Everyone wants to argue about whether or not these are real.
Doesn't really matter, when there's very similar claims in the writings of Marx and Engels. It's a very similar checklist to OP's, and Marx's ideas won on a lot more than most people would expect. Our current "capitalist" failures were all things Marx advocated for; the intentional tainting of capitalism for communist ends. Our current "capitalist" system is a Marxist wet dream.
Yes, to me just having that listed out was the killer. Whether the source was real or not, didn't matter much.
I mean, even as propaganda goes, this was created some time ago, and yet too much of it still seems to be the game plan, and no one has gotten the wiser.
...to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State...this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property...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, here's the good part:
Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.
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) Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. 6) Centralisation 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 liability 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, &c, &c.
And I could have gone harder, as some of these are half-complete, or more. But, yeah, Taxes, central banking, consolidation of transport/communication, unions, public education. All things Marx and Engels themselves advocated for.
But wait, there's more!
Demands of the Communist Party in Germany
“Workers of all countries, unite!”
The whole of Germany shall be declared a single and indivisible republic.
No states' rights.
Representatives of the people shall receive payment so that workers, too, shall be able to
become members of the German parliament.
Well, that went well. To be fair, our current system in this respect, is not what Marx was talking about. It is funny how much the modern Marxists hate the more everyman politicians, though.
Universal arming of the people. In future the armies shall be simultaneously labour armies, so
that the troops shall not, as formerly, merely consume, but shall produce more than is necessary
for their upkeep. This will moreover be conducive to the organisation of labour.
Alright, fine. Based Marx on this one.
Mortgages on peasant lands shall be declared the property of the state. Interest on such
mortgages shall be paid by the peasants to the state.
Power to the people...State?
And, here's the good one:
A state bank, whose paper issues are legal tender, shall replace all private banks.
This measure will make it possible to regulate the credit system in the interest of the people as a
whole, and will thus undermine the dominion of the big financial magnates. Further, by gradually
substituting paper money for gold and silver coin, the universal means of exchange (that
indispensable prerequisite of bourgeois trade and commerce) will be cheapened, and gold and
silver will be set free for use in foreign trade. Finally, this measure is necessary in order to bind
the interests of the conservative bourgeoisie to the Government.
They specifically wanted to use paper money - presumably fiat - explicitly for the purpose of making it worthless, while also using the actual wealth for foreign trade. Hmm, sounds familiar.
All the means of transport, railways, canals, steamships, roads, the posts etc. shall be taken
over by the state. They shall become the property of the state and shall be placed free at the
disposal of the impecunious classes.
The right of inheritance to be curtailed.
The introduction of steeply graduated taxes, and the abolition of taxes on articles of
consumption.
Universal and free education of the people.
The Committee
Karl Marx, Karl Schapper, H. Bauer, F. Engels, J. Moll, W. Wolff
Impressive job! People blow so much hot air that it has become my default assumption.
Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
I'll add that in living memory, there were European leftists who argued that rights of inheritance should be abolished.
Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
I think this means that the national bank is the one lending the money.
Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.
Thing is, I'm pretty sure that by the time they wrote this - Prussia had introduced (I assume free) public education, and Conservatives in England had enacted laws protecting children from child labor (though by no means as strict as today, obviously). Meaning that this is by no means exclusive to Marxism, and the fact that Marxism gets some things right, does not excuse the ideology itself.
Much of the work of Marx is derivative. What is useful, is derivative, and what is original, is either useless or dangerous.
And I either haven't read these, or haven't in years, so can't vouch for the exact contents, but here's two search results that showed up: Mises Institute talking about it, and MostlyEconimics blog, whoever that is.
It's not exactly unexpected that a libertarian think-tank would try to... taint, if you will, any government interference in the 'free market' with the brush of Marxism in order to discredit it. I'd say that the past few years have discredited the notion that lack of government interference should be a dogma, given how tyrannical large corporations have become.
In any case, this was very interesting, but I will contest that this is an 'intentional tainting of capitalism for Marxist ends'. A lot of these ideas were simply reform ideas that were in the air in the 19th century. I'm definitely sure that this is not a "Marxist wet dream", not with the neoliberalism that has reigned supreme over the past few decades. As bad as you may think things are, actual Marxism would be a good deal worse.
I'll add that in living memory, there were European leftists who argued that rights of inheritance should be abolished.
