NationStates Jolt Archive

Due to an increasing threat from communists and terrorism, we have decided that it is necessary to join in an Alliance to defend our rights.

Please post if you are interested and I will review your nation.


Benefits for Capitalist Alliance-
Free Trade

Military Aid in Case of Attack

I wish to apply to join this Alliance, communists are throwing their weight around far too much.

No-one else wish to enter a right-wing alliance?

bump
Rufai, you are accepted.

I would join as well. I am no fan of gun control or of gay marriage.

You Terribly fools. Enemies of the greatest system of human nature. You, all of you will burn for your horrid opposition of the Grand Soviet Order. An alliance against communism, HA! Unclean infidels. WE will smite your nations with one fell swoop of our mighty fists! :x

Count me in.



Let us rise to the call of freedom-loving blood that is in us and send our answer to the tyranny that clanks its chains upon our people. In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny . . . and I say . . . freedom today . . . freedom tomorrow . . . freedom forever.

Japanese Antarctica holds conservative policies and wishes to join this alliance.

Japanese Antartica and FWS are both approved

Bohravia also wishes to join this alliance.

Is this alliance in support of peace and prosperity, and against terrorism and genocide?

Is this alliance in support of peace and prosperity, and against terrorism and genocide?

Precisely... It stands for the same values its members do.

Thats excellent. I created an alliance very similar to this known as the WWA (The Westwood Alliance). Because of your support for peace and prosperity, and frowning upon terrorism and genocide...I would like to create an friendship (once you get this new alliance set up) between the two. This will help get a more united effort for all that is just in the world.

-President Branam of Jarridia

FWS is currently spending 10 billion dollars to set up SAM sites, AAA, early warning radar, and other crucial air defense systems. Also about 5 billion will be spent on hardened hangars for much of the FWS air force.


If allies here wish to help... It would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you.

You Terribly fools. Enemies of the greatest system of human nature. You, all of you will burn for your horrid opposition of the Grand Soviet Order. An alliance against communism, HA! Unclean infidels. WE will smite your nations with one fell swoop of our mighty fists! :x

:lol:

This should be interesting.

Bohravia is accepted.

The Holy Empire of the Germanic people heeds your call and is ready to join if accepted. Heil Fuhrer!

The Holy Empire of the Germanic people heeds your call and is ready to join if accepted. Heil Fuhrer!

Accepted

The Socialist States of Ystaevae is waiting to be welcomed in the alliance

The Socialist States of Ystaevae is waiting to be welcomed in the alliance

I have to see you loosen up on the economy first, after i see an improvement you are in.

[Tagged :: Courtesy of the Red Bloc Army]

A stark economy is needed in time of war and especially needed in offering supplies. We are far from Nazism but still have values close to its doctrin

Rufai is pleased to see that nations are joining this alliance.

Light red Germany sends its application as a conservative nation to the right wing alliane.

I Hans Nightshade of the oppressed people of the will destroy all, would like to join your coalition of Right winged extremeists. I would like to add that my nation is currently mining a large deposit of Uranium so I believe that my nation could prove to be an asset.

Hans Nightshade

Exalted ruler of the oppresed peoples of I will Destroy All

Factories and Corporations are continuingly building war munitions for our nation. I am asking again consider me as part of an allience. I am willing to annihilate any Communist faction that poses threat to our welfare.

Factories and Corporations are continuingly building war munitions for our nation. I am asking again consider me as part of an allience. I am willing to annihilate any Communist faction that poses threat to our welfare.

You are accepted.

bump

Am I accepted? I've already won a war.

Light Red Germany and I will destroy all are both accepted.

The Federation of Morathania would like to become part of this alliance. Thank you
Colin Wixted
President of the Federation
Federation of Morathania

OOC: I hate those UN ratings. I am avowedly not a Socialist (I HATE SOCIALISM AND COMMUNISM) but my country rating is democratic socialist. I will try to put it on the RIGHT path (figuratively and literaly).

Your in as a probationary member. IF I see improvement you will become a full memeber.

Current Members:
Magdha
Fascist White States
Japanese Antarctica
Bohravia
The Germanic People
Light Red Germany
Ystaevae
I Will Destroy All
Moranthia

You shouldn't doubt the power of communism at the end of the Soviet Union almost 2.5 Billion people world wide were being ruled in the perfect nations of communists. If you want this alliance to go ahead then put at across your message but be warned many communist regions exist and are extremly powerful!

You shouldn't doubt the power of communism at the end of the Soviet Union almost 2.5 Billion people world wide were being ruled in the perfect nations of communists. If you want this alliance to go ahead then put at across your message but be warned many communist regions exist and are extremly powerful!

And the power of communism is why we oppose it.

Who else desires to rid the world of communism?

Well, the vast majority of them tend to be godmoders (most of them claim that Communists have the ability to deflect missiles, Matrix-style), but you can sign me up anyway.

Shildonia is accepted.

We, of the Armed Republic of Voderlund would like to join your great alliance. We have not yet begun to build a standing army, but have a well armed national gaurd and the premier air force.

Mayhew Jacobs
First Speaker


OOC How does designing stuff work here?

You are accepted.

I would like to join. The Jingoistic Sates of the Huac is strongly anti communist, and of late we have been suffering from attacks by anticapitalist terrorist groups. We would like to join to increase our internal security, as well as to help rid the world of the red scourge.

Is this alliance in support of peace and prosperity, and against terrorism and genocide?

It's an alliance against communism. Which is futile, since alliances against an economic system all fail within a week, and the nation that started it gets laughed at.

I would like to join. The Jingoistic Sates of the Huac is strongly anti communist, and of late we have been suffering from attacks by anticapitalist terrorist groups. We would like to join to increase our internal security, as well as to help rid the world of the red scourge.

Accepted

The Sultan of Turkey Would like to join this anti Communist Allaince and with him will come his people the Sultanite of Turkey and Cyprus.
We May have Private enterprises Banned but that is To make sure Coraparations don't become to powerful and rip our country apart.
We have been Plauged by Marxist kurds rebels wish to terrorize our people and shatter our Nation. Last Year THe Grand Vizer, right hand to our Great Sultan Was almost Poisined by member of these Internal Groups. We wish to fight the Red Scourge of the Hammer and Sickle with OUR Red scourge of the Crescent and Star. We will do whatever we can to aid you in your fight

Vizer of State, Serhat Omar
The Sultanite Of Turkey and Cyprus

I would like to join this alliance because we I am a deeply conservative nation and i feel the communist are trying to boss all the capitilist into doing what they want so count me in. Commie imperialist it is because of them Eastern Europe sucks so bad.

Turkey and Cyprus you are accepted.

Yugoslavia is accepted.

The Grassroots would like to join this alliance. We attempted to form an alliance, but Communist Louisiana declared war on us. We were formerly in the region of 1969 Anti-Communist Alliance.

The Grassroots would like to join this alliance. We attempted to form an alliance, but Communist Louisiana declared war on us. We were formerly in the region of 1969 Anti-Communist Alliance.

You are accepted.

OOC: will we have to move to a specific Region, and will i be notified if a War Agaisnt a Comunst nation is to take place?
ALSO
is it just called the Anti-Communist Allaince or willl it become the Leauge of Anti Socailist States or something of the like?

I am interested in this "Alliance".

The Minister of Defense and N00kz for the Überkapitaliztrepublik stared at the report about an 'Anti-Communist Alliance'. He groaned as he finished reading, and said, "Don't they realize that n00kz work better than alliances?"

OOC: :P

I am interested in this "Alliance".

Accepted

The Minister of Defense and N00kz for the Überkapitaliztrepublik stared at the report about an 'Anti-Communist Alliance'. He groaned as he finished reading, and said, "Don't they realize that n00kz work better than alliances?"

OOC: :P

Accepted

seriously. what do expect to accomplish here? i thought these threads had finally come to an end, as they are never successful.

This alliance can't be taken seriously.

This alliance can't be taken seriously.

good point.

The best way to confront the socializt scourge is not by hobbling together a few individual nation-states under the tattered banner of national socializm, but to forge a mighty asssociation of capitalizt and anti-socializt regions under the flag of freedom and enterprise. This is, infact, what I am currently attempting to do through my own region, The Exclusive Capitalizt Zone.

"Let the ruling classes tremble at a communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. " - Marx, The Communist Manifesto

The best way to confront the socializt scourge is not by hobbling together a few individual nation-states under the tattered banner of national socializm, but to forge a mighty asssociation of capitalizt and anti-socializt regions under the flag of freedom and enterprise. This is, infact, what I am currently attempting to do through my own region, The Exclusive Capitalizt Zone.

That is what I am doing.

I am interested in this "Alliance".

Accepted

Thank you for the acceptance into this Alliance. I was very surprised that i was accepted so quickly. :o

I am interested in this "Alliance".

Accepted

Thank you for the acceptance into this Alliance. I was very surprised that i was accepted so quickly. :o

You did want in right?

If you didn't consider this to be acceptance if you change your mind.

National Sociliasm and capitalizm are incompatable. Capitalizm is the practical application of liberty. National Socializm (please not the "socializt part of that name) is about authoritarianism and oppression.

National Sociliasm and capitalizm are incompatable. Capitalizm is the practical application of liberty. National Socializm (please not the "socializt part of that name) is about authoritarianism and oppression.
I am a Capitalizt.
I am accepting anyone against communism and for a strong economy.

So, you are against communists because... you like to give them identifiers commonly applied to right-wing organizations?

I am interested in this "Alliance".

Accepted

Thank you for the acceptance into this Alliance. I was very surprised that i was accepted so quickly. :o

You did want in right?

If you didn't consider this to be acceptance if you change your mind.

I'm in!

current members:
Magdha
Rufai
Fascist White States
Japanese Anarctica
Bohravia
The Germanic People
Ystaevae
Moranthia
Light Red Germany
I Will Destroy All
Shildonia
Voderlund
Turkey and Cyprus
The Huac
Yugoslavia
The Grassroots
IIRRAAQQII
Commerce Heights
Several Nations which TG'ed me and wish to remain confidential.

Excellent! I am pleased to see so many nations have joined.

Let us all join together to aid each other, and further the aims of capitalist nations throughout the world.

Indeed, first though I must call attention to the fact that several nations are attempting to invade Light Red Germany. I am sending troops and hope that other members do the same.

It shall be done. LRG's nation must be protected.

It shall be done. LRG's nation must be protected.

Thank you.

bump

add Ponte Vedra to the list! I'm sure hed like to! I'll confirm if otherwise but I know he'd like to.

add Ponte Vedra to the list! I'm sure hed like to! I'll confirm if otherwise but I know he'd like to.

Sure, once he wants to i'll put him on.

I'm in. I have a campaign planned that you all will enjoy.

Your in, definitley.

Does LRG still need help? If so PM me, and have him PM me I have some special weapons that are highly effective against superior forces. These would allow him to regain an edge missing in his defense. After all the best defense is a good offense.

Mayhew ********

Voderlund Defense Ministry

Yellek Straights wishes to join this alliance. We are a right-wing nation who hates commie pigs.

Please TG me all the information, such as the offsite forum details.

Tyrandis is interested in this alliance, however, our founding principles are based on the ideals of Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand, and other libertarian free-marketeers.

Thus, although we agree in terms of economic ideology, Tyrandis is deeply disturbed by the, quite frankly, bizarre views expressed by some members.

However, the threat of the Red cancer spreading is too great, and we wish to be included.

I dont need help anymore on my front because ponte verde completely destroyed the landing force :) way to go Ponte Vedra! Anyways, Ponte Vedra is now attacking with his big alliance with Fluffywuffy and The Silver Turtle Camewot's main nation.

If you want to help i suggest you try PMing PV about it if you want to help.

Communism is the greatest system, but it is unachieveable in a non-perfect society. Obviously the world is not perfect, henceforth Communism will never work.

CAPITALISM ALL THE WAY!!!!

I will not join the alliance officially, though.

Oh yeah, reminds me....

www.politicalcompass.org

A more realistic view of politics and economics.

Tyrandis is interested in this alliance, however, our founding principles are based on the ideals of Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand, and other libertarian free-marketeers.

Thus, although we agree in terms of economic ideology, Tyrandis is deeply disturbed by the, quite frankly, bizarre views expressed by some members.

However, the threat of the Red cancer spreading is too great, and we wish to be included.

Magdha is a Libertarian Nation as well, this alliance is for all free-marketeers against Communism.


Yellek Straights, you are accepted.

Thankyou. Can I please be TGed the details of the alliance?

Also, I invite everyone here who is familiar with Credonia and his aggression:

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=149405&highlight=

If you will permit a young Anarcho-Communist a brief question.

As I understand it, the capitalist system is inherantly competitive, in a Darwinian sort of way. Thus, doesn't this alliance's bailing-out of Light Red Germany, for example, represent the sort of subsidising and protectionism that the capitalist/libertarian hates so much? Shouldn't you have left it to fend for itself, and if it couldn't cut it militarily, then the rest of you are better off?

If you will permit a young Anarcho-Communist a brief question.

As I understand it, the capitalist system is inherantly competitive, in a Darwinian sort of way. Thus, doesn't this alliance's bailing-out of Light Red Germany, for example, represent the sort of subsidising and protectionism that the capitalist/libertarian hates so much? Shouldn't you have left it to fend for itself, and if it couldn't cut it militarily, then the rest of you are better off?

As a communist you do not understand capitalism.

Although ecomomically it is competitive, to have governments support each other to help free enterprise benefits free enterprise.

Magdha, could you please TG me the details of the Alliance? It just occurs to me I didn't ask for them when I was accepted.

Magdha, could you please TG me the details of the Alliance? It just occurs to me I didn't ask for them when I was accepted.

The alliance is a military defensive pact against communism or agression against alliance members.

If any member is attacked Alliance members are to help that nation.

If any Capitalist nation is under attack by communists or in danger of electing a communist government alliance members are to stop communism.

Secret message to alliance members- [code:1:7d9a4d950b]A communist takeover is currently occuring in Rotovia. We need some agents to do "Wetwork, ie. Terroism against communists.[/code:1:7d9a4d950b]

Oh, okay. Thanks.

If any Capitalist nation is under attack by communists or in danger of electing a communist government alliance members are to stop communism.


Oh, dear. Please forgive me if I'm overstaying my welcome in this thread, but you will understand my concern if I think immediately of our old friends Pinochet and Kissenger when I hear this. I am not exactly sure how capitalism is supposed to take hold in a totalitarian or at least anti-democratic system, but then, I'm a flaming Black and Red.

i will apply

OOC: i will point out that should i wake up the polish bear and go fo you all, i will Ignore FWS, however units from FWS placed under the command of another player or arms from FWS given to another player I will Willingly accept, otherwise so far i am impressed by an alliance i could take out alone... :lol: :wink:

We will help the Polish Bear in crushing these pity nations

You call all communists godmodders and say we are a threat to international peace and stability, THEN you prepare to send operatives into a nation holding FREE and DEMOCRATIC elections in an attempt to force your will on them. This is not peace nor stability. Then, you have FWS in your alliance, who is probably the biggest godmodder in NS and also probably the biggest threat to peace and stability with his attacks on various nations, and now his attempt to undermine democracy. Those who enter this so called "anti-communist alliance" believing it will bring peace and prosperity are being lied to. The whole alliance is a deception. Just look at FWS' history, then you'll see who's the biggest threat to international peace.

OOC: i will point out that should i wake up the polish bear and go fo you all, i will Ignore FWS, however units from FWS placed under the command of another player or arms from FWS given to another player I will Willingly accept, otherwise so far i am impressed by an alliance i could take out alone... :lol: :wink:

Except, that isn't actually the case. I could destroy you single handed, so it is logical to think that with a bit of help it would be even easier to destroy you.
Unless of course you do that regular communist trick of "Communist nations don't have to take damages, because we have some kind of undefined magical powers that allow us to simply defeat any enemy with a wave of the collective hand of the proletariat"
Then of course there's the fact you've somehow managed to get Communism to work, without suffering mass starvation and a disillusioned populace who would most likely prefer to live under capitalism where they would actually have the freedom to choose to do the job they want, rather than simply following the orders of some dictator, and where they would be able to buy food without having to queue for hours on end for a couple of stale loaves of bread.
But then, you lot never really bother with little things like "facts", so none of that actually matters, does it?

