‘What sort of Despotism democratic nations have to fear’:

When no member of the community has much power or much wealth, tyranny is, as it were, without opportunities and a field of action. As all fortunes are scanty, the passions of men are naturally circumscribed, their imagination limited, their pleasures simple. This universal moderation moderates the sovereign himself and checks within certain limits the inordinate stretch of his desires.

 

The universal moderation seems to counter Adam Smith’s universal opulence prediction, where the business firms mostly controlled by the natural aristocracy, redistributes wealth to the rest of society. Is there a middle ground or a diffusion of both? Alexis’ prediction seems to suggest that universal moderation will become the norm because of the people’s reaction to inequality. Alexis goes further and presents that inequality creates the environment for tyranny. There are two social phenomenas described by Alexis: high social inequality by the actions of the natural aristocracy and the advent of administrative despotism. It could be theorized, but not proven, that the introduction of the manufacturing aristocracy created administrative despotism. Rather it could be two separate trends and administrative despotism, a necessary evil, was born through the actions of executive decree. Nevertheless, proven to be a necessary evils, the natural aristocracy and the administrative bureaucracy, may only be abolished by a separate force – labor power. Such abolishment could only be initiated by a political alteration. The diagram is presented showing the place of the American experiment in the overall Laboratory of history:

 

 

The Middle Class Standard

The feudal monarchial governments produced, through social tumults, its liberal twin off-springs – The American revolution and The French revolution. Both twins of democracy were born through liberalization. The revolutions detail the preservation of property through an outdated form of identifying nature – natural rights. The political liberalization also accompanied an economic liberalization of society. The creation of labor unions and trade guilds were also the result of liberalization which was necessary for the next step of social evolution. Part of the previous process was the creation, deriving from the natural aristocracy, a modern manufacturing aristocracy. The earlier showcase concerning the state of Rhode Island, political demographic change occurring during the Dorr rebellion, highlights radical social transformation from rural power to urban power. The previous presents the power of the natural aristocracy, and its tool of money (capital), to alter the orientations of government. The creation of the middle class occurred through the massive employment, of the lower poor class, through the visible hand of the aristocracy. The previous example, again, was highlighted through the historical demographic change of Rhode Island. The increase of the middle class only occurred when labor unions, and its social voices, challenged the bourgeois controlled system. The increase of the middle class created a bulge of wealth which could be properly described as Adam Smith’s “universal opulence” in The Wealth of Nations under the opening chapter – Of the Division of Labour:

 

It is the great multiplication of the productions of all the different arts, in consequence of the division of labour, which occasions, in a well-governed society, that universal opulence which extends itself to the lowest ranks of the people….a general plenty diffuses itself through all the different ranks of the society.

 

According to Thomas Paine, in Rights of Man, the French revolution not only expanded the rights of man but attempted to equalize the conditions of its citizens. Thomas Paine also repeated the same observations given by John Locke concerning the origins of the rights of persons. Thomas Paine repeats the notion of natural rights and even openly declares these rights derive from a Creator or Supreme Being. The previous noted in the opening Declaration for the new French national assembly. The difference between the two is Thomas Paine’s mention of civil rights and public utility for the common person. The previous is a notion of the idea of “equal property” accompanying equal rights. The return of the American Dream occurs at several stages but first its initial stage: 1. the increased number of labor unions, 2. the increase of wages, 3. the accumulation of capital and property by the middle class, 4. the creation of alternative industries mentioned earlier in the Dekapharmakos.

The previous is the initial stages and necessary as part of the complete social and transformative process ahead. Simon Kuznets has developed a diagram showing that environmental degradation and the increase of wealth are correlated:

 

The increase of wages allows the consumer to purchase environmentally friendly products therefore assisting in the lowering of prices for the mentioned products. In reaction, most harmful products, and their companies, would be forced out of the market. These are the manifestation of positive externalities. The process is known as a positive result of network externalities by bypassing the problem of switching costs. This is how labor is a more valuable standard than currency metals (gold and silver). The previous was presented, in several parts, by Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nation under the chapter – Real and Nominal Price of Commodities:

Labour was the first price, the original purchase-money that was paid for all things. It was not by gold and silver, but by labour, that all the wealth of the world was originally purchased…

Labour alone therefore, never varying in its own value, is alone the ultimate and real standard by which the value of all commodities can at all times and places be estimated and compared. It is their real price; money is their nominal price only …The labourer is rich or poor, is well or ill rewarded in proportion to the real, not to the nominal price of his labour…

Labour, therefore, it appears evidently, is the only universal, as well as the only accurate measure of value, or the only standard by which we can compare the values of different commodities at all times and at all places

 

The previous presents the following conclusion for the owners of the business firms (modern barons or the natural aristocracy): Labor à Wages à Profit à Taxation à National Revenue.

The previous, in the process, created the middle class. The increase of Labor will increase the rest from left to right. The process reaches the second stage when all positive externalities reach critical mass. Most businesses involved in the development of negative externalities will be eliminated through the purchasing power of the consumer (citizens/labor force/persons) by purchasing alternative “positive” externalities. The presentation has now discredited the conservative theory of supply-side economics or the Laffer curve hypothesis. The previous could be supported, historically, by the high tax rate in the 1950s when the United States also had a high number of labor unions. Simon Kuznets also has another curve showing the social transformation of society from an agrarian sector to industrial base and into a service based economy. It is best to attain all three before advancing into the next stage.

The stage is the lowering of the red line of Power Property until it equates with both edges of one ruler and the rule of many on the opposite side. The previous means that the natural aristocracy would no longer exist and this signals the victory of labor and the establishment of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. The next stage starts with Dekapharmakos number one: The gradual and then complete elimination of all wages.