“When the restrictive powers of paper and ink, backed by legal penalties, have reached their limit, as they have long ago in the first home of Marxism, Germany, and its adopted home, Russia, their place is taken by direct methods, such as barbed wire and machine guns. The end of the process is universal slavery, which is already well on the way. The Nazis' effort, however, to establish it more or less openly under its own name, appears to be doomed to failure; it will have a better chance under the names of universal Liberty, Equality, Fraternity etc., in which guise it may deceive people longer as to its nature, and so survive longer at the bureaucratic stage.”


The death of Fidel Castro this last week prompted a search back through our files and ‘dig up’ what was written about him when he came to revolutionary power in Cuba. 

 I found that what Geoffrey Dobbs wrote about Karl Marx, socialism and capitalism was more appropriate for this time in world affairs.

I would think seventy or more years for Geoffrey’s 1942 article summing up the nature of the battle we are involved in, is long enough to prove its accuracy.

Geoffrey Dobbs wrote:

 It is a significant fact that Marx wrote to Darwin and asked to be allowed to dedicate his major work, Das Kapital, to him. The doubtful honour was declined, but the letter is important because it was a confession that Marx believed himself to be applying the Darwinian theory of evolution in the field of political economy. Now Marx was the son of a lawyer, and his first study was law, followed by history and philosophy. He was a journalist, a pamphleteer, and a voracious reader in the British Museum. His work bears a certain resemblance to Darwin's in its piling up of a formidable mass of detail, but it is a different sort of detail, written, quoted, verbal detail, not the results of observation and experiment, as a large part of Darwin's was. Marx had the formal, lawyer's mind, so it is not surprising that he misunderstood, as so many did, the workings of the empirical mind of Darwin.

It must be admitted, however, that Marx's knowledge of a certain type of economic fact was encycleopaedic, and that he marshalled these facts in an overpowering way in support of the theory of change in response to a material environment, which he had taken over, with only verbal comprehension, from Darwin. His Materialist Conception of History is a clear sign of a theory taken over without making the necessary changes, since he dismisses as of secondary importance the critical difference between men and other organisms, namely the vastly greater development of conscious thought and language in the former, a difference which is obviously of the utmost importance when we are considering, as he was, not physical, but political and economic organisation.

The chief value of Marx's contribution to thought, reduced to its simplest terms, seems to have been that he collected a mountain of evidence to the effect that something extremely evil, which he called Capitalism, was at work in the society of his day, and that this something must develop inevitably into something else which he called Socialism. Had he had any appreciable understanding "of living organisms and their processes he would have realised the implications of this statement, which are still not appreciated by his followers.

To establish this important point it is necessary to insert here a longish quotation from Marx's 'Capital', VoI I, pp. 788-9; from the Chapter entitled Historical Tendency of Capitalist Accumulation:



Here we have a statement, expressed with all the dogmatic emphasis of which nineteenth century repetitive prose was capable, of what Marx, and his followers, believed to be nature of the changes which society has been undergoing. It is a continuous process of expropriation, of the people, of the small capitalist, of the large capitalist, finally of everyone. It corresponds convincingly with the realities, both before, and since, it was made. Even the division of Marx's followers into the orthodox, revolutionary, Marxists, who believe in the violent 'bursting of the capitalist integument,' and the evolutionary Marxists, following Bernstein, who maintain that the one stage can merge gradually into the other; even this has been borne out in practice, as seen in the development of socialism in Russia and the 'democracies'. It is true that the precise form which the process of expropriation and centralisation would take in Germany and Italy had not been foreseen, but the statement remains a surprisingly accurate picture of the historical tendency of our age.

Though the statement, therefore, must be granted as true, the interpretation placed upon these facts by Marx, and now almost universally accepted without question by socialists, and even others, seems wildly and incredibly nonsensical to anyone who has escaped, or recovered from, the effects of a verbalistic and non-biological education.