So who remembers the last time there was a communist/right war and the rights won?

OOC: i will point out that should i wake up the polish bear and go fo you all, i will Ignore FWS, however units from FWS placed under the command of another player or arms from FWS given to another player I will Willingly accept, otherwise so far i am impressed by an alliance i could take out alone... :lol: :wink:

Except, that isn't actually the case. I could destroy you single handed, so it is logical to think that with a bit of help it would be even easier to destroy you.
Unless of course you do that regular communist trick of "Communist nations don't have to take damages, because we have some kind of undefined magical powers that allow us to simply defeat any enemy with a wave of the collective hand of the proletariat"
Then of course there's the fact you've somehow managed to get Communism to work, without suffering mass starvation and a disillusioned populace who would most likely prefer to live under capitalism where they would actually have the freedom to choose to do the job they want, rather than simply following the orders of some dictator, and where they would be able to buy food without having to queue for hours on end for a couple of stale loaves of bread.
But then, you lot never really bother with little things like "facts", so none of that actually matters, does it?



Says the right wing, who are responsible for Rp geniuses such as FWS and Maghda, who are being ignored by so many people its unbelieveable. I suggest that, before you start having a go at communist nations, who are mostly good RPers who simply want to try out their political ideals, you instead focus on RPers who decide their armies beat EVERYONE elses, because they don't have Jews in them and everyone else's does, therefore meaning their armies are stronger because they're "racially pure". Also, i think you'll find about 80% of all Communist nations are not dictatorships, but are instead democracies. I want to make technocracia a democracy because i was formally a FASCIST dictatorship but i havent had the democracy issue yet! I think you'll find there's more right wing dictators on NS than left wing ones!

So who remembers the last time there was a communist/right war and the rights won?

Well let's see. The Soviet Union doesn't exist any more, but the NATO nations do. I think that counts as a defeat for Communism. But once again you'll just ignore the facts and instead mutter about how the Soviet Union might have won, had they had access to some kind of quasi-mythical mind control ray.

Thy Majesties, Lords, Ladies en Presidents,

His Holy Imperial Majesty, Aserad I, would like to join this alliance. HHIM feels definate action must be taken against the red scum that run amok in the streets. HHIM wishes to not only eradicate the enemies without but also within, who threaten the superior greatness of the Ingaevonians people. Even as we speak leftist plots are being hatched to place our Fatherland to the brink of socialism. We must stand together and vanquish this even forever! Smash communism!

Thy servant,

Bruno Lefbald
Minister of Foreign Affairs

Technocracia will respond in a very displeased manner to any acts committed against communists which are "excessive force" eg capital punishment. This could result in actions to prevent anything like this from happening again.

It is the sovereign right of every nation to enact and enforce legislation within their territory.

I'd be happy to join, these values listed are my own.

THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO by Karl Marx and Freidrich Engels

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




A spectre is haunting Europe -- the spectre of communism. All the powers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre: Pope and Tsar, Metternich and Guizot, French Radicals and German police-spies.

Where is the party in opposition that has not been decried as communistic by its opponents in power? Where is the opposition that has not hurled back the branding reproach of communism, against the more advanced opposition parties, as well as against its reactionary adversaries?

Two things result from this fact:

I. Communism is already acknowledged by all European powers to be itself a power.

II. It is high time that Communists should openly, in the face of the whole world, publish their views, their aims, their tendencies, and meet this nursery tale of the spectre of communism with a manifesto of the party itself.

To this end, Communists of various nationalities have assembled in London and sketched the following manifesto, to be published in the English, French, German, Italian, Flemish and Danish languages.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Bourgeois and Proletarians


The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.

Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.

In the earlier epochs of history, we find almost everywhere a complicated arrangement of society into various orders, a manifold gradation of social rank. In ancient Rome we have patricians, knights, plebeians, slaves; in the Middle Ages, feudal lords, vassals, guild-masters, journeymen, apprentices, serfs; in almost all of these classes, again, subordinate gradations.

The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society has not done away with class antagonisms. It has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old ones.

Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses, however, this distinct feature: it has simplified class antagonisms. Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other -- bourgeoisie and proletariat.

From the serfs of the Middle Ages sprang the chartered burghers of the earliest towns. From these burgesses the first elements of the bourgeoisie were developed.

The discovery of America, the rounding of the Cape, opened up fresh ground for the rising bourgeoisie. The East-Indian and Chinese markets, the colonisation of America, trade with the colonies, the increase in the means of exchange and in commodities generally, gave to commerce, to navigation, to industry, an impulse never before known, and thereby, to the revolutionary element in the tottering feudal society, a rapid development.

The feudal system of industry, in which industrial production was monopolized by closed guilds, now no longer suffices for the growing wants of the new markets. The manufacturing system took its place. The guild-masters were pushed aside by the manufacturing middle class; division of labor between the different corporate guilds vanished in the face of division of labor in each single workshop.

Meantime, the markets kept ever growing, the demand ever rising. Even manufacturers no longer sufficed. Thereupon, steam and machinery revolutionized industrial production. The place of manufacture was taken by the giant, Modern Industry; the place of the industrial middle class by industrial millionaires, the leaders of the whole industrial armies, the modern bourgeois.

Modern industry has established the world market, for which the discovery of America paved the way. This market has given an immense development to commerce, to navigation, to communication by land. This development has, in turn, reacted on the extension of industry; and in proportion as industry, commerce, navigation, railways extended, in the same proportion the bourgeoisie developed, increased its capital, and pushed into the background every class handed down from the Middle Ages.

We see, therefore, how the modern bourgeoisie is itself the product of a long course of development, of a series of revolutions in the modes of production and of exchange.

Each step in the development of the bourgeoisie was accompanied by a corresponding political advance in that class. An oppressed class under the sway of the feudal nobility, an armed and self-governing association of medieval commune: here independent urban republic (as in Italy and Germany); there taxable "third estate" of the monarchy (as in France); afterward, in the period of manufacturing proper, serving either the semi-feudal or the absolute monarchy as a counterpoise against the nobility, and, in fact, cornerstone of the great monarchies in general -- the bourgeoisie has at last, since the establishment of Modern Industry and of the world market, conquered for itself, in the modern representative state, exclusive political sway. The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie.

The bourgeoisie, historically, has played a most revolutionary part.

The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his "natural superiors", and has left no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous "cash payment". It has drowned out the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervour, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom -- Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.

The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honored and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage laborers.

The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation into a mere money relation.

The bourgeoisie has disclosed how it came to pass that the brutal display of vigour in the Middle Ages, which reactionaries so much admire, found its fitting complement in the most slothful indolence. It has been the first to show what man's activity can bring about. It has accomplished wonders far surpassing Egyptian pyramids, Roman aqueducts, and Gothic cathedrals; it has conducted expeditions that put in the shade all former exoduses of nations and crusades.

The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionizing the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. Conservation of the old modes of production in unaltered form, was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes.

Constant revolutionising of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real condition of life and his relations with his kind.

The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the entire surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connections everywhere.

The bourgeoisie has, through its exploitation of the world market, given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country. To the great chagrin of reactionaries, it has drawn from under the feet of industry the national ground on which it stood. All old-established national industries have been destroyed or are daily being destroyed.

They are dislodged by new industries, whose introduction becomes a life and death question for all civilized nations, by industries that no longer work up indigenous raw material, but raw material drawn from the remotest zones; industries whose products are consumed, not only at home, but in every quarter of the globe.

In place of the old wants, satisfied by the production of the country, we find new wants, requiring for their satisfaction the products of distant lands and climes. In place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, universal inter-dependence of nations. And as in material, so also in intellectual production.

The intellectual creations of individual nations become common property. National one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness become more and more impossible, and from the numerous national and local literatures, there arises a world literature.

The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilization. The cheap prices of commodities are the heavy artillery with which it forces the barbarians' intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate. It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilization into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world after its own image.

The bourgeoisie has subjected the country to the rule of the towns. It has created enormous cities, has greatly increased the urban population as compared with the rural, and has thus rescued a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life. Just as it has made the country dependent on the towns, so it has made barbarian and semi-barbarian countries dependent on the civilized ones, nations of peasants on nations of bourgeois, the East on the West.

The bourgeoisie keeps more and more doing away with the scattered state of the population, of the means of production, and of property. It has agglomerated population, centralized the means of production, and has concentrated property in a few hands. The necessary consequence of this was political centralization. Independent, or but loosely connected provinces, with separate interests, laws, governments, and systems of taxation, became lumped together into one nation, with one government, one code of laws, one national class interest, one frontier, and one customs tariff.

The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together. Subjection of nature's forces to man, machinery, application of chemistry to industry and agriculture, steam navigation, railways, electric telegraphs, clearing of whole continents for cultivation, canalization or rivers, whole populations conjured out of the ground -- what earlier century had even a presentiment that such productive forces slumbered in the lap of social labor?

We see then: the means of production and of exchange, on whose foundation the bourgeoisie built itself up, were generated in feudal society. At a certain stage in the development of these means of production and of exchange, the conditions under which feudal society produced and exchanged, the feudal organization of agriculture and manufacturing industry, in one word, the feudal relations of property became no longer compatible with the already developed productive forces; they became so many fetters. They had to be burst asunder; they were burst asunder.

Into their place stepped free competition, accompanied by a social and political constitution adapted in it, and the economic and political sway of the bourgeois class.

A similar movement is going on before our own eyes. Modern bourgeois society, with its relations of production, of exchange and of property, a society that has conjured up such gigantic means of production and of exchange, is like the sorcerer who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells. For many a decade past, the history of industry and commerce is but the history of the revolt of modern productive forces against modern conditions of production, against the property relations that are the conditions for the existence of the bourgeois and of its rule.

It is enough to mention the commercial crises that, by their periodical return, put the existence of the entire bourgeois society on its trial, each time more threateningly. In these crises, a great part not only of the existing products, but also of the previously created productive forces, are periodically destroyed. In these crises, there breaks out an epidemic that, in all earlier epochs, would have seemed an absurdity -- the epidemic of over-production.

Society suddenly finds itself put back into a state of momentary barbarism; it appears as if a famine, a universal war of devastation, had cut off the supply of every means of subsistence; industry and commerce seem to be destroyed. And why? Because there is too much civilization, too much means of subsistence, too much industry, too much commerce.

The productive forces at the disposal of society no longer tend to further the development of the conditions of bourgeois property; on the contrary, they have become too powerful for these conditions, by which they are fettered, and so soon as they overcome these fetters, they bring disorder into the whole of bourgeois society, endanger the existence of bourgeois property. The conditions of bourgeois society are too narrow to comprise the wealth created by them.

And how does the bourgeoisie get over these crises? On the one hand, by enforced destruction of a mass of productive forces; on the other, by the conquest of new markets, and by the more thorough exploitation of the old ones. That is to say, by paving the way for more extensive and more destructive crises, and by diminishing the means whereby crises are prevented.

The weapons with which the bourgeoisie felled feudalism to the ground are now turned against the bourgeoisie itself.

But not only has the bourgeoisie forged the weapons that bring death to itself; it has also called into existence the men who are to wield those weapons -- the modern working class -- the proletarians.

In proportion as the bourgeoisie, i.e., capital, is developed, in the same proportion is the proletariat, the modern working class, developed -- a class of laborers, who live only so long as they find work, and who find work only so long as their labor increases capital. These laborers, who must sell themselves piecemeal, are a commodity, like every other article of commerce, and are consequently exposed to all the vicissitudes of competition, to all the fluctuations of the market.

Owing to the extensive use of machinery, and to the division of labor, the work of the proletarians has lost all individual character, and, consequently, all charm for the workman. He becomes an appendage of the machine, and it is only the most simple, most monotonous, and most easily acquired knack, that is required of him. Hence, the cost of production of a workman is restricted, almost entirely, to the means of subsistence that he requires for maintenance, and for the propagation of his race. But the price of a commodity, and therefore also of labor, is equal to its cost of production.

In proportion, therefore, as the repulsiveness of the work increases, the wage decreases. What is more, in proportion as the use of machinery and division of labor increases, in the same proportion the burden of toil also increases, whether by prolongation of the working hours, by the increase of the work exacted in a given time, or by increased speed of machinery, etc.

Modern Industry has converted the little workshop of the patriarchal master into the great factory of the industrial capitalist. Masses of laborers, crowded into the factory, are organized like soldiers. As privates of the industrial army, they are placed under the command of a perfect hierarchy of officers and sergeants.

Not only are they slaves of the bourgeois class, and of the bourgeois state; they are daily and hourly enslaved by the machine, by the overlooker, and, above all, in the individual bourgeois manufacturer himself. The more openly this despotism proclaims gain to be its end and aim, the more petty, the more hateful and the more embittering it is.

The less the skill and exertion of strength implied in manual labor, in other words, the more modern industry becomes developed, the more is the labor of men superseded by that of women. Differences of age and sex have no longer any distinctive social validity for the working class. All are instruments of labor, more or less expensive to use, according to their age and sex.

No sooner is the exploitation of the laborer by the manufacturer, so far at an end, that he receives his wages in cash, than he is set upon by the other portion of the bourgeoisie, the landlord, the shopkeeper, the pawnbroker, etc.

The lower strata of the middle class -- the small tradespeople, shopkeepers, and retired tradesmen generally, the handicraftsmen and peasants -- all these sink gradually into the proletariat, partly because their diminutive capital does not suffice for the scale on which Modern Industry is carried on, and is swamped in the competition with the large capitalists, partly because their specialized skill is rendered worthless by new methods of production. Thus, the proletariat is recruited from all classes of the population.

The proletariat goes through various stages of development. With its birth begins its struggle with the bourgeoisie. At first, the contest is carried on by individual laborers, then by the work of people of a factory, then by the operative of one trade, in one locality, against the individual bourgeois who directly exploits them. They direct their attacks not against the bourgeois condition of production, but against the instruments of production themselves; they destroy imported wares that compete with their labor, they smash to pieces machinery, they set factories ablaze, they seek to restore by force the vanished status of the workman of the Middle Ages.

At this stage, the laborers still form an incoherent mass scattered over the whole country, and broken up by their mutual competition. If anywhere they unite to form more compact bodies, this is not yet the consequence of their own active union, but of the union of the bourgeoisie, which class, in order to attain its own political ends, is compelled to set the whole proletariat in motion, and is moreover yet, for a time, able to do so.

At this stage, therefore, the proletarians do not fight their enemies, but the enemies of their enemies, the remnants of absolute monarchy, the landowners, the non-industrial bourgeois, the petty bourgeois. Thus, the whole historical movement is concentrated in the hands of the bourgeoisie; every victory so obtained is a victory for the bourgeoisie.

But with the development of industry, the proletariat not only increases in number; it becomes concentrated in greater masses, its strength grows, and it feels that strength more.

The various interests and conditions of life within the ranks of the proletariat are more and more equalized, in proportion as machinery obliterates all distinctions of labor, and nearly everywhere reduces wages to the same low level. The growing competition among the bourgeois, and the resulting commercial crises, make the wages of the workers ever more fluctuating.

The increasing improvement of machinery, ever more rapidly developing, makes their livelihood more and more precarious; the collisions between individual workmen and individual bourgeois take more and more the character of collisions between two classes. Thereupon, the workers begin to form combinations (trade unions) against the bourgeois; they club together in order to keep up the rate of wages; they found permanent associations in order to make provision beforehand for these occasional revolts. Here and there, the contest breaks out into riots.