Yup, US lefties too. And it's already been hampered greatly.
I think this means that the national bank is the one lending the money.
Everything's so regulated that's sort of what's going on anyway, though. Communism is just less efficient and less honest fascism, and our current version of capitalism is just even less efficient and less honest communism.
It's not exactly unexpected that a libertarian think-tank would try to... taint, if you will, any government interference in the 'free market' with the brush of Marxism in order to discredit it.
I agree, but it also doesn't really change Marx's own words.
I'd say that the past few years have discredited the notion that lack of government interference should be a dogma, given how tyrannical large corporations have become.
To some extent. I still think smaller government is vastly preferable, but it's also obvious that someone needs to work the levers of power. I want strong local government, in the ideal sense, I suppose. Less federal power, more state power, and even city/district power. Stop the bleed of power outward, and focus it inward. Cities can represent themselves, and dictate their rules, but don't get to tell the rest of the state how they can live, just because a ton of people are packed into a city.
In any case, this was very interesting, but I will contest that this is an 'intentional tainting of capitalism for Marxist ends'.
I think it's a mix. I think they clearly did want to taint some things, like the value of money being a very clear cut one. But there's also an (un)healthy helping of "oh, yeah, communism doesn't fucking work." It's part intentional tainting, and part standard communist retardation.
I'm definitely sure that this is not a "Marxist wet dream", not with the neoliberalism that has reigned supreme over the past few decades.
Again, I do think it's a mix but, yeah, this wasn't the execution Marx and his people had hoped for, even if it does check a bunch of their boxes.
As bad as you may think things are, actual Marxism would be a good deal worse.
I agree, and never claimed otherwise. Just that there's a surprising amount of overlap, and we're basically in Communism Lite right now already.
I figure if inauthentic, it'd have been the foresight from a time when no one had to tiptoe around political correctness or veiled agendas to know or say what was what.
More than once I think we've seen when the cautionary fiction becomes appropriated by the revelation of methodology.
As opposed to what? Taking your word for it when you claim that a work contains something? I don't think any of you Nazi NPCs have read anything, you just repeat what you hear from other NPCs.
Is pattern recognition not enough?
What pattern? That Nazis are dumb?
White genocide and their corruption of the institutions are real, correct?
Forgery means that it's fake. And it is. Because it was plagiarized from a book that had a dialogue between Napoleon III and Machiavelli, not any 'Elders'.
You have to be a complete moron to buy into this more than 100 years after the fact. Even Goebbels, who was highly inclined to believe it because it suited him, recognized it as a total fake, because he had a modicum of intelligence and wit. Modern day Nazis unfortunately lack the erudition of Goebbels.
Everyone wants to argue about whether or not these are real.
Doesn't really matter, when there's very similar claims in the writings of Marx and Engels. It's a very similar checklist to OP's, and Marx's ideas won on a lot more than most people would expect. Our current "capitalist" failures were all things Marx advocated for; the intentional tainting of capitalism for communist ends. Our current "capitalist" system is a Marxist wet dream.
Yes, to me just having that listed out was the killer. Whether the source was real or not, didn't matter much.
I mean, even as propaganda goes, this was created some time ago, and yet too much of it still seems to be the game plan, and no one has gotten the wiser.
Can you give a few examples? Marx had a batty idea about why capitalism would fail, something that never materialized anywhere.
Maybe Edouard Bernstein would like it, but none of the proper Marxists did. They wanted revolution.
Manifesto of the Communist Party by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels. It's long, so I'll snip the relevant parts, you can search the phrases though to read the full sections:
And, here's the good part:
And I could have gone harder, as some of these are half-complete, or more. But, yeah, Taxes, central banking, consolidation of transport/communication, unions, public education. All things Marx and Engels themselves advocated for.
But wait, there's more!
No states' rights.
Well, that went well. To be fair, our current system in this respect, is not what Marx was talking about. It is funny how much the modern Marxists hate the more everyman politicians, though.
Alright, fine. Based Marx on this one.
Power to the
people...State?And, here's the good one:
They specifically wanted to use paper money - presumably fiat - explicitly for the purpose of making it worthless, while also using the actual wealth for foreign trade. Hmm, sounds familiar.
And I either haven't read these, or haven't in years, so can't vouch for the exact contents, but here's two search results that showed up: Mises Institute talking about it, and MostlyEconimics blog, whoever that is.