Anyone who has so much as grown mustard and cress in a window-box, which I doubt that Marx ever did, knows that a mustard seed gives a mustard plant, a cress seed gives a cress plant, and in the world of living things you will never get a 'good' plant out of a 'bad' seed though you work till doomsday.

Yet it is now a commonplace of everyday thought that 'Capitalism' is bad, but that by its own 'immanent laws' it must give rise to 'Socialism', which is good. Thistles are 'bad', but when they have completely filled the field and have no more room for expansion, they will inevitably produce a crop of figs! The analogy may be crude, but at least it must be admitted that some type of biological analogy is appropriate.

We are dealing, in political and economic matters, not with abstractions, but with organisms, human beings, and their activities and in particular the changes in their response to their environment. There is no possible shadow of justification for supposing that a continuation of the treatment which has been producing increasingly bad results will, when it reaches its possible limit, start producing good results; might as well believe that, if drought is killing your cabbages the complete desiccation of the soil will revive them!

Doubtless Marx's training in Hegelian philosophy, with its emphasis on 'dualism' conditioned him for thinking that 'bad' could automatically develop into 'good'. This idea seems to me applicable enough in the realm of words, but it is quite alien to the world of real, or at least of living things, though in the inorganic world we are familiar with sudden changes of one substance into another in response to external conditions, e.g. temperature and pressure.

There is also here some psychological 'kink' which I have not completely analysed, an escapist belief in the magic powers of the end term of a series which drives the weak- minded onwards to the practical limit of any course of action in the tragic belief that their difficulties will then automatically solve themselves. The drunkard who believes in a 'thorough blind' is a case in point, the chain smoker another, in the field of politics the internationalist who thinks the World State is the solution to 'national' problems which are already too large to overcome, and in religion, with a slightly different twist, the Adventist who believes that an increasingly disastrous flow of events will end with the introduction of the Kingdom of Heaven by an external Agency. Indeed I am inclined to think that this 'kink' is associated with most of the unfavourable mass tendencies of the day.

However, to return to Marx, it was the verbal splitting of what was admittedly one process, and an admittedly evil process in its earlier stages, into two parts, the later one of which was represented as desirable, which has worked such damnable confusion on the minds of the people. The obvious corollary is, of course, that it is wrong to oppose the process, which is inevitable in any case, the thing to do is to hasten it towards its longed-for conclusion; and if the 'collective ownership' which is to be the end-product of a long process of 'expropriation' prove to be verbal figment more tenuous and elusive than thistledown, there will be nothing to do about it, except, indeed, to reverse the whole business, to grub up patiently and laboriously all the thistles, which is a bigger job the longer they are allowed to grow, and to plant figs, if that represents what is wanted.

There is no getting away from it that the whole beastly process, which first came into prominence with the Industrial Revolution, is one; the enclosure, the creation of a landless proletariat, the prey of any tough small capitalist, the wage-slavery both in town and country, the ousting of the small by the large employer, amalgamations, combines, trusts, international cartels, pyramids of power with fewer and fewer people in control, rationalisation, followed by nationalisation, the class struggle for power on the part of the small groups controlling the classes, the ousting of the semi-official Corporation employee by the complete bureaucrat, the State employee, the assumption of the powers of government by the winning power-group, the increase in the area controlled by such governments, with its logical conclusion in the World State; I say the whole thing is one, whether you denounce it as 'Capitalism' with the socialists, or as 'Socialism' with the anti-socialists.

Whatever you call it, and I prefer Cobbett's name, 'The Thing,' not forgetting its personal application, it is one process and it has got to be reversed if any fundamental solution is to be found to our difficulties.

It is a common gibe, in which the mass of socialists have been duly instructed by the literature on the subject, that Social Credit is a superficial 'quack' remedy, treating the 'spots' instead of the disease, while Socialism goes to the heart of the matter. Yet on Marx's own showing all the Socialist has to do is to swim with the tide of the 'immanent laws of capitalist production'. At the mere suggestion of swimming against them he is horrified, evil as he admits them to be. The thing, he says, is impossible, against evolution, against progress. This does not look like going to the heart of the matter!