Now and then the workers are victorious, but only for a time. The real fruit of their battles lie not in the immediate result, but in the ever expanding union of the workers. This union is helped on by the improved means of communication that are created by Modern Industry, and that place the workers of different localities in contact with one another. It was just this contact that was needed to centralize the numerous local struggles, all of the same character, into one national struggle between classes. But every class struggle is a political struggle. And that union, to attain which the burghers of the Middle Ages, with their miserable highways, required centuries, the modern proletarian, thanks to railways, achieve in a few years.

This organization of the proletarians into a class, and, consequently, into a political party, is continually being upset again by the competition between the workers themselves. But it ever rises up again, stronger, firmer, mightier. It compels legislative recognition of particular interests of the workers, by taking advantage of the divisions among the bourgeoisie itself. Thus, the Ten-Hours Bill in England was carried.

Altogether, collisions between the classes of the old society further in many ways the course of development of the proletariat. The bourgeoisie finds itself involved in a constant battle. At first with the aristocracy; later on, with those portions of the bourgeoisie itself, whose interests have become antagonistic to the progress of industry; at all time with the bourgeoisie of foreign countries. In all these battles, it sees itself compelled to appeal to the proletariat, to ask for help, and thus to drag it into the political arena. The bourgeoisie itself, therefore, supplies the proletariat with its own elements of political and general education, in other words, it furnishes the proletariat with weapons for fighting the bourgeoisie.

Further, as we have already seen, entire sections of the ruling class are, by the advance of industry, precipitated into the proletariat, or are at least threatened in their conditions of existence. These also supply the proletariat with fresh elements of enlightenment and progress.

Finally, in times when the class struggle nears the decisive hour, the progress of dissolution going on within the ruling class, in fact within the whole range of old society, assumes such a violent, glaring character, that a small section of the ruling class cuts itself adrift, and joins the revolutionary class, the class that holds the future in its hands. Just as, therefore, at an earlier period, a section of the nobility went over to the bourgeoisie, so now a portion of the bourgeoisie goes over to the proletariat, and in particular, a portion of the bourgeois ideologists, who have raised themselves to the level of comprehending theoretically the historical movement as a whole.

Of all the classes that stand face to face with the bourgeoisie today, the proletariat alone is a genuinely revolutionary class. The other classes decay and finally disappear in the face of Modern Industry; the proletariat is its special and essential product.

The lower middle class, the small manufacturer, the shopkeeper, the artisan, the peasant, all these fight against the bourgeoisie, to save from extinction their existence as fractions of the middle class. They are therefore not revolutionary, but conservative. Nay, more, they are reactionary, for they try to roll back the wheel of history. If, by chance, they are revolutionary, they are only so in view of their impending transfer into the proletariat; they thus defend not their present, but their future interests; they desert their own standpoint to place themselves at that of the proletariat.

The "dangerous class", the social scum, that passively rotting mass thrown off by the lowest layers of the old society, may, here and there, be swept into the movement by a proletarian revolution; its conditions of life, however, prepare it far more for the part of a bribed tool of reactionary intrigue.

In the condition of the proletariat, those of old society at large are already virtually swamped. The proletarian is without property; his relation to his wife and children has no longer anything in common with the bourgeois family relations; modern industry labor, modern subjection to capital, the same in England as in France, in America as in Germany, has stripped him of every trace of national character. Law, morality, religion, are to him so many bourgeois prejudices, behind which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeois interests.

All the preceding classes that got the upper hand sought to fortify their already acquired status by subjecting society at large to their conditions of appropriation. The proletarians cannot become masters of the productive forces of society, except by abolishing their own previous mode of appropriation, and thereby also every other previous mode of appropriation. They have nothing of their own to secure and to fortify; their mission is to destroy all previous securities for, and insurances of, individual property.

All previous historical movements were movements of minorities, or in the interest of minorities. The proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority. The proletariat, the lowest stratum of our present society, cannot stir, cannot raise itself up, without the whole super incumbent strata of official society being sprung into the air.

Though not in substance, yet in form, the struggle of the proletariat with the bourgeoisie is at first a national struggle. The proletariat of each country must, of course, first of all settle matters with its own bourgeoisie.

In depicting the most general phases of the development of the proletariat, we traced the more or less veiled civil war, raging within existing society, up to the point where that war breaks out into open revolution, and where the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat.

Hitherto, every form of society has been based, as we have already seen, on the antagonism of oppressing and oppressed classes. But in order to oppress a class, certain conditions must be assured to it under which it can, at least, continue its slavish existence. The serf, in the period of serfdom, raised himself to membership in the commune, just as the petty bourgeois, under the yoke of the feudal absolutism, managed to develop into a bourgeois.

The modern laborer, on the contrary, instead of rising with the process of industry, sinks deeper and deeper below the conditions of existence of his own class. He becomes a pauper, and pauperism develops more rapidly than population and wealth. And here it becomes evident that the bourgeoisie is unfit any longer to be the ruling class in society, and to impose its conditions of existence upon society as an overriding law.

It is unfit to rule because it is incompetent to assure an existence to its slave within his slavery, because it cannot help letting him sink into such a state, that it has to feed him, instead of being fed by him. Society can no longer live under this bourgeoisie, in other words, its existence is no longer compatible with society.

The essential conditions for the existence and for the sway of the bourgeois class is the formation and augmentation of capital; the condition for capital is wage labor. Wage labor rests exclusively on competition between the laborers. The advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the laborers, due to competition, by the revolutionary combination, due to association.

The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.

Proletarians and communists

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In what relation do the Communists stand to the proletarians as a whole? The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties.

They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole.

They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement.

The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only:

(1) In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality.

(2) In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.

The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the lines of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.

The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: Formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.

The theoretical conclusions of the Communists are in no way based on ideas or principles that have been invented, or discovered, by this or that would-be universal reformer.

They merely express, in general terms, actual relations springing from an existing class struggle, from a historical movement going on under our very eyes. The abolition of existing property relations is not at all a distinctive feature of communism.

All property relations in the past have continually been subject to historical change consequent upon the change in historical conditions.

The French Revolution, for example, abolished feudal property in favour of bourgeois property.

The distinguishing feature of communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few.

In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.

We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing the right of personally acquiring property as the fruit of a man's own labour, which property is alleged to be the groundwork of all personal freedom, activity and independence.

Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! Do you mean the property of petty artisan and of the small peasant, a form of property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no need to abolish that; the development of industry has to a great extent already destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily.

Or do you mean the modern bourgeois private property?

But does wage labour create any property for the labourer? Not a bit. It creates capital, i.e., that kind of property which exploits wage labour, and which cannot increase except upon conditions of begetting a new supply of wage labour for fresh exploitation. Property, in its present form, is based on the antagonism of capital and wage labour. Let us examine both sides of this antagonism.

To be a capitalist, is to have not only a purely personal, but a social status in production. Capital is a collective product, and only by the united action of many members, nay, in the last resort, only by the united action of all members of society, can it be set in motion.

Capital is therefore not only personal; it is a social power.

When, therefore, capital is converted into common property, into the property of all members of society, personal property is not thereby transformed into social property. It is only the social character of the property that is changed. It loses its class character.

Let us now take wage labour.

The average price of wage labour is the minimum wage, i.e., that quantum of the means of subsistence which is absolutely requisite to keep the labourer in bare existence as a labourer. What, therefore, the wage labourer appropriates by means of his labour merely suffices to prolong and reproduce a bare existence. We by no means intend to abolish this personal appropriation of the products of labour, an appropriation that is made for the maintenance and reproduction of human life, and that leaves no surplus wherewith to command the labour of others. All that we want to do away with is the miserable character of this appropriation, under which the labourer lives merely to increase capital, and is allowed to live only in so far as the interest of the ruling class requires it.

In bourgeois society, living labour is but a means to increase accumulated labour. In communist society, accumulated labour is but a means to widen, to enrich, to promote the existence of the labourer.

In bourgeois society, therefore, the past dominates the present; in communist society, the present dominates the past. In bourgeois society, capital is independent and has individuality, while the living person is dependent and has no individuality.

And the abolition of this state of things is called by the bourgeois, abolition of individuality and freedom! And rightly so. The abolition of bourgeois individuality, bourgeois independence, and bourgeois freedom is undoubtedly aimed at.

By freedom is meant, under the present bourgeois conditions of production, free trade, free selling and buying.

But if selling and buying disappears, free selling and buying disappears also. This talk about free selling and buying, and all the other "brave words" of our bourgeois about freedom in general, have a meaning, if any, only in contrast with restricted selling and buying, with the fettered traders of the Middle Ages, but have no meaning when opposed to the communist abolition of buying and selling, or the bourgeois conditions of production, and of the bourgeoisie itself.

You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths.

You reproach us, therefore, with intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary condition for whose existence is the non-existence of any property for the immense majority of society.

In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so; that is just what we intend.

From the moment when labour can no longer be converted into capital, money, or rent, into a social power capable of being monopolized, i.e., from the moment when individual property can no longer be transformed into bourgeois property, into capital, from that moment, you say, individuality vanishes.

You must, therefore, confess that by "individual" you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property. This person must, indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible.

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.

It has been objected that upon the abolition of private property, all work will cease, and universal laziness will overtake us.

According to this, bourgeois society ought long ago to have gone to the dogs through sheer idleness; for those who acquire anything, do not work. The whole of this objection is but another expression of the tautology: There can no longer be any wage labour when there is no longer any capital.

All objections urged against the communistic mode of producing and appropriating material products, have, in the same way, been urged against the communistic mode of producing and appropriating intellectual products. Just as to the bourgeois, the disappearance of class property is the disappearance of production itself, so the disappearance of class culture is to him identical with the disappearance of all culture.

That culture, the loss of which he laments, is, for the enormous majority, a mere training to act as a machine.

But don't wrangle with us so long as you apply, to our intended abolition of bourgeois property, the standard of your bourgeois notions of freedom, culture, law, etc. Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of the conditions of your bourgeois production and bourgeois property, just as your jurisprudence is but the will of your class made into a law for all, a will whose essential character and direction are determined by the economical conditions of existence of your class.

The selfish misconception that induces you to transform into eternal laws of nature and of reason the social forms stringing from your present mode of production and form of property -- historical relations that rise and disappear in the progress of production -- this misconception you share with every ruling class that has preceded you. What you see clearly in the case of ancient property, what you admit in the case of feudal property, you are of course forbidden to admit in the case of your own bourgeois form of property.

Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.

On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among proletarians, and in public prostitution.

The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.

Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.

But, you say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social.

And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention direct or indirect, of society, by means of schools, etc.? The Communists have not intended the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class.

The bourgeois claptrap about the family and education, about the hallowed correlation of parents and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all the family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labour.

But you Communists would introduce community of women, screams the bourgeoisie in chorus.

The bourgeois sees his wife a mere instrument of production. He hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited in common, and, naturally, can come to no other conclusion that the lot of being common to all will likewise fall to the women.

He has not even a suspicion that the real point aimed at is to do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production.

For the rest, nothing is more ridiculous than the virtuous indignation of our bourgeois at the community of women which, they pretend, is to be openly and officially established by the Communists. The Communists have no need to introduce free love; it has existed almost from time immemorial.

Our bourgeois, not content with having wives and daughters of their proletarians at their disposal, not to speak of common prostitutes, take the greatest pleasure in seducing each other's wives.

Bourgeois marriage is, in reality, a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalized system of free love. For the rest, it is self-evident that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of free love springing from that system, i.e., of prostitution both public and private.

The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality.

The working men have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got. Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is, so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word.

National differences and antagonism between peoples are daily more and more vanishing, owing to the development of the bourgeoisie, to freedom of commerce, to the world market, to uniformity in the mode of production and in the conditions of life corresponding thereto.

The supremacy of the proletariat will cause them to vanish still faster. United action of the leading civilized countries at least is one of the first conditions for the emancipation of the proletariat.

In proportion as the exploitation of one individual by another will also be put an end to, the exploitation of one nation by another will also be put an end to. In proportion as the antagonism between classes within the nation vanishes, the hostility of one nation to another will come to an end.

The charges against communism made from a religious, a philosophical and, generally, from an ideological standpoint, are not deserving of serious examination.

Does it require deep intuition to comprehend that man's ideas, views, and conception, in one word, man's consciousness, changes with every change in the conditions of his material existence, in his social relations and in his social life?

What else does the history of ideas prove, than that intellectual production changes its character in proportion as material production is changed? The ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of its ruling class.

When people speak of the ideas that revolutionize society, they do but express that fact that within the old society the elements of a new one have been created, and that the dissolution of the old ideas keeps even pace with the dissolution of the old conditions of existence.

When the ancient world was in its last throes, the ancient religions were overcome by Christianity. When Christian ideas succumbed in the eighteenth century to rationalist ideas, feudal society fought its death battle with the then revolutionary bourgeoisie. The ideas of religious liberty and freedom of conscience merely gave expression to the sway of free competition within the domain of knowledge.

"Undoubtedly," it will be said, "religious, moral, philosophical, and juridical ideas have been modified in the course of historical development. But religion, morality, philosophy, political science, and law, constantly survived this change."

"There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all states of society. But communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience."

What does this accusation reduce itself to? The history of all past society has consisted in the development of class antagonisms, antagonisms that assumed different forms at different epochs.

But whatever form they may have taken, one fact is common to all past ages, viz., the exploitation of one part of society by the other. No wonder, then, that the social consciousness of past ages, despite all the multiplicity and variety it displays, moves within certain common forms, or general ideas, which cannot completely vanish except with the total disappearance of class antagonisms.

The communist revolution is the most radical rupture with traditional relations; no wonder that its development involved the most radical rupture with traditional ideas.

But let us have done with the bourgeois objections to communism.

We have seen above that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy.

The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.

Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionizing the mode of production.

These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.

Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.

When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organize itself as a class; if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.

In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.

WORKERS OF ALL COUNTRIES, UNITE!



http://www.applepics.com/userfiles/p9851_dnalaporue3829.jpg

If any Capitalist nation is under attack by communists orin danger of electing a communist government alliance members are to stop communism.

This is clear proof that this alliance is not interested in "freedom", but will willingly act against the will of the people shall a communist government be elected, in order to maintain the stranglehold of the upper class. Truly sickening. Fighting against the "tyranny" of communism indeed....

So who remembers the last time there was a communist/right war and the rights won?

Well let's see. The Soviet Union doesn't exist any more, but the NATO nations do. I think that counts as a defeat for Communism. But once again you'll just ignore the facts and instead mutter about how the Soviet Union might have won, had they had access to some kind of quasi-mythical mind control ray.

Ahh, but the Soviet Union was a State-Capitalist dictatorship, not Communist.

Congratulations on learning how to copy and paste. Was there any point in that post, or were you just showing off your computer skills?

Congratulations on learning how to copy and paste. Was there any point in that post, or were you just showing off your computer skills?