Impressive job! People blow so much hot air that it has become my default assumption.
I'll add that in living memory, there were European leftists who argued that rights of inheritance should be abolished.
I think this means that the national bank is the one lending the money.
Thing is, I'm pretty sure that by the time they wrote this - Prussia had introduced (I assume free) public education, and Conservatives in England had enacted laws protecting children from child labor (though by no means as strict as today, obviously). Meaning that this is by no means exclusive to Marxism, and the fact that Marxism gets some things right, does not excuse the ideology itself.
Much of the work of Marx is derivative. What is useful, is derivative, and what is original, is either useless or dangerous.
It's not exactly unexpected that a libertarian think-tank would try to... taint, if you will, any government interference in the 'free market' with the brush of Marxism in order to discredit it. I'd say that the past few years have discredited the notion that lack of government interference should be a dogma, given how tyrannical large corporations have become.
In any case, this was very interesting, but I will contest that this is an 'intentional tainting of capitalism for Marxist ends'. A lot of these ideas were simply reform ideas that were in the air in the 19th century. I'm definitely sure that this is not a "Marxist wet dream", not with the neoliberalism that has reigned supreme over the past few decades. As bad as you may think things are, actual Marxism would be a good deal worse.
Thanks, it was fun to dig into it again.
Yup, US lefties too. And it's already been hampered greatly.
Everything's so regulated that's sort of what's going on anyway, though. Communism is just less efficient and less honest fascism, and our current version of capitalism is just even less efficient and less honest communism.
I agree, but it also doesn't really change Marx's own words.
To some extent. I still think smaller government is vastly preferable, but it's also obvious that someone needs to work the levers of power. I want strong local government, in the ideal sense, I suppose. Less federal power, more state power, and even city/district power. Stop the bleed of power outward, and focus it inward. Cities can represent themselves, and dictate their rules, but don't get to tell the rest of the state how they can live, just because a ton of people are packed into a city.
I think it's a mix. I think they clearly did want to taint some things, like the value of money being a very clear cut one. But there's also an (un)healthy helping of "oh, yeah, communism doesn't fucking work." It's part intentional tainting, and part standard communist retardation.
Again, I do think it's a mix but, yeah, this wasn't the execution Marx and his people had hoped for, even if it does check a bunch of their boxes.
I agree, and never claimed otherwise. Just that there's a surprising amount of overlap, and we're basically in Communism Lite right now already.
I figure if inauthentic, it'd have been the foresight from a time when no one had to tiptoe around political correctness or veiled agendas to know or say what was what.
More than once I think we've seen when the cautionary fiction becomes appropriated by the revelation of methodology.
Lots of context in the thread and from further down
Here is The Protocol of elders of Zions :
Can you provide page and edition numbers for your claims?
Source? Source? Source? No not that one!
Is pattern recognition not enough? White genocide and their corruption of the institutions are real, correct?
As opposed to what? Taking your word for it when you claim that a work contains something? I don't think any of you Nazi NPCs have read anything, you just repeat what you hear from other NPCs.
What pattern? That Nazis are dumb?
Nope.
Comment Reported for: Rule 12 - Falsehoods
Comment Approved: This is an opinion
I need any evidence for your crazy.
In this case, I'm telling you not to believe random stuff on the internet, which is apparently beyond your abilities.
These are known to be fake.... BUT...
what is NOT a fake is the WEF's Great Reset, which is designed to achieve the same result.
Give it a rest. It's a plagariarist forgery created by the Okhrana.
Plagiarism and forgery mean it was copied from another source, not that they are fake or false.
Forgery means that it's fake. And it is. Because it was plagiarized from a book that had a dialogue between Napoleon III and Machiavelli, not any 'Elders'.
You have to be a complete moron to buy into this more than 100 years after the fact. Even Goebbels, who was highly inclined to believe it because it suited him, recognized it as a total fake, because he had a modicum of intelligence and wit. Modern day Nazis unfortunately lack the erudition of Goebbels.
And the modern man Goebbels it up.
Can you provide original page and edition numbers for your claims?
OK, so you can't provide citations.
So you ask me for citations to cover your failure. Am I citing a book? I'm not. So 'original page' is your failed attempt to sound clever.
Not only that but it's a generic, vague list of "do bad stuff" that inevitably happens in all aging empires.