There is here another misconception about 'evolution.' Natural Selection, as applied in the human economic and political sphere is childishly interpreted as favouring the survival of the strong, the cruel, the cunning and the generally anti-social, since those types have been seen to be encouraged by our economic 'system.'                  According to this view, in a state of nature the animal world would soon be dominated by tigers, cobras, tarantula spiders and the like, whereas it is a fortunate fact that these creatures are far from biologically 'successful' on the whole, compared with the less offensive types.

Instead, therefore, of blaming a state of 'laissez-faire' for the encouragement of anti-social human types, the fact of their predominance in positions of power is clear evidence of the absence of laissez-faire, i.e., of a natural environment, and the presence of some unnatural interference with that environment.

Now, so far as our experience takes us, there is only one sort of unnatural influence in the World, and that is the influence of a wrong idea, i.e. an idea that is out of touch with 'nature' or 'reality.' It is nonsense for people to point to material influences such as machines, solar energy etc., and to blame them for the trouble. There is absolutely nothing about a flying machine, for instance, which makes it essential for it to be used for dropping bombs rather than for providing transport for people. There is nothing about coal, which has been lying there in the earth for geological ages, which forces it to be used for making a Black Country, or turning out shoddy mass- produced goods. There is nothing about the immensely increased power which has become available to the human race during the last 150 years which inevitably tends towards centralisation, beyond; at any rate, a very moderate stage which has been passed long ago. On the contrary, it is not only equally available for decentralisation, but for the first time, by its vast multiplication of human power, it makes decentralisation compatible with the comfort of a high standard of living. The Marxian assumption that the changes in the 'forces of production' are alone sufficient to account for the historical process of centralisation and expropriation is shown to be false, in the light of the knowledge that these forces could equally well have been used in the opposite direction. I am afraid that the Distributists will not like to be told that they also have not freed themselves from this Marxian superstition!

If we are looking for an unnatural idea we have not far to seek! Now that Monetary Reform is all the rage in the 'best' circles, and even The Times refers to money as a ticket system it is perhaps possible at last to direct attention to the matter without being greeted by shrill cries of 'crank’!  The absurdity of the idea that the tendencies of the Nineteenth Century were the product of 'laissez- faire,' 'free enterprise,' or 'individualism' should at last begin to be obvious even to socialists.

I do not know why people still have the impertinence to use these terms to describe a state of affairs in which anyone can do what he likes provided he has a permit from the creators of credit. It is like saying that anyone in a prison is free (omitting mention of the proviso that of course he must have a permit to do what he likes from the Governor). Even so, that state of affairs, as it occurred in the Nineteenth Century, in which there was laissez- faire for all (subject to a generalised Banker's permit) must be admitted to have contained a greater element of free choice than this, in which, not only the generalised money- permit is required, but also, superimposed on it, a variety of tickets, coupons, passes, licences, each limited in its scope, and covering between them nearly the whole field of human activity. These last have all the disadvantages and dangers of the money-ticket, in that they confer power to restrict freedom of action, and centralise it in the issuers, and none of its advantages, the chief of which is that, once it is in the hands of the consumer, the money-ticket permits freedom of action in any direction.


At whatever stage this increasing interference over people's lives is operating, whether at the monetary, the bureaucratic, or the military or police level, and they are all well mixed up in this country at present, it is clear that there has been no question of the operation of natural selection for many generations. That is to say, we are emphatically not up against 'the trend of evolution,' the 'inevitable outcome of natural law’, as the Marxists would have us believe. There is nothing inevitable about it, except of course, that so long as it is believed to be inevitable no attempt to reverse it is likely to succeed.

What we are facing is a series of actions on the part of certain people whose purpose is to centralise power in their own hands, and a vast aura of confused ideas, put about by them, with the aid of their control of the reiterative propaganda mechanisms which has enabled them to carry out their programme so far with impunity. The task of combatting these ideas, and the people behind them is by no means impossible, and has already been undertaken with some success. I find, however, that the majority of people, not merely professed socialists, are now inhibited from seeing the situation as it is by some or all of the Marxian misconceptions which I have been dealing with.