I think he was trying to point out that people like you know nothing of communism yet seem to be able to say it always fails, that capitalism is the only successful government, and then refusing to hear any arguaments. Also, as for your little USSR comment, i think BC was referring to the NS world. Communists that match our type of leadership usually win the conflicts, because of our solidarity and collective "watching out" for each other. This is what right wing nations lack, as they focus on individuality, and only ever watch out for themselves. If they don't do that and group together, they prove that communism works :wink:

I think he was trying to point out that people like you know nothing of communism yet seem to be able to say it always fails, that capitalism is the only successful government, and then refusing to hear any arguaments. Also, as for your little USSR comment, i think BC was referring to the NS world. Communists that match our type of leadership usually win the conflicts, because of our solidarity and collective "watching out" for each other. This is what right wing nations lack, as they focus on individuality, and only ever watch out for themselves. If they don't do that and group together, they prove that communism works :wink:

I'll have you know that I actually own the collected works of Karl Marx, which includes much more than just the Communist Manifesto. None of that changes the fact that Communism has never been succesfully implemented in any large scale, and that the only attempts to date have resulted in dictatorships. Communism works perfectly, it's just those damned people that keep messing things up.
Also, that document merely reinforces the suspicions of capitalists that Communism is a threat, given that it urges revolution.
Communists in NS tend to win by simply shrugging off huge attacks with minimal losses. One time I fired something like 3000 missiles at a carrier group. I spent time, calculating the defences of that carrier group, and calculating how many missiles would be needed to over power the defences. Most of the missiles fired were decoys, designed to draw the fire away from the real missiles. Somehow said communist was able to determine that the decoys were decoys (he didn't state how he knew this, merely that he did), and was then able to have his ships outrun most of the missiles (which were travelling at Mach 4.5), and the only ship that was hit was able to shrug off a hit to the engine room without batting an eyelid (admittedly, ships don't have eyelids, but it's only a metaphor). When one takes into account that said ship was nuclear powered, and that the reactor would almost certainly have been damaged and leaking radiation, you begin to realise why I am of the opinion that people who play as Communists are godmoders. Now if this was a one off event, I may be prepared to dismiss it as the work of one individual. However, the same thing has occured in almost every conflict I have had with Communist nations. One could almost say that a pattern is forming.
Capitalists have good reason to form alliances against Communism, given that many Communist nations have the stated aim of exporting their revolution. The overthrow of a sovereign nations government is an act of war, and it is bad for business (less customers to export to). As a result it is a good idea to prevent this from happening. And how do we prevent this from happening? By spending money on military equipment, which is also good for business.
See, this makes perfect sense if one takes the time to actually think about it, rather than merely spamming the rantings of a dead man.

Could we have a name? Dont forget that we dont classify some communists as communists. There are Stalinists who consider themselves Communist, but are fascist. Just hide behind the words of Communist. Also, not everyone are who they say they are....

I have one thing to say:

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.TAB1.GIF

BUMP

i will apply

Your in.

Ingaevonia is in

The Imperial Knights is in

I would like to join.

OOC: Ah your ignorance is amazing. I am a capatilist and you give us a bad name! And then you wonder why there's more commies in NS? Communism is not a government plan, it's an economic plan. And if you say it destroys an economy, then you my friend are wrong. My economy is "Thriving" my tax rate is 44% which is low my friend. Also, my civil rights are "Excellent" and Political Freedoms "Superb". Now let's look at other capatilist states. They are usually dictatorships that have a low tax rate, no rights, and a "Frightning" economy. Hmmm ain't that nice? So research more before you spit your mouths at the Reds huh? They got feelings too damn it! I'm gonna have a surprise June 5th :wink:

President Sergei Ilyanov of the Commonwealth of the Island of Rose
UN Delegate of The New Roman Empire
Member of the International

P.S. And no I won't tell ya

I would like to join.

Your in.

OOC: IOTR, Magdha has Excellent personal freedom and an All-Consuming Economy. And 44% is a rediculous tax rate.

OOC: Ah, you don't like when we generalize you lol, eh because of the UN decision I'm marked as a Corporate Bordello :( and 44% is low for most communist nations, you must admit that.

President Sergei Ilyanov of the Commonwealth of the Island of Rose
UN Delegate of The New Roman Empire
Member of the International

You Terribly fools. Enemies of the greatest system of human nature. You, all of you will burn for your horrid opposition of the Grand Soviet Order. An alliance against communism, HA! Unclean infidels. WE will smite your nations with one fell swoop of our mighty fists! :x

:lol:

This should be interesting.

so thats why just about every communist country fell even the beloved russia Father Land what a bunch of crap. :roll:

Kainela openly condemns this alliance - While a capitalist society itself, such aggressive actions as the formation of alliances specifically designed to attack a certain nation or system is always condemned by Kainela. We feel it is a direct contradiction of freedom-loving, peace-loving ideals theoretically expressed by capitalists worldwide.

do you ever see any of these noob threads run by commies? ever see a post "d00d!!!1!!! k1ll 4ll Kapitalists!!!@11!! j01n my 4ll14nc3!!!!" no but there are plenty of them saying "KILL ALL COMMIES!" usually written in all caps, as if caps lock was stuck, or they spell communist, kOmmunist.


also, do you ever see communists supressing elections in other countries the way you plan to?

Due to an increasing threat from communists and terrorism, we have decided that it is necessary to join in an Alliance to defend our rights.

Please post if you are interested and I will review your nation.


Benefits for Capitalist Alliance-
Free Trade

Military Aid in Case of Attack

The real terrorists:

http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v238/prophet4profit/PIGS1.gif

"I'll have you know that I actually own the collected works of Karl Marx, which includes much more than just the Communist Manifesto. None of that changes the fact that Communism has never been succesfully implemented in any large scale, and that the only attempts to date have resulted in dictatorships"

Dude, if you own publications you're supposed to read them, not just tout the fact that hey, a piece of communist literature is counted amongst the unused piles of your private property.

Aaanyway, I wonder, what would this ramshackle collection of clueless thugs think of the situation on one particular NS Korean peninsula, were it aware of the recent struggle between 5-year-plan-alike Kurosite and Year-Zero styled Suloist factions, and of the Kurosite success... or the second Choson People's Republic(an) military victory over a predominantly capitalist-ish coalition.

(Wow, actually, I really do wonder, it's not going away.)

Kainela openly condemns this alliance - While a capitalist society itself, such aggressive actions as the formation of alliances specifically designed to attack a certain nation or system is always condemned by Kainela. We feel it is a direct contradiction of freedom-loving, peace-loving ideals theoretically expressed by capitalists worldwide.

This is an alliance dedicated to the eradication of the plague of communism.

The Holy Empire is a nation of laissez-faire-loving people, though centrist socially. We would be more than happy to engage in mutual free trade with any nation who so desires, and to come to the defense of any nation with a free economy who is attacked for economic reasons. We refuse, however, to join in wars of aggression; we would therefore like to join this alliance offering full access to our markets and defence to its members.

Take your stinkin' paws off of me, you damned double-post!

IRL I have had the extreme displeasure iof living in China, the most communist nation on the earth (and they'll tell you that) and as a result despise communists IRL or on NS...

IC

Therefore you may mark our nation and it's military down as an applicant of your alliance.

You will find that we are a large (2 billion), well funded nation with an excellent standard defence force.

IRL I have had the extreme displeasure iof living in China, the most communist nation on the earthOOC:They also call themselves a free republic. That is bullshit as well. Do you hate free republics too now? China is a perfect example of why capitalism and the state must be destroyed.

I'm taking it your a communist nation yourself or at least a backer.

I saw people shot in their front doorways for not paying taxes they couldn't afford. Worse I have heard the cheers from the sporting stadiums as some other poor villager copped a 9mm to the head. Communism is the excuse of the rich to rule the country while explaining to the poor that "all wealth is to be shared equally". That's why in one part of Fouzhou a communist official is building a golf course while the people who lived down the ally were living off our rubbish.

Communism does not work. It's fall in korea, vietnam and taiwan proves that. The only trouble is it takes down the people with it. Look at the only two communist nations left in the world today. China and Cuba are both third world. Communism is the biggest hypocryte, oxymoron, parodox, whatever you want to call it this world has seen.

It must be stamped out. Communist nations peoples are in as much need of 'liberating' as the people of Iraq and Afganistan were.

OOC: *CRACKS HEAD REPEATEDLY ON HIS DESK*

Communism has never been established... why don't you people get that we are pretending the eutopian sustem has been put into effect & we pretend it works?

sheesh you people never read anything written by a lefty do you? Certainley not enough too get an opinion.

OOC: *CRACKS HEAD REPEATEDLY ON HIS DESK*

Communism has never been established... why don't you people get that we are pretending the eutopian sustem has been put into effect & we pretend it works?
OOC: Not all of us. I for example am using a variation od an anarcho-communist system which has been shown to work quite well on large and small scales for extended periods of time.

I have read it, and even if I read it continuosly until the day I die it will not change the fact that Communism does not work and that every attempt to implement it on a large scale has failed. If you want to play the game properly, then your countries should have turned out like every other experiment in Communism.
But, just as I have been saying all through this thread, you ignore reality, and then claim to live in some kind Utopia (which by the way, was written by a convicted traitor) and refuse to take damage when attacked.
You speak openly of exporting your revolution, and then complain when capitalists attempt to export their ideology, often to the extent of simply refusing to play out the consequences of such an act.
You speak of holding free and fair elections. Yesterday I saw a thread with a communist state holding an election where there was no opposition, merely several different Communist parties with marginally different names.
Quite frankly, I am getting extremely close to just placing Communists in the same category as Elves and Space People, and just mass ignoring the lot of them for being unrealistic godmoders.

You Terribly fools. Enemies of the greatest system of human nature. You, all of you will burn for your horrid opposition of the Grand Soviet Order. An alliance against communism, HA! Unclean infidels. WE will smite your nations with one fell swoop of our mighty fists! :x

*cringe*

He doesn't speak for us all! Comrade: you seem to be equating socialism with religion. I should feel insulted, but I know you triehard American Red Alert 2 fans are just doing your best...

OOC: Hear hear Shildonia. Personally, I hate communism. It cannot work. There is not a single example of where communism has worked. Hitler's Germany worked. Mussolini's Italy worked. When will people learn.

IRL I have had the extreme displeasure iof living in China, the most communist nation on the earth (and they'll tell you that) and as a result despise communists IRL or on NS...

IC

Therefore you may mark our nation and it's military down as an applicant of your alliance.

You will find that we are a large (2 billion), well funded nation with an excellent standard defence force.

Accepted, definitley.

As of now FWS is in control of the alliance, he is responsible for admitting members and taking action.

Actions the alliance may take-
Stopping a communist takeover in other countires

Defending allies if they get attacked.

I'll quote a few people I have come across, but I can't remember who they are, so I won't credit them... sorry.

To start with, attacks on Communism are always the same. You could set your watch to them. "Communist is evil" "Communism goes against human nature" "Communist killed 100 million people in the 20th Century" and blah, blah, blah. In the end, all those insults show over and over again that anti-Communist indoctrination is the most successful indoctrination program of our time.

To begin with, Communist did not "kill" 100 million people. Not even close. This figure has been touted around for many years and to this date no historian has actually been able to prove it or verify it in any way. The assertion that 100 million were 'murdered' by Communism is frankly insane. It's so ridiculous that serious people aren't even discussing it. Anyone who has even taken a basic course in moral philosophy at university level will know the fundamental difference between 'killing' or 'murdering' such as the Nazis practiced during the Holocaust and 'letting die' through the negligence or incompetence of the political system. This is such a basic point I find it hard to believe that it actually needs to be made. The fact of the matter is that millions of Russian peasants died in the 1920s and 1930a due to the incompetence of Stalin and the inadequacies of the Soviet economic system. That doesn't mean they were 'murdered'. And the KGB/NKVD’s own archives have the true numbers: for the period 1934-1953, the height of the Gulag, 1,053,829 persons (less than one third of them being political prisoners) actually died. Not 20 million. Not 60 million. 1,053,829. And the majority of those died during the years of World War II when deprivation was the norm in the entire Soviet Union. Add to that number about 1,000,000 German POWs who died in the late 40s and you get the true picture of this so-called "murder machine". Don't get us wrong, I still think the fact that a million people died is terrible, but the truth of the matter is is that Stalinism is not a form of socialism but a form of state capitalism.

The assertion that roughly 65 million died as a result of famine in China (they were not 'murdered') is simply crude speculation. Historians who claim this should be looked upon with suspicion. We know how many died in the USSR because the Union collapsed and its secret archives were opened to historians. It has clearly escaped everyone's attention that the regime in China has not fallen and the state archives are closed to Western scrutiny. How then is the figure of 65 million arrived at? Well, put simply, they made it up. Most serious historians put the figure somewhere between 20 and 40 million. And the Chinese Famine was hardly planned: in 1957-58 China experienced its worst drought in centuries. That coupled with the fact that the country was still ravaged from the destruction of World War II and the fact that the Communist government was trying to create new industrial means of agriculture all contributed to the horrific famine. It wasn’t a deliberate slaughter. It wasn’t planned. It was an attempt to modernise agriculture (to feed more people mind you) that went wrong due to incompetence and things completely outside of the government’s control i.e. the weather. The famine itself was such a scandal in China that Mao, a man who was almost a god in China during those times, was forced to resign as supreme leader and give the power over to an Assembly. He did not return to full power until his Cultural Revolution in 1966.

Once you start to analyse the methodology that these "historians" use to arrive at 100 million killed you start to see that most of it is bullshit. Let’s analyse Capitalism using the same methods they use to vilify Communism: Since India's transition to a democratic capitalist state in 1949 more have died every 8 years as a result of poverty, malnutrition, lack of basic health-care etc. than the total number of people who perished in the Chinese Great Famine. That's 100 million deaths every 8 years as a result of the inadequacies of the capitalist system. Or should we say that capitalism 'murders' more than 100 million impoverished Indians every decade? If we had any interest in consistency we certainly would. Since the Industrial Revolution in England more than 300 million people have died as a result of capitalist governments (due to a combination of poverty and imperialist wars). That's 300 million 'murdered' by capitalism- and the death toll is still rising! Thus, applying the framework set out by anti-communist demagogues in a comparative analysis of the non-Communist world, the only rational conclusion one can draw is that liberal capitalism is a greater evil than orthodox Communism.

I’ll leave you with this: according to the World Health Organisation: 4.5 million children die every year from hunger and malnutrition. Do you know why? Because they are unprofitable. If money could be made feeding those children you can bet your ass that all of them would be fed. In the end, THAT is the very essence of Capitalism: it has no place for people…only profits. We are now faced with a worse problem than ever: that of extinction... caused by overpopulation, the greenhouse effect, etc. and capitalism is doing its best to hurry the process along and kill us all.

Think about what socialists stand for; we stand for equality, a world free of sexism, racism, homophobia, disease, inequality etc. That is all! Not forced labor camps, not executions, not dictators. As a Trotskyist, I am venomently opposed to Stalinism. Packaging all socialists into one bundle and declaring us commie warmonegers is the type of attitude that shall one day kill us all. Another fact; the population of capitalist Russia is going down 30% every 10 years. If the USSR had continued to go on, the population would have rised 10% every decade.

Read this:

'Our fear that communism might someday take
over most of the world blinds us to the fact
that anti-communism already has.'
Michael Parenti, The Anti-Communist Impulse

This introduction is presented, with some modifications, as it appeared in 1986. At that time the Soviet Union still existed and the cold war was very much alive. It is presented here because it offers a concise history of the cold war and a background to understanding the impetus behind, and the nature of, the many American interventions throughout the world.]


It was in the early days of the fighting in Vietnam that a Vietcong officer said to his American prisoner: "You were our heroes after the War. We read American books and saw American films, and a common phrase in those days was `to be as rich and as wise as an American'. What happened?"{1}

An American might have been asked something similar by a Guatemalan, an Indonesian or a Cuban during the ten years previous, or by a Uruguayan, a Chilean or a Greek in the decade subsequent. The remarkable international goodwill and credibility enjoyed by the United States at the close of the Second World War was dissipated country by country, intervention by intervention. The opportunity to build the war-ravaged world anew, to lay the foundations for peace, prosperity and justice, collapsed under the awful weight of anti-communism.

The weight had been accumulating for some time; indeed, since Day One of the Russian Revolution. By the summer of 1918 some 13,000 American troops could be found in the newly-born Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Two years and thousands of casualties later, the American troops left, having failed in their mission to "strangle at its birth" the Bolshevik state, as Winston Churchill put it.{2} The young Churchill was Great Britain's Minister for War and Air during this period. Increasingly, it was he who directed the invasion of the Soviet Union by the Allies (Great Britain, the US, France, Japan and several other nations) on the side of the counter-revolutionary "White Army". Years later, Churchill the historian was to record his views of this singular affair for posterity:

Were they [the Allies] at war with Soviet Russia? Certainly not; but they shot Soviet Russians at sight. They stood as invaders on Russian soil. They armed the enemies of the Soviet Government. They blockaded its ports, and sunk its battleships. They earnestly desired and schemed its downfall. But war -- shocking! Interference -- shame! It was, they repeated, a matter of indifference to them how Russians settled their own internal affairs. They were impartial -- Bang!{3}
What was there about this Bolshevik Revolution that so alarmed the most powerful nations in the world? What drove them to invade a land whose soldiers had recently fought alongside them for over three years and suffered more casualties than any other country on either side of the World War?

The Bolsheviks had had the audacity to make a separate peace with Germany in order to take leave of a war they regarded as imperialist and not in any way their war, and to try and rebuild a terribly weary and devastated Russia. But the Bolsheviks had displayed the far greater audacity of overthrowing a capitalist-feudal system and proclaiming the first socialist state in the history of the world. This was uppitiness writ incredibly large. This was the crime the Allies had to punish, the virus which had to be eradicated lest it spread to their own people.

The invasion did not achieve its immediate purpose, but its consequences were nonetheless profound and persist to the present day. Professor D.F. Fleming, the Vanderbilt University historian of the cold war, has noted:

For the American people the cosmic tragedy of the interventions in Russia does not exist, or it was an unimportant incident long forgotten. But for the Soviet peoples and their leaders the period was a time of endless killing, of looting and rapine, of plague and famine, of measureless suffering for scores of millions -- an experience burned into the very soul of a nation, not to be forgotten for many generations, if ever. Also for many years the harsh Soviet regimentations could all be justified by fear that the capitalist powers would be back to finish the job. It is not strange that in his address in New York, September 17, 1959, Premier Khrushchev should remind us of the interventions, "the time you sent your troops to quell the revolution", as he put it.{4}
In what could be taken as a portent of superpower insensitivity, a 1920 US War Department report reads: "This expedition affords one of the finest examples in history of honorable, unselfish dealings ... under very difficult circumstances to be helpful to a people struggling to achieve a new liberty." {5}

History does not tell us what a Soviet Union, allowed to develop in a "normal" way of its own choosing, would look like today. We do know, however, the nature of a Soviet Union attacked in its cradle, raised alone in an extremely hostile world, and, when it managed to survive to adulthood, overrun by the Nazi war machine with the blessings of the Western powers. The resulting insecurities and fears have inevitably led to deformities of character not unlike that found in an individual raised in a similar life-threatening manner.

We in the West are never allowed to forget the political shortcomings (real and alleged) of the Soviet Union; at the same time we are never reminded of the history which lies behind it. The anti-communist propaganda campaign began even earlier than the military intervention. Before the year 1918 was over, expressions in the vein of "Red Peril", "the Bolshevik assault on civilization", and "menace to world by Reds is seen" had become commonplace in the pages of the New York Times.

During February and March 1919, a US Senate Judiciary Subcommittee held hearings before which many "Bolshevik horror stories" were presented. The character of some of the testimony can be gauged by the headline in the usually sedate Times of 12 February 1919.

DESCRIBE HORRORS UNDER RED RULE. R.E. SIMONS AND W.W. WELSH TELL SENATORS OF BRUTALITIES OF BOLSHEVIKI -- STRIP WOMEN IN STREETS -- PEOPLE OF EVERY CLASS EXCEPT THE SCUM SUBJECTED TO VIOLENCE BY MOBS.
Historian Frederick Lewis Schuman has written: "The net result of these hearings ... was to picture Soviet Russia as a kind of bedlam inhabited by abject slaves completely at the mercy of an organization of homicidal maniacs whose purpose was to destroy all traces of civilization and carry the nation back to barbarism."{6}

Literally no story about the Bolsheviks was too contrived, too bizarre, too grotesque, or too perverted to be printed and widely believed -- from women being nationalized to babies being eaten (as the early pagans believed the Christians guilty of devouring their children; the same was believed of the Jews in the Middle Ages). The story about women with all the lurid connotations of state property, compulsory marriage, "free love", etc. "was broadcasted over the country through a thousand channels," wrote Schuman, "and perhaps did more than anything else to stamp the Russian Communists in the minds of most American citizens as criminal perverts".{7} This tale continued to receive great currency even after the State Department was obliged to announce that it was a fraud. (That the Soviets eat their babies was still being taught by the John Birch Society to its large audience at least as late as 1978.){8}

By the end of 1919, when the defeat of the Allies and the White Army appeared likely, the New York Times treated its readers to headlines and stories such as the following:

30 Dec. 1919: "Reds Seek War With America"
9 Jan. 1920: "`Official quarters' describe the Bolshevist menace in the Middle East as ominous"
11 Jan. 1920: "Allied officials and diplomats [envisage] a possible invasion of Europe"
13 Jan. 1920: "Allied diplomatic circles" fear an invasion of Persia
16 Jan. 1920: A page-one headline, eight columns wide: "Britain Facing War With Reds, Calls Council In Paris."
"Well-informed diplomats" expect both a military invasion of Europe and a Soviet advance into Eastern and Southern Asia.
The following morning, however, we could read: "No War With Russia, Allies To Trade With Her"
7 Feb. 1920: "Reds Raising Army To Attack India"
11 Feb. 1920: "Fear That Bolsheviki Will Now Invade Japanese Territory"
Readers of the New York Times were asked to believe that all these invasions were to come from a nation that was shattered as few nations in history have been; a nation still recovering from a horrendous world war; in extreme chaos from a fundamental social revolution that was barely off the ground; engaged in a brutal civil war against forces backed by the major powers of the world; its industries, never advanced to begin with, in a shambles; and the country in the throes of a famine that was to leave many millions dead before it subsided.

In 1920, The New Republic magazine presented a lengthy analysis of the news coverage by the New York Times of the Russian Revolution and the intervention. Amongst much else, it observed that in the two years following the November 1917 revolution, the Times had stated no less than 91 times that "the Soviets were nearing their rope's end or actually had reached it."{9}

If this was reality as presented by the United States' "newspaper of record", one can imagine only with dismay the witch's brew the rest of the nation's newspapers were feeding to their readers.

This, then, was the American people's first experience of a new social phenomenon that had come upon the world, their introductory education about the Soviet Union and this thing called "communism". The students have never recovered from the lesson. Neither has the Soviet Union.

The military intervention came to an end but, with the sole and partial exception of the Second World War period, the propaganda offensive has never let up. In 1943 Life magazine devoted an entire issue in honor of the Soviet Union's accomplishments, going far beyond what was demanded by the need for wartime solidarity, going so far as to call Lenin "perhaps the greatest man of modern times".{10} Two years later, however, with Harry Truman sitting in the White House, such fraternity had no chance of surviving. Truman, after all, was the man who, the day after the Nazis invaded the Soviet Union, said: "If we see that Germany is winning, we ought to help Russia, and if Russia is winning, we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible, although I don't want to see Hitler victorious in any circumstance."{11} Much propaganda mileage has been squeezed out of the Soviet-German treaty of 1939, made possible only by entirely ignoring the fact that the Russians were forced into the pact by the repeated refusal of the Western powers, particularly the United States and Great Britain, to unite with Moscow in a stand against Hitler;{12} as they likewise refused to come to the aid of the socialist-oriented Spanish government under siege by the German, Italian and Spanish fascists, and even sold arms to Hitler and Mussolini..

From the Red Scare of the 1920s to the McCarthyism of the 1950s to the Reagan Crusade against the Evil Empire of the 1980s, the American people have been subjected to a relentless anti-communist indoctrination. It is imbibed with their mother's milk, pictured in their comic books, spelled out in their school books; their daily paper offers them headlines that tell them all they need to know; ministers find sermons in it, politicians are elected with it, and Reader's Digest becomes rich on it.

The fiercely-held conviction inevitably produced by this insidious assault upon the intellect is that a great damnation has been unleashed upon the world, possibly by the devil himself, but in the form of people; people not motivated by the same needs, fears, emotions, and personal morality that govern others of the species, but people engaged in an extremely clever, monolithic, international conspiracy dedicated to taking over the world and enslaving it; for reasons not always clear perhaps, but evil needs no motivation save evil itself. Moreover, any appearance or claim by these people to be rational human beings seeking a better kind of world or society is a sham, a cover-up, to delude others, and proof only of their cleverness; the repression and cruelties which have taken place in the Soviet Union are forever proof of the bankruptcy of virtue and the evil intentions of these people in whichever country they may be found, under whatever name they may call themselves: and, most important of all, the only choice open to anyone in the United States is between the American Way of Life and the Soviet Way of Life, that nothing lies between or beyond these two ways of making the world.

This is how it looks to the simple folk of America. One finds that the sophisticated, when probed slightly beneath the surface of their academic language, see it exactly the same way.

And lest we think that such beliefs belong to an earlier, less enlightened period, it should be noted that in the fall of 1987, two years after Gorbachev, when a Gallup poll asked Americans whether they agreed that "There is an international Communist conspiracy to rule the world", 60 percent replied in the affirmative; only 28 percent disagreed.{13)

To the mind carefully brought to adulthood in the United States, the truths of anti-communism are self-evident, as self-evident as the flatness of the world once was to an earlier mind; as the Russian people believed that the victims of Stalin's purges were truly guilty of treason.


The foregoing slice of American history must be taken into account if one is to make sense of the vagaries of American foreign policy since the end of World War II, specifically the record, as presented in this book, of what the CIA and other branches of the US government have done to the peoples of the world.

In 1918, the barons of American capital needed no reason for their war against communism other than the threat to their wealth and privilege, although their opposition was expressed in terms of moral indignation.

During the period between the two world wars, US gunboat diplomacy operated in the Caribbean to make "The American Lake" safe for the fortunes of United Fruit and W.R. Grace & Co., at the same time warning of the Bolshevik threat to righteousness from the likes of Augusto Sandino.

By the end of the Second World War, every American past the age of 40 had been subjected to some 25 years of anti-communist radiation, the average incubation period needed to produce a malignancy. Anti-communism had developed a life of its own, independent of its capitalist father. Increasingly, in the post-war period, middle-aged Washington policy makers and diplomats saw the world out there as one composed of "communists" and "anti-communists", whether of nations, movements or individuals. This comic-strip vision of the world, with American supermen fighting communist evil everywhere, had graduated from a cynical propaganda exercise to a moral imperative of US foreign policy.

Even the concept of "non-communist", implying some measure of neutrality, has generally been accorded scant legitimacy in this paradigm. John Foster Dulles, one of the major architects of post-war US foreign policy, expressed this succinctly in his typically simple, moralistic way: "For us there are two sorts of people in the world: there are those who are Christians and support free enterprise and there are the others."{14} As several of the case studies in the present book confirm, Dulles put that creed into rigid practice.


It is as true now as ever that American multinationals derive significant economic advantages from Third World countries due to their being under-industrialized, under-diversified, capitalist-oriented, and relatively powerless.

It is equally true that the consequence of American interventions has frequently been to keep Third World countries in just such an underdeveloped, impotent state.

There is thus at least a prima-facie case to be made for the contention that the engine of US foreign policy is still fueled predominantly by "economic imperialism".

But that the consequence illuminates the intent does not necessarily follow. The argument that economic factors have continued to exert an important and direct influence upon United States interventionist policy in modern times does not stand up to close or "micro" examination. When all the known elements of the interventions are considered, scarcely any cases emerge which actually conform to the economic model, and even in these the stage is shared with other factors. The upshot in the great majority of cases is that tangible economic gain, existing or potential, did not, and could not, play a determining role in the American decision to intervene. The economic model proves woefully inadequate not only as a means of explanation, but even more so as a tool of prediction. In each of the most recent cases, for example -- Grenada, El Salvador, and Nicaragua -- American intervention was foreseen and warned of well in advance simply, and only, because of the "communist" nature of the targets. But no one seriously suggested that some treasure lay in these impoverished lands luring the American pirates. Indeed, after the conquest and occupation of Grenada, the US business community displayed a marked indifference to setting up shop on the island, despite being implored to do so by Washington for political reasons. In other cases, where the American side failed to win a civil war, such as in China, Vietnam and Angola, Washington put up barriers to American corporations having any commercial dealings with the new regimes which were actually eager to do business with the United States.

But this, as mentioned, is the "micro" way of looking at the question. One can just as legitimately approach it from a "macro" point of view. Seen from this perspective, one must examine the role of the military-industrial-intelligence complex. The members of this network need enemies -- the military and the CIA because enemies are their raison d'être, industry, specifically the defense contractors, because enemies are to be fought, with increasingly sophisticated weaponry and aircraft systems; enemies of our enemies are to be armed, to the teeth. It's made these corporations wealthier than many countries of the world; in one year the US spends on the military more than $17,000 per hour, for every hour since Jesus Christ was born. The executives of these corporations have long moved effortlessly through a revolving door between industry and government service, members in good standing of the good ol' boys club who continue to use their positions, their wealth, and their influence, along with a compliant and indispensable media, as we shall see, to nourish and perpetuate the fear of "communism, the enemy" now in its seventh decade and going strong. Given the nature and machinations of the military-industrial-intelligence complex, interventions against these enemies are inevitable, and, from the complex's point of view, highly desirable.

In cases such as the above-mentioned Grenada, El Salvador, and Nicaragua, even if the particular target of intervention does not present an immediate lucrative economic opportunity for American multinationals, the target's socialist-revolutionary program and rhetoric does present a threat and a challenge which the United States has repeatedly felt obliged to stamp out, to maintain the principle, and as a warning to others; for what the US has always feared from the Third World is the emergence of a good example: a flourishing socialist society independent of Washington.

Governments and movements with such programs and rhetoric are clearly not going to be cold-war allies, are clearly "communist", and thus are eminently credible candidates for the category of enemy.

Inextricably bound up with these motivations is a far older seducer of men and nations, the lust for power: the acquisition, maintenance, use and enjoyment of influence and prestige; the incomparable elation that derives from molding the world in your own beloved image.

In all these paradigms, "communist" is often no more than the name ascribed to those people who stand in the way of the realization of such ambitions (as "national security" is the name given for the reason for fighting "communists"). It is another twist of the old adage: if communists didn't exist, the United States would have to invent them. And so they have. The word "communist" (as well as "Marxist") has been so overused and so abused by American leaders and the media as to render it virtually meaningless. (The Left has done the same to the word "fascist".) But merely having a name for something -- witches or flying saucers -- attaches a certain credence to it.

At the same time, the American public, as we have seen, has been soundly conditioned to react Pavlovianly to the term: it means, still, the worst excesses of Stalin, from wholesale purges to Siberian slave-labor camps; it means, as Michael Parenti has observed, that "Classic Marxist-Leninist predictions [concerning world revolution] are treated as statements of intent directing all present-day communist actions."{15} It means "us" against "them".

And "them" can mean a peasant in the Philippines, a mural-painter in Nicaragua, a legally-elected prime minister in British Guiana, or a European intellectual, a Cambodian neutralist, an African nationalist -- all, somehow, part of the same monolithic conspiracy; each, in some way, a threat to the American Way of Life; no land too small, too poor, or too far away to pose such a threat, the "communist threat".

The cases presented in this book illustrate that it has been largely irrelevant whether the particular targets of intervention -- be they individuals, political parties, movements or governments -- called themselves "communist" or not. It has mattered little whether they were scholars of dialectical materialism or had never heard of Karl Marx; whether they were atheists or priests; whether a strong and influential Communist Party was in the picture or not; whether the government had come into being through violent revolution or peaceful elections ... all have been targets, all "communists".

It has mattered still less that the Soviet KGB was in the picture. The assertion has been frequently voiced that the CIA carries out its dirty tricks largely in reaction to operations of the KGB which have been "even dirtier". This is a lie made out of whole cloth. There may be an isolated incident of such in the course of the CIA's life, but it has kept itself well hidden. The relationship between the two sinister agencies is marked by fraternization and respect for fellow professionals more than by hand-to-hand combat. Former CIA officer John Stockwell has written:

Actually, at least in more routine operations, case officers most fear the US ambassador and his staff, then restrictive headquarters cables, then curious, gossipy neighbors in the local community, as potential threats to operations. Next would come the local police, then the press. Last of all is the KGB -- in my twelve years of case officering I never saw or heard of a situation in which the KGB attacked or obstructed a CIA operation.{16}
Stockwell adds that the various intelligence services do not want their world to be "complicated" by murdering each other.