On Nov 27, 2016, at 3:47 AM, Team Marco <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.> wrote:



I can’t thank you enough for joining our fight for a safer and stronger America.


– Marco



I am a Canadian citizen and did not, and obviously cannot, “join your team.”  For some reason it seemed that I could not make your e-mail section work.   However, I wished to commend Marco Rubio for his scathing criticism of our so-called “Prime Minister”, Justin Trudeau, in response to his glowing eulogy of the late Cuban President Fidel Castro.  To my knowledge, Justin Trudeau has no really significant accomplishments to his credit and appears to be an immature ideological neophyte given to various trendy and rebellious notions about supposed "social justice".  He declares that he is and has always been a “feminist” (?) and seems to be preoccupied with such matters as marijuana and homosexual “rights”. Batista was obviously no angel but Castro was hardly a fitting successor. 

Justin Trudeau’s arrogant father, Pierre Elliot, left office as probably one of the most hated (especially in the West) Prime Ministers in Canadian history.  He was a student of Marxism and a friend of Castro.  Justin has a particularly annoying habit of speaking for “all Canadians” when expostulating on some of his quirky and ill-considered ideas and policies.  He does not speak for me.  People were understandably so disillusioned with the previous “Conservative” Government of Stephen Harper that the electors spontaneously coalesced to throw them out, but what possessed the voters to replace them with Justin Trudeau only the Gods may know.  It seems to have been an act of collective insanity.  They did not find an alternative as was done in the case of Donald Trump.  Of course, we in Canada do not specifically elect our Prime Ministers as do you your Presidents in the U.S.

If Donald Trump is successfully to administer and transform economic conditions in the United States of America he will be required fundamentally to alter the defective, wealth and power-centralizing, debt-creating and war-engendering Banking and financial cost-accountancy system which so long has afflicted a long-suffering humanity.  If the Trump Administration attempts to build national prosperity through competition in the export markets while instituting protective trade measures this will cause international friction and inducement to war, as is inevitable with such policies.  What must be done is to ensure that American citizens are provided sufficient unencumbered consumer purchasing-power enabling them to claim all domestic consumer production without the need for financial debt.  If such a policy were to be followed the United States could rapidly emerge as a nation of unprecedented prosperity.  Some relevant web links are listed below.

Sincerely, Wallace Klinck



Fidel Castro, Marxist dictator of Cuba, is one of the Soviet Union's favourite tools in promoting global revolution. Propaganda has it that the Soviet Union is anti-Jewish. What then, of Castro's alleged Jewish background?

Quoting as its source the Israeli evening newspaper Ma'ariv, which reported Castro's Jewish background in 1978, the West German paper, National Zeitung, in its issue of March 16, 1984, states that Fidel Castro Ruz was born as son to a wealthy landowner in 1927. As a young man he met the former Ambassador to Israel, Ricardo Subirana L-Lobo, alias Richard Wolf. Wolf emigrated to Cuba from Germany when Hitler came to power. In Cuba he became a millionaire and met with the young Castro, the two becoming close friends,

each admitting their Jewish background. Castro studied as a lawyer and become involved in Marxist revolutionary movements which led to his imprisonment in 1953 by the Batista Government. Released from prison after serving only three years of a fifteen year sentence, Castro fled to Mexico and set in motion the revolutionary movement which eventually led to his return to Cuba and seizure of power

Influential papers like The New York Times backed Castro, insisting that he wasn't a Communist, only an "agrarian reformer".  Castro's friend Wolf was the Cuban diplomat to Rome and Peking under the Batista government shortly before Castro's takeover of Cuba, Wolf became Ambassador to Israel where he has since resided as a private citizen in Tel Aviv.

 - - The New Times, September 1984






Rian Malan says he's willing to give up his land (...