It isn't done. If a CIA case officer has a flat tire in the dark of night on a lonely road, he will not hesitate to accept a ride from a KGB officer -- likely the two would detour to some bar for a drink together. In fact CIA and KGB officers entertain each other frequently in their homes. The CIA's files are full of mention of such relationships in almost every African station.{17}
Proponents of "fighting fire with fire" come perilously close at times to arguing that if the KGB, for example, had a hand in the overthrow of the Czechoslovak government in 1968, it is OK for the CIA to have a hand in the overthrow of the Chilean government in 1973. It's as if the destruction of democracy by the KGB deposits funds in a bank account from which the CIA is then justified in making withdrawals.

notes

What then has been the thread common to the diverse targets of American intervention which has brought down upon them the wrath, and often the firepower, of the world's most powerful nation? In virtually every case involving the Third World described in this book, it has been, in one form or another, a policy of "self-determination": the desire, born of perceived need and principle, to pursue a path of development independent of US foreign policy objectives. Most commonly, this has been manifested in (a) the ambition to free themselves from economic and political subservience to the United States; (b) the refusal to minimize relations with the socialist bloc, or suppress the left at home, or welcome an American military installation on their soil; in short, a refusal to be a pawn in the cold war; or (c) the attempt to alter or replace a government which held to neither of these aspirations.

It cannot be emphasized too strongly that such a policy of independence has been viewed and expressed by numerous Third World leaders and revolutionaries as one not to be equated by definition to anti-Americanism or pro-communism, but as simply a determination to maintain a position of neutrality and non-alignment vis-...-vis the two superpowers. Time and time again, however, it will be seen that the United States was not prepared to live with this proposition. Arbenz of Guatemala, Mossadegh of Iran, Sukarno of Indonesia, Nkrumah of Ghana, Jagan of British Guiana, Sihanouk of Cambodia ... all, insisted Uncle Sam, must declare themselves unequivocally on the side of "The Free World" or suffer the consequences. Nkrumah put the case for non-alignment as follows:

The experiment which we tried in Ghana was essentially one of developing the country in co-operation with the world as a whole. Non-alignment meant exactly what it said. We were not hostile to the countries of the socialist world in the way in which the governments of the old colonial territories were. It should be remembered that while Britain pursued at home co-existence with the Soviet Union this was never allowed to extend to British colonial territories. Books on socialism, which were published and circulated freely in Britain, were banned in the British colonial empire, and after Ghana became independent it was assumed abroad that it would continue to follow the same restrictive ideological approach. When we behaved as did the British in their relations with the socialist countries we were accused of being pro-Russian and introducing the most dangerous ideas into Africa.{18}
It is reminiscent of the 19th-century American South, where many Southerners were deeply offended that so many of their black slaves had deserted to the Northern side in the Civil War. They had genuinely thought that the blacks should have been grateful for all their white masters had done for them, and that they were happy and content with their lot. A Southern physician, Samuel Cartwright, argued that many of the slaves suffered from a form of mental illness, which he called "drapetomania", diagnosed as the uncontrollable urge to escape from slavery. In the second half of the 20th-century, this illness, in the Third World, has usually been called "communism".

When Washington officials equate nationalism or self-determination with "communism", there are times when they are "correct". At other times, they are "wrong". It doesn't particularly matter, for in either case they are referring to the same phenomenon. Although, in this book, the Soviet Union, China, various communist parties, etc., are sometimes referred to as "communist", this is primarily a shorthand convenience and a bow to custom, and is not meant to infer a political ideology or practice necessarily different in any way from those governments or parties not referred to as communist. Emphasis is placed upon what these bodies have actually done, not upon reference to what Marx or Lenin wrote.


Perhaps the most deeply ingrained reflex of knee-jerk anti-communism is the belief that the Soviet Union (or Cuba or Vietnam, etc., acting as Moscow's surrogate) is a clandestine force lurking behind the facade of self-determination, stirring up the hydra of revolution, or just plain trouble, here, there, and everywhere; yet another incarnation, although on a far grander scale, of the proverbial "outside agitator", he who has made his appearance regularly throughout history ... King George blamed the French for inciting the American colonies to revolt ... disillusioned American farmers and veterans protesting their onerous economic circumstances after the revolution (Shays' Rebellion) were branded as British agents out to wreck the new republic ... labor strikes in late-19th-century America were blamed on "anarchists" and "foreigners", during the First World War on "German agents", after the war on "Bolsheviks".

And in the 1960s, said the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence, J. Edgar Hoover "helped spread the view among the police ranks that any kind of mass protest is due to a conspiracy promulgated by agitators, often Communists, `who misdirect otherwise contented people'."{19}

The last is the key phrase, one which encapsulates the conspiracy mentality of those in power -- the idea that no people, except those living under the enemy, could be so miserable and discontent as to need recourse to revolution or even mass protest; that it is only the agitation of the outsider which misdirects them along this path. Accordingly, if Ronald Reagan were to concede that the masses of El Salvador have every good reason to rise up against their god-awful existence, it would bring into question his accusation, and the rationale for US intervention, that it is principally (only?) the Soviet Union and its Cuban and Nicaraguan allies who instigate the Salvadoreans: that seemingly magical power of communists everywhere who, with a twist of their red wrist, can transform peaceful, happy people into furious guerrillas. The CIA knows how difficult a feat this is. The Agency, as we shall see, tried to spark mass revolt in China, Albania, Cuba, the Soviet Union, and elsewhere in Eastern Europe with a singular lack of success. The Agency's scribes have laid the blame for these failures on the "closed" nature of the societies involved. But in non-communist countries, the CIA has had to resort to military coups or extra-legal chicanery to get its people into power. It has never been able to light the fire of popular revolution.

For Washington to concede merit and virtue to a particular Third World insurgency would, moreover, raise the question: Why does not the United States, if it must intervene, take the side of the rebels? Not only might this better serve the cause of human rights and justice, but it would shut out the Russians from their alleged role. What better way to frustrate the International Communist Conspiracy? But this is a question that dares not speak its name in the Oval Office, a question that is relevant to many of the cases in this book.

Instead, the United States remains committed to its all-too-familiar policy of establishing and/or supporting the most vile tyrannies in the world, whose outrages against their own people confront us daily in the pages of our newspapers: brutal massacres; systematic, sophisticated torture; public whippings; soldiers and police firing into crowds; hunger, runaway unemployment, the homeless, the refugees, the tens of thousands of disappeared persons ... a way of life that is virtually a monopoly held by America's allies, from Guatemala, Chile and El Salvador to Turkey, Pakistan and Indonesia, all members in good standing of the Holy War Against Communism, all members of "The Free World", that region of which we hear so much and see so little.

The restrictions on civil liberties found in the communist bloc, as severe as they are, pale by comparison to the cottage-industry Auschwitzes of "The Free World", and, except in that curious mental landscape inhabited by The Compleat Anti-Communist, can have little or nothing to do with the sundry American interventions supposedly in the cause of a higher good.

It is interesting to note that as commonplace as it is for American leaders to speak of freedom and democracy while supporting dictatorships, so do Russian leaders speak of wars of liberation, anti-imperialism and anti-colonialism while doing extremely little to actually further these causes, American propaganda notwithstanding. The Soviets like to be thought of as champions of the Third World, but they have stood by doing little more than going "tsk, tsk" as progressive movements and governments, even Communist Parties, in Greece, Guatemala, British Guiana, Chile, Indonesia, the Philippines and elsewhere have gone to the wall with American complicity.


During the early 1950s, the Central Intelligence Agency instigated several military incursions into Communist China. In 1960, CIA planes, without any provocation, bombed the sovereign nation of Guatemala. In 1973, the Agency encouraged a bloody revolt against the government of Iraq. In the American mass media at the time, and therefore in the American mind, these events did not happen.

"We didn't know what was happening", became a cliché used to ridicule those Germans who claimed ignorance of the events which took place under the Nazis. Yet, was their stock answer as far-fetched as we'd like to think? It is sobering to reflect that in our era of instant world-wide communications, the United States has, on many occasions, been able to mount a large- or small-scale military operation or undertake another, equally blatant, form of intervention without the American public being aware of it until years later, if ever. Often the only report of the event or of US involvement was a passing reference to the fact that a communist government had made certain charges -- just the kind of "news" the American public has been well conditioned to dismiss out of hand, and the press not to follow up; as the German people were taught that reports from abroad of Nazi wrong-doings were no more than communist propaganda.

With few exceptions, the interventions never made the headlines or the evening TV news. With some, bits and pieces of the stories have popped up here and there, but rarely brought together to form a cohesive and enlightening whole; the fragments usually appear long after the fact, quietly buried within other stories, just as quietly forgotten, bursting into the foreground only when extraordinary circumstances have compelled it, such as the Iranian hostage crisis which produced a rash of articles on the role played by the United States in the overthrow of the Iranian government in 1953. It was as if editors had been spurred into thinking: "Hey, just what did we do in Iran to make all those people hate us so?"

There have been a lot of Irans in America's recent past, but in the absence of the New York Daily News or the Los Angeles Times conspicuously grabbing the reader by the collar and pressing against his face the full implication of the deed ... in the absence of NBC putting it all into real pictures of real people on the receiving end ... in such absence the incidents become non-events for the large majority of Americans, and they can honestly say "We didn't know what was happening."

Former Chinese Premier Chou En-lai once observed: "One of the delightful things about Americans is that they have absolutely no historical memory."

It's probably even worse than he realized. During the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant accident in Pennsylvania in 1979, a Japanese journalist, Atsuo Kaneko of the Japanese Kyoto News Service, spent several hours interviewing people temporarily housed at a hockey rink -- mostly children, pregnant women and young mothers. He discovered that none of them had heard of Hiroshima. Mention of the name drew a blank.{20}

And in 1982, a judge in Oakland, California said he was appalled when some 50 prospective jurors for a death-penalty murder trial were questioned and "none of them knew who Hitler was".{21}

To the foreign policy oligarchy in Washington, it is more than delightful. It is sine qua non.

So obscured is the comprehensive record of American interventions that when, in 1975, the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress was asked to undertake a study of covert activities of the CIA to date, it was able to come up with but a very minor portion of the overseas incidents presented in this book for the same period.{22}

Yet, all the information is there for the reading. I have not had access to the secret archives of the CIA or other government agencies. The details of the interventions have been gathered from books, newspapers, periodicals, and US Government publications freely available in one library or another. But for all that has made its way into popular consciousness, or into school texts, encyclopedias, or other standard reference works, there might as well exist strict censorship in the United States.

The reader is invited to look through the relevant sections of the three principal American encyclopedias, Americana, Britannica, and Colliers, after completing this book. The image of encyclopedias as the final repository of objective knowledge takes a beating. What is tantamount to a non-recognition of American interventions may very well be due to these esteemed works employing a criterion similar to that of Washington officials as reflected in the Pentagon Papers. The New York Times summarized this highly interesting phenomenon thusly:

Clandestine warfare against North Vietnam, for example, is not seen ... as violating the Geneva Accords of 1954, which ended the French Indochina War, or as conflicting with the public policy pronouncements of the various administrations. Clandestine warfare, because it is covert, does not exist as far as treaties and public posture are concerned. Further, secret commitments to other nations are not sensed as infringing on the treaty-making powers of the Senate, because they are not publicly acknowledged.{23}
The de facto censorship which leaves so many Americans functionally illiterate about the history of US foreign affairs may be all the more effective because it is not official, heavy-handed or conspiratorial, but woven artlessly into the fabric of education and media. No conspiracy is needed. The editors of Reader's Digest and U.S. News and World Report do not need to meet covertly with the man from NBC in an FBI safe-house to plan next month's stories and programs; for the simple truth is that these men would not have reached the positions they occupy if they themselves had not all been guided through the same tunnel of camouflaged history and emerged with the same selective memory and conventional wisdom.


As extensive as the historical record presented here is, it is by no means meant to be a complete catalogue of every instance and every kind of American intervention since the Second World War. We are, after all, dealing largely with events which were covert when they occurred and which, for the most part, remain officially classified. Moreover, with but a few exceptions, this study does not concern itself with espionage or counter-espionage other than in passing. These areas have been well documented in countless "spy" books. Generally speaking, the study is confined to the more significant or blatant cases of intervention: the use of armed aggression by American and/or native troops acting with the United States; an operation, successful or not, to overthrow a government; an attempt to suppress a popular rebellion or movement; an attempted assassination of a political leader; gross interference in an election, or other flagrant manipulation of a country's political or economic system.

To serve these ends, the CIA over the years has made use of an extraordinary arsenal of weapons. Because of space considerations and to avoid excess repetition, only selected examples are given here and there amongst the cases. In actuality, at least one, and usually more, of these tactics was brought to bear in virtually every instance. Principal among them are the following:

1) CIA schools: in the United States and Latin America, where many tens of thousands of Third World military and police personnel have been taught modern methods of controlling insurgency and "subversion"; instruction includes techniques of "interrogation" (often a euphemism for torture); members of the labor movement learn the how and why of organizing workers within a framework of free enterprise and anti-communism.
2) Infiltration and manipulation of selected groups: political parties, women's organizations, professional, youth and cultural associations, etc., for electoral and propaganda purposes; the creation of unions -- local, regional, national and international -- set up to counterpoise and weaken existing labor groups too closely oriented towards social change and the left.
3) News manipulation: the "hiring" of foreign editors, columnists and journalists ... "I guess I've bought as much newspaper space as the A & P," chortled a former CIA officer one day{24}; the creation and/or subsidizing of numerous periodicals, news services, radio stations, books, and book publishers. Considering all assets, the CIA, at least until the late 1970s, has run what probably amounts to the largest news organization in the world; its propaganda and disinformation effect is routinely multiplied by world-wide replay.
4) Economic means: in concert with other US government agencies, such as AID, private American corporations, and international lending institutions, the methods of manipulating and applying pressure to selected sectors of a country's economy, or the economy as a whole, are without number.
5) Dirty tricks department: bugging, wire-tapping, forged documents, bogus personal letters, planting of evidence, spreading rumors, blackmail, etc., etc., to create incidents or obtain information to embarrass the left, locally and internationally, particularly to lend credence to charges of a Moscow or Havana conspiracy; to provoke the expulsion of communist-bloc diplomats or the breaking of relations with those countries; to foster distrust and dissension within the left.

Although the cases which follow are presented as more or less discrete stories, fixed in time and with beginnings and ends, this is done mainly to keep the information within manageable bounds and to highlight the more dramatic turns of events, and is not meant to indicate that there was no significant CIA activity in the particular country before or after the years specified. The reader should therefore keep in mind that the above types of operation as well as others are all ongoing programs, carried out routinely in numerous countries, including many not listed in this book. This is the Agency's "job", what its officers do for a living.


"The upheaval in China is a revolution which, if we analyze it, we will see is prompted by the same things that prompted the British, French and American revolutions." {25} A cosmopolitan and generous sentiment of Dean Rusk, then Assistant Secretary for Far Eastern Affairs, later Secretary of State. At precisely the same time as Mr. Rusk's talk in 1950, others in his government were actively plotting the downfall of the Chinese revolutionary government.

This has been a common phenomenon. For many of the cases described in the following pages, one can find statements of high or middle-level Washington officials which put into question the policy of intervention; which expressed misgivings based either on principle (sometimes the better side of American liberalism) or concern that the intervention would not serve any worthwhile end, might even result in disaster. I have attached little weight to such dissenting statements as, indeed, in the final analysis, did Washington decision-makers who, in controversial world situations, could be relied upon to play the anti-communist card. In presenting the interventions in this manner, I am declaring that American foreign policy is what American foreign policy does.


Though I am clearly opposed to the American interventions on both political and moral grounds, I have striven to not let this color my selection of facts; to not fall prey to that familiar failing: choosing one's facts to fit one's thesis. Which is to say, I have not knowingly omitted any facts which contradict in any significant way the information I have presented, or the implications of that information. Further, I have chosen not to take into account a number of intriguing disclosures concerning American interventions where I felt that the source could not be sufficiently trusted and/or the information was not presented or documented in a manner which made it credible to me. In any event, it is not demanded of the reader that he accept my biases, but that he reflect upon his own{26}


INTRODUCTION TO THE ORIGINAL EDITION - NOTES

return to beginning return to mid-text

1. Washington Post, 24 October 1965, article by Stanley Karnow.

2. Winston Churchill, The Second World War, Vol. IV, The Hinge of Fate (London, 1951), p. 428.

3. Winston Churchill, The World Crisis: The Aftermath (London, 1929), p. 235.

4. D.F. Fleming, "The Western Intervention in the Soviet Union, 1918-1920", New World Review (New York), Fall 1967; see also Fleming, The Cold War and its Origins, 1917-1960 (New York, 1961), pp. 16-35.

5. Los Angeles Times, 2 September 1991, p. 1.

6. Frederick L. Schuman, American Policy Toward Russia Since 1917 (New York, 1928), p. 125.

7. Ibid., p. 154.

8. San Francisco Chronicle, 4 October 1978, p. 4.

9. New Republic, 4 August 1920, a 42-page analysis by Walter Lippmann and Charles Merz.

10. Life, 29 March 1943, p. 29.

11. New York Times, 24 June 1941; for an interesting account of how US officials laid the groundwork for the cold war during and immediately after World War 2, see the first two chapters of Blanche Wiesen Cook, The Declassified Eisenhower (New York, 1981), a study of previously classified papers at the Eisenhower Library.

12. This has been well documented and would be "common knowledge" if not for its shameful implications. See, e.g., the British Cabinet papers for 1939, summarized in the Washington Post, 2 January 1970 (reprinted from the Manchester Guardian); also Fleming, The Cold War, pp. 48-97.

13. Los Angeles Times, 15 December 1987; the figure of 28% disagreeing was obtained by the author from the Times reporter. For a highly insightful and readable description of the anti-communist mentality in the United States, see Michael Parenti, The Anti-Communist Impulse (Random House, New York, 1969).

14. Related by former French Foreign Minister Christian Pineau in a recorded interview for the Dulles Oral History Project, Princeton University Library; cited in Roger Morgan, The United States and West Germany, 1945-1973: A Study in Alliance Politics (Oxford University Press, London, 1974), p. 54, my translation from the French.

15. Parenti, p. 35.

16. John Stockwell, In Search of Enemies (New York, 1978), p. 101. The expressions "CIA officer" or "case officer" are used throughout the present book to denote regular, full-time, career employees of the Agency, as opposed to "agent", someone working for the CIA on an ad hoc basis. Other sources which are quoted, it will be seen, tend to use the word "agent" to cover both categories.

17. Ibid., p. 238.

18. Kwame Nkrumah, Dark Days in Ghana (London, 1968), pp. 71-2.

19. The full quotation is from the New York Times, 11 January 1969, p. 1; the inside quotation is that of the National Commission.

20. Mother Jones magazine (San Francisco), April 1981, p. 5.

21. San Francisco Chronicle, 14 January 1982, p. 2.

22. Richard F. Grimmett, "Reported Foreign and Domestic Covert Activities of the United States Central Intelligence Agency: 1950-1974" (Library of Congress report) 18 February 1975.

23. The Pentagon Papers (N.Y. Times edition, 1971), p. xiii.

24. Newsweek, 22 November 1971, p. 37.

25. Speech before the World Affairs Council at the University of Pennsylvania, 13 January 1950, cited in the Republican Congressional Committee Newsletter, 20 September 1965.

26. The last sentence is borrowed from Michael Parenti, op. cit., p. 7.

Taken from Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II;
by William Blum
email:bblum6@aol.com

Right, thats all well and good. Let's go after Aperin first.

Mora Tau, don't be so naiive in thinking Hitler killed more people than Stalin.

Mora Tau, don't be so naiive in thinking Hitler killed more people than Stalin.

Mora Tau, don't be so naiive in thinking Hitler killed more people than Stalin.

Mora Tau, don't be so naiive in thinking Hitler killed more people than Stalin.

Mora Tau, don't be so naiive in thinking Hitler killed more people than Stalin.

Mora Tau, don't be so naiive in thinking Hitler killed more people than Stalin.

Mora Tau, don't be so naiive in thinking Hitler killed more people than Stalin.

Mora Tau, don't be so naiive in thinking Hitler killed more people than Stalin.

Rufai, dont be so nieve in thinking that lotsa double posts will convince us you're right :wink: hehe

The United States of America the American, Mighty Capitalist Superpower™, seeks to broaden and deepen both Free Trade and Anti-Communist unity. This of course means we are willing to come to the aid of any nation under attack by Communists (with the possible exception of other communist nations). Please assume that in any such conflict we will commit such troops as our readiness, capabilities, and current national security allow. To these ends, you may consider our nation as part of your alliance.

We are particularly interested in how to turn the tide against the awful and complete communist domination of the UN. It is a vicious cycle - right nations refuse to join the commie/pinko UN in order to avoid its punitive taxation, socially liberal/nihilistic bureaucratic regulations, and subversion of national sovereignty through cutting military strength. How can we reverse this trend?

OOC: Lol, sorry! My brower screws up on this forum.

Could you edit the first post so that it lists all of the members?

Ingaevonia is in



His Holy Imperial Majesty is pleased.

Smash Communism!!! :twisted:


However, we must point out that the Ingaevoniangovernment is as much anti-fascism as it is anti-communism.
We are a constitutional monarchy and currently the right-wing liberal parties are in the Emperor's Cabinet of Ministers.

We serve only the Emperor and the Almighty.

The United States of America the American, Mighty Capitalist Superpower™, seeks to broaden and deepen both Free Trade and Anti-Communist unity. This of course means we are willing to come to the aid of any nation under attack by Communists (with the possible exception of other communist nations). Please assume that in any such conflict we will commit such troops as our readiness, capabilities, and current national security allow. To these ends, you may consider our nation as part of your alliance.

We are particularly interested in how to turn the tide against the awful and complete communist domination of the UN. It is a vicious cycle - right nations refuse to join the commie/pinko UN in order to avoid its punitive taxation, socially liberal/nihilistic bureaucratic regulations, and subversion of national sovereignty through cutting military strength. How can we reverse this trend?

You are accepted.

Muktar is somewhat of a paradox economically. The Muktar Corporation has a monopoly in all industries, and it's CEO is the High Commander of the military. So although it is technically capitalist, it is essentially communist. We support communism though as capitalist nations tend to wind up with oppressive leaders more often than not.

Now, if I may bring just one more question up, before the members of this alliance become _too_ annoyed with me?

I have heard it said, on this thread and elsewhere, that, because a few notable regimes have impovershed economies and opressed peoples, then all communist experiments must follow the same pattern. Laying aside the fact that such totalitarian states are not communists just because they say so, any more than these spent matches would be adamant if I were to claim they were, I pose this inquiry:

If Communist nations must have impovershed masses and totalitarian governments, then must strongly capitalistic states not in turn suffer death squads, torture, and 'disappearances?'

*Steps into limelight* This communist nation does not have an impoverished economy or opressed people.

*Steps into limelight* This communist nation does not have an impoverished economy or opressed people.

Now, that's the spirit! Who was it, again, who said that the best form of revenge is success?

**Steps on side of Kanabia** My nations economy has never fallen below strong amd right now is thriving. My civil rights also are very good. They have never fallen below.

I'm a communist nation with a Powerhouse economy that hits All-Consuming every once in a while. And I still manage Good civil rights.

Actually, Muktar, right now you are a "Cumpulsory Consumerist State," with a Pro-business government. (Granted, how that's possible with private enterprise being illegal, I don't know, but anyway...)

You personally may be a socialist, but the way you run your nation, you are a Capitalist on crack (speaking for the illegal private enterprise)

Actually, recreational drugs of every sort are legal in Muktar. The illegal enterprise thing proves I'm communist, the Compulsory Consumerist State bit just says I have a good economy, moderate civil rights, and low political rights.

State-Capitalist, thats what you are Muktar :)

**Steps on side of Kanabia** My nations economy has never fallen below strong amd right now is thriving. My civil rights also are very good. They have never fallen below.

My economy is All-Consuming and my civil rights the same as yours- Capitalism>Communism

Nice crime rate, Magdha...

It seems my question has become sidetracked. I apologise for the rudeness, but I certainly would like to hear an answer!

If, as people on this thread and elsewhere have said, every Communist nation must become impovershed and totalitarian, then must every extremely capitalist nation not also have to rely on torture, death squads, and 'disappearances,' as is the case in many examples?

Ianna does have a point.

Muktar, you are what the Soviet Union was -- State controlled Capitalismm
==============================
==============================
Members of this alliance, I request your aid. There has been a Communist uprising in my third-largest city, Moscow. I request aid. I also request you "disable" the nation of Hallad from further supporting the red terrorist bastards. I ask this in due favor -- capitalist to capitalist.

**Steps on side of Kanabia** My nations economy has never fallen below strong amd right now is thriving. My civil rights also are very good. They have never fallen below.

My economy is All-Consuming and my civil rights the same as yours- Capitalism>Communism

They're the same as mine, plus you have a worse crime rate, a dying environment and "Homeless people are periodically found dead upon altars to assorted deities and senior citizens can usually be found doing heavy manual labour." Uh-huh. Much superior.

Muktar, you are what the Soviet Union was -- State controlled Capitalismm
==============================
==============================
Members of this alliance, I request your aid. There has been a Communist uprising in my third-largest city, Moscow. I request aid. I also request you "disable" the nation of Hallad from further supporting the red terrorist bastards. I ask this in due favor -- capitalist to capitalist.

OOC: Can I get the thread link for interest?

Derscon, this is not the best place to post you wanting to "disable" Hallad b/c I am a VERY CLOSE allie with Hallad. Any attack on Hallad from any nation will be seen as an attack on Louisiana. We do not act kindly to people who attack the motherland.

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=152942&highlight=

Right now, things are under a bit of control, as Hallad was a f*cking moron for.....well, read it. I haven't put anything up in awhile (I am kinda hoping more people would get involved).

I mostly will need aid in the retaliation against Hallad.

That's a shame. Halld has threatened my National Security, and has sent troops to my soil. That shall be considered an invasion, and will be treated as such once the Reds are destroyed.

**Steps on side of Kanabia** My nations economy has never fallen below strong amd right now is thriving. My civil rights also are very good. They have never fallen below.

My economy is All-Consuming and my civil rights the same as yours- Capitalism>Communism

They're the same as mine, plus you have a worse crime rate, a dying environment and "Homeless people are periodically found dead upon altars to assorted deities and senior citizens can usually be found doing heavy manual labour." Uh-huh. Much superior.

So, less homeless people means less annoyances for the rich. And I am not going to dump tax dollars on people who should have planned their retirement, Defense is more important.

So, less homeless people means less annoyances for the rich. And I am not going to dump tax dollars on people who should have planned their retirement, Defense is more important.Wow, proof of the greatness of capitalism!

Damn, I should have completely destroyed Magdha when he was aiding FWS.

Damn, I should have completely destroyed Magdha when he was aiding FWS.OOC: Better late than never. I say we takeover while his toadies are offline.

Damn, I should have completely destroyed Magdha when he was aiding FWS.

How about a non-agresssion pact?

So, less homeless people means less annoyances for the rich. And I am not going to dump tax dollars on people who should have planned their retirement, Defense is more important.Wow, proof of the greatness of capitalism!

Hah. Are you arguing for or against yourself Magdha? :lol:

OCC: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA **Looks Serious Again** Na, I'm good.

So, less homeless people means less annoyances for the rich. And I am not going to dump tax dollars on people who should have planned their retirement, Defense is more important.Wow, proof of the greatness of capitalism!

Hah. Are you arguing for or against yourself Magdha? :lol:

For myself-

Capitalism forces people to work hard or starve, and homeless people don't work hard so why let them use resources?

Let them use resources. Less resources for the criminals.

Heres a bit of blind insight for you: Give them a home and they arent homeless anymore. :idea:

Heres a bit of blind insight for you: Give them a home and they arent homeless anymore. :idea:

But that takes money from the rich who earned it.

I say they should get a job.

Armed Knights is a Capitalist/Communist Nation. We ask, do we qualify?

Our missionary goals is to rule and conquer. We are a Capitalist Country of Evil.

Heres a bit of blind insight for you: Give them a home and they arent homeless anymore. :idea:

But that takes money from the rich who earned it.

I say they should get a job.

Earned it? Ever heard of the idle rich? And those who are born with vast amounts of money to their name without doing anything, while others are born dirt poor?

So your telling me that the majority of homeless people who are not mentally sound deserve to be outsiders and starve when they cant help themselves? You also think that it is ok to let the soliders who fought for your nation to keep it safe deserve to be out on the streets just b/c its governments like you who wont spend any money on education? Its time for another of CL's charts.

This is how most of us see it
Education - Knowledge, Learning of Skills, Productive members of society

This is the way Magdha sees it
Less Education - Knowledge, Learning of Skills, Productive members of society

Now if I am correct the first one is working very well. The second has a flaw here and their in being IT WONT WORK!!

Armed Knights is a Capitalist/Communist Nation. We ask, do we qualify?

Our missionary goals is to rule and conquer. We are a Capitalist Country of Evil.

I reviewed your nation- obviously pro-capitalist so thus the answer is yes.

Dear. It seems from reading the posts here that my question has been answered quite well!

So your telling me that the majority of homeless people who are not mentally sound deserve to be outsiders and starve when they cant help themselves? You also think that it is ok to let the soliders who fought for your nation to keep it safe deserve to be out on the streets just b/c its governments like you who wont spend any money on education? Its time for another of CL's charts.

This is how most of us see it
Education - Knowledge, Learning of Skills, Productive members of society

This is the way Magdha sees it
Less Education - Knowledge, Learning of Skills, Productive members of society

Now if I am correct the first one is working very well. The second has a flaw here and their in being IT WONT WORK!!


We do education differently. We still have private schools for middle and upper income families but corporations often create 'job training facilities' where poor youth are taught how to do a certain field of work sponsored by thre corporation in return for a youth working as an employee during his schooling and a period of time afterwards.

And secondly my soldiers are provided all their needsand are given a decent free education after 7 years of military service.

I say we just kill the thread before it can spawn any more hate.

So listen to this people. The ones who dont have the money to go to school are taught how to be garbage men(no offense to the people who are, or know someone of this job). Let me ask something, I know people will argue that CEO's put in 60 hour weeks. Does this include the Golfing and mid-day fun with the new young assistant?

So listen to this people. The ones who dont have the money to go to school are taught how to be garbage men(no offense to the people who are, or know someone of this job). Let me ask something, I know people will argue that CEO's put in 60 hour weeks. Does this include the Golfing and mid-day fun with the new young assistant?

So, whats wrong with learning to be a garbageman or a factory worker?

What about immigrants, who come to your nation with hardly anything? They don't have much room to advance.

What about immigrants, who come to your nation with hardly anything? They don't have much room to advance.

That depends, rich and middle class immigrants have much room to advance and many jobs they can do. Poor immigrants are told to get a job usually in a great Magdhan factory.

Nothing is wrong I respect a foreman more then a CEO. You said that everyone is given opportunity to make as much money as possible in your system correct? Now how is a gabage man to make big money when the CEO's are making millions that they dont need. Are you sayingits ok to have a rich ass clown make 13 million a year, have 7 houses, while the same man that you say can do the same, is only given enough education to be a factory worker...

Nothing is wrong I respect a foreman more then a CEO. You said that everyone is given opportunity to make as much money as possible in your system correct? Now how is a gabage man to make big money when the CEO's are making millions that they dont need. Are you sayingits ok to have a rich ass clown make 13 million a year, have 7 houses, while the same man that you say can do the same, is only given enough education to be a factory worker...

Well, CEOs deserve every penny and the 7 homes and 13 Million a year. And may I ask you why the government should take away what you don't need? You don't need meat or three meals a day so lets have the government take it away and ration food. :roll:

Actually, you do need meat and three meals a say. Just like you need an education to get a job. It's technically possible to do without, but virtually impossible without breaking some rules (hince your crime rate).

Actually, you do need meat and three meals a say. Just like you need an education to get a job. It's technically possible to do without, but virtually impossible without breaking some rules (hince your crime rate).

Thus I am going to institite a new policy:

The ghettos are to be surrounded by walls and only people with work passes are allowed out. Criminals are not allowed a work permit.

This keeps the important people safe from the peons.

I really want to respond to that IC, but I really need to go to bed. You don't want to post stuff like that while I'm cranky.

So... People can advance in society, but they can't advance in society.

I'm confused.

You'll get used to it, Ianna. :D

Capitalist SWINES!!!! :x

you infidels will fall for our mighty fist!!!!

I will give any nation money and fuel if they begin flying air missions over these slums dropping Marxist propaganda.

This is a peaceful alliance dedicated to advancing the cause of capitalism. It is like your "International", only we advocate a form of economics that has been proven time and time again to work, and we don't have to lie to ourselves to prove that it works.
The Soviet Union was an attempt at Communism, and it failed.
China was an attempt at Communism whose leaders have seen the light and decided to shift to Capitalism.
Cuba is an ongoing attempt at Communism, which shows no signs of suceeding.
Please accept these facts. Communism has never been implemented, because each attempt to do so has failed. That does not mean you can claim it might work the next time it is tried. If anything it is less likely to work the next time an attempt is made to implement it, because most people have now seen what Communism turns out like, and so will not support it.
You are no better than Nazis who deny the Holocaust happened, just so they can claim Nazism is a good idea. If anything, Nazism is better than Communism, because at least the Nazis had nice uniforms and made the effort to look smart.

PS: All members who have yet to act on the telegram I sent please do so ASAP. We are only 1 vote ahead. Do not waste your vote on the fascists or the liberals, and do not mention what we are doing in public, otherwise the Communists will undo all our good work.

Shildonia: You skipped North Korea. And the only reason Communism fails is because a capitalist throws a monkey wrench into the works vying for power, like Stalin.

Capitalist SWINES!!!! :x

you infidels will fall for our mighty fist!!!!

AHAHAHA!!!! That's a good one. Shall I sqash you like a bug?


Nah, why waste my time.

Swedish Dominions does not speak for the intelligent communist community.

Shildonia, it is not the fault of communism or socialism that they failed in these countries you've mentioned - It's the fault of humans!! Such systems would work well if we evolved more on a social/cohisive level. Capitalism is based on greed - pure and simple! It is exploitive and lacks dignity. It builds things to fall apart, promotes garbage culture, and the scourge of "disposability" and plannned obsolesence. It's so called "freedom" (which isn't really freedom at all, but a form of slavery) is based on a complete lack of repsonsability, forthought and wisdom. It is in short, a "childs" view of freedom - "I want it and I want it now"!!! followed by a temper tantrum.

Shildonia: You skipped North Korea. And the only reason Communism fails is because a capitalist throws a monkey wrench into the works vying for power, like Stalin.

If Stalin were a capitalist, why didn't he just make an appearance in Red Square and say:


Comrades, I have decided that this Communism lark is not all it's cracked up to be. From now on we are Capitalists. Now who's for a McDonalds?


Archosauria: Yes, it was the fault of humans that it failed. But without people all you have is an empty country. For a system to truely work, it should work with people in it. Communism doesn't, and as a result it is really quite pointless trying to implement it.

I mean subconciously capitalist. Competitive. Ruthless. etc. And you still skipped North Korea.

Thank you for that clarification, Muktar.

Fine, since you all seem so anxious to get my analysis on North Korea, here it is:
North Korea was an attempt at implementing Communism, which will probably last until Kim Jong Il dies, at which point there'll be some kind of civil war (which is kinda cool since there's already a civil war going on really) after which it will fail.
Having said that, they do make exceedingly good cakes.

Our nation wishes to join this noble alliance as well. Communism is clearly a threat to modern society.

THe Czar hereby puts its official application in, as it has found that this alliance will not just go around saying "Y00 ST00PIDE K0MMY! DIE!!!", etc, etc, and will be useful to the defence of Capitalism.

Although the Czar does find the part of "or interject in a nation about to elect a Communist government" unacceptable, the charter is generally okay.

--General Franz von Papen

Derscon Minister of Foreign Affairs
The Reagan-Loving Prussians of Derscon

I would like to point out, their are VERY VERY FEW communist who say something like "I declair war on capitalism." Frankly b/c we dont care. Majority of the time its the capitalist who create a thread that says "Declaration of war on Communist" which is stupied b/c you refuse to believe that the communist aren't a minority anymore on NS. I dont know why the blame everything on us though. Of course most of us will send help to communist trying to overthrow their governments of course. But the chances that most of us will get involved in a direct conflict between their own and your troops is slim and none.

I dotn know why you feel you have to defend capitalism. What is it your trying to defend it from. It doesnt matter what we as communist do, its the controller of the countries decision to choose the system he or she wish to have. If a "communist" went to war just to change your government when you have done nothing to instigate this act, most other communist will disown such a nation and classify him as a Stalinist, Maoist, or imperialist.

[Archosauria: Yes, it was the fault of humans that it failed. But without people all you have is an empty country. For a system to truely work, it should work with people in it. Communism doesn't, and as a result it is really quite pointless trying to implement it.

Shildonia, by the standards of this forum i am probably an old man (I'm 41) and as such, I feel I've "seen to much" in my life. I am completely faithless and disallutioned with humanity in general. Some have even claimed I am a misanthrope. In my more darker moments, I feel (as a Paleontologist) that god (if a god exists) has destroyed the wrong group of animals.

It was not the communist or socialist system that failed, it was, in truth, humanity. "Do not blame the tool, but it's user if you are incable of getting a job done" as I've always said. Perhaps in a 1000 years or 10,000 we as a species will have evolved socially enough to implement communism successfully. But not now, we are too busy consuming and being brainwashed into thinking we need SUV's, various worthless fashions and other such useless products. In short we are taught not to question, but to project outward and consume. . .

Capitalism reminds me of a more benevolent version of 1984 (I'm sure everyone here is famillier with this Orwallian classic?). Instead of big brother we have the corporations and the government lapdogs of same. Instead of the two minutes hate, we have advertasments of all sorts, on radio, TV, Internet, billboards, magazines, newspapers. Brainwashing us, and directing our inner selves into exterior "concerns". The Romans used to say "Bread, wine and circuses" Now we say "sports cars, Mcdonalds and victoria secrets", and a host of other products.

There is something sickening about it - a lack of "pride" it is something felt, rather than directly perceived. Like a growing cancer. . .You may not know it's there until it's too late.

But really! Don't tell me that some overpaid athlete or CEO deserves the amount they get. Docters and nurses and other health care workers (who are far more useful to sociaty) preform far more useful tasks and get little by comparison.

I don't really have anything against anyone here - after all, I've never met any of you, but I have seen to much of it, and in the end all that is left is your memories and your ideals.

New members, check your telegrams for your first official duties as members of the Anti-Communist Alliance (soon to be renamed the Pro-Capitalist Alliance, as soon as I get the new forums up and running)

Let's recap quickly.
Q. Why did Communism fail?
A. People messed it up.

Q. What is the dominant life form on this planet?
A. People

Q. Is Communism a good idea?
A. Possibly, but since it's impossible to implement it's irrelevant.

Q. Should we continue to try an implement Communism in the hope that it might work?
A. No, to do so would only cause massive upheaval and generally lots of bad stuff.

The status quo works reasonably well, so let's not try to make changes which, based on historical precedent, would most likely make things worse.
Viva conservatism, particularly one-nation conservatism.

Archosauria, welcome to my Hall of Fame folder. That was brilliant. And for those who aren't familiar with 1984, it's an anti-communism book. Sick irony or poetic justice?

Archosauria, welcome to my Hall of Fame folder. That was brilliant. And for those who aren't familiar with 1984, it's an anti-communism book. Sick irony or poetic justice?

Your praise was not necessary Muktar, but I thank you for it all the same. Btw, you've aready met me as the Dinosaurian Sskiss. What is a Hall of Fame Folder? I do not seem to have one, or is it something you have made yourself?

Made it myself. I save every good post for or against something in it.

Made it myself. I save every good post for or against something in it.

I see. Well then, I am honered that you have considered something I have posted.

Just a little point I've been pondering for a while now.

If 1984 is a cautionary tale about the sort of totalitarian governments the 'communists' were forming in Russia, could William Gibson and company's cyberpunk writings be a similar warning against the progress of unfettered neo-conservatism?

Just a little point I've been pondering for a while now.

If 1984 is a cautionary tale about the sort of totalitarian governments the 'communists' were forming in Russia, could William Gibson and company's cyberpunk writings be a similar warning against the progress of unfettered neo-conservatism?

That's a good point. The cyberpunk genre is basically a capitalistic version of 1984. Basically, Megacorps have taken over the world. I think Jennifer Governments NS is similar. I might just pick it up someday.

Our nation wishes to join this noble alliance as well. Communism is clearly a threat to modern society.

Accepted

THe Czar hereby puts its official application in, as it has found that this alliance will not just go around saying "Y00 ST00PIDE K0MMY! DIE!!!", etc, etc, and will be useful to the defence of Capitalism.

Although the Czar does find the part of "or interject in a nation about to elect a Communist government" unacceptable, the charter is generally okay.

--General Franz von Papen

Derscon Minister of Foreign Affairs
The Reagan-Loving Prussians of Derscon

You are accepted.

My fellow anti-communists. It is my great pleasure to announce that the epic scheme devised by myself has been a complete sucess. The corrupt and decadent regime of the "True Directorate" has fallen. (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=153455&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=) This epic victory over the forces of evil was achieved not through violence, but through the ballot box. This demonstrates that the oppressed peoples of the Communist countries have now gained a ray of hope of liberation from their evil overlords.
Let us hope that that day comes soon.

In the mean time, let us rally around our new friends in Hallad, and offer them all the support possible during this transitional period from communism to the wonders of the Free-Market.

We in Hallad would like to join this alliance in order to protect ourselfves from the communist oppression of our past.

OOC: I dont think I can actually get my nation descritption to say there is a private sector even if I tried, hope that's ok.

We in Hallad would like to join this alliance in order to protect ourselfves from the communist oppression of our past.

OOC: I dont think I can actually get my nation descritption to say there is a private sector even if I tried, hope that's ok.

We worry that your admittance may spark war between the red block and the Capitalist Alliance, until we are aware of the situation I will admit you but Magdha cannot offer Military Support. (We are also at war with another nation and fighting on two fronts is suicide.)

[code:1:ff9140adba] Shildonia, I recommend that you cease your efforts to spark war.[/code:1:ff9140adba]

You know, ICly you can't really say what I did was meddling. The people who voted ICly were the inhabitants of Hallad, not the members of this alliance. All I did was point out the thread and reccomended that people vote for the Capitalism Now Party.
In an absolute worst case scenario you could claim that Shildonia rigged the election, but there's no evidence whatsoever of that, unless you want to claim that the semi-OOC action of telling people to vote is directly linked to an IC action, which it probably isn't.
Also, I would like to point out that (much as it pains me that my moment of triumph may be lessened in some way) depending on the way Hallad's political system works, the Capitalists may not be in power. There may be a capitalist executive branch, but the legislative branch is most definitely in the hands of the Communists.

Archosauria, welcome to my Hall of Fame folder. That was brilliant. And for those who aren't familiar with 1984, it's an anti-communism book. Sick irony or poetic justice?

Actually, Orwell was a Trotskyist :) He fought in the Spanish Civil War.

Archosauria, welcome to my Hall of Fame folder. That was brilliant. And for those who aren't familiar with 1984, it's an anti-communism book. Sick irony or poetic justice?

Actually, Orwell was a Trotskyist :) He fought in the Spanish Civil War.

True, his book "the Road to Catalina" was based on his experiences in the Spanish Civil War. They say, (to some extent) his famous book, Animal Farm was based on his experiences there.

But it seems a very anti-communist book..Perhaps it was anti-Stalinist and I am just generalising...But the whole "all animals are equal but some are more equal than others"...

Actually, you are all right. Orwell was a communist and did fight in the Spanish civil war, but later began to see what communism could bring and that the reality of communism is a lot less pretty than the theory. He then became anti-communism and especially anti-stalin. A lot can happen in 10 years. :)

We am saddened by the affairs in Hallad. Yet, we do not wish to accuse anyone of anything without proof. We shall investigate.
However, we do very much agree that the Alliance has nothing to gain from a large number of wars on all sides. War must be avoided when possible. It is a costly affair, you see.

if you are anti UN (which you most likely are.) then you should read this (it could be helpful for breaking up groups that threaten you)
http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=146905&highlight=

OOC: Orwell was an anti-Stalinist, but remained a communist. Of course as you are probably aware, Trotskyists were treated as traitors and fascist criminals in the USSR up until the 1970's, when nothing could be further from the truth. It wasn't that he was disenchanted with the ideal itself, it was how the movement had been manipulated and destroyed by Stalinists.

We would be grateful if we could join this alliance.

We would be grateful if we could join this alliance.

Your in

Thank you.

Do not fool yourselves. Any allieance under Magdha will stand for genocide and terrorism to its fullest extent.

President Greggersome
Grenval

"Breaking news! Just announced, due to undisclosed circumstances President Greggersome has been impeached and his vice president, Vincent N. George, has replaced Mr. Greggersome." GCN reports

President George
Grenval

I have invaded Universal Acceptance because of his support for Burmese Communist Rebels in my nation. I ask that all other nations join in my destruction of these anarcho-communist pigs.

Do not fool yourselves. Any allieance under Magdha will stand for genocide and terrorism to its fullest extent.

President Greggersome
Grenval

"Breaking news! Just announced, due to undisclosed circumstances President Greggersome has been impeached and his vice president, Vincent N. George, has replaced Mr. Greggersome." GCN reports

President George
Grenval

Mister President,

I can assure you that Ingaevonia is under no one. Never have we been dictated by a foreign rule nor shall we ever. The Hallad elections have shown Ingaevonia goes it's own way. We have and will always support the liberal candidate as long as His Holy Imperial Majesty wishes so. Ingaevonia is against communism as well as fascism or any other form of government that goes against our principles.
We are in this alliance out of free will and will remain so as long as it suits our needs.
However, we welcome any offer of friendship.

Yours sincerely,

Bruno Lefbald
His Holy Imperial Majesty's Minister of Foreign Affairs.

I don't know why these commies always have to insult capitilism. They should read George Orwell. Even though he was a socialist he made good points about communism. In his book the pig napolen preaches animilism (aka communism) it sounds good but when it begins to be excersized the farm (aka the country) gets worse then the previous dictatorship which proves communism can't work because it contridicts human nature. So basickly communist are just idealists that need to wake up and relise capitilism iks the best system we have.

*sighs*

Animal Farm was a satirical account of the Russian Revolution. Nothing more.

Why do you think Gollancz refused to publish it? It was against Russia, not communism.

Cybertronus wishes to join this alliance. Please review our credentials. Thank you.

OOC: Wow, this is an old thread.

Economic freedoms are like most things. Too little is bad and too much is bad aswell. Go centrists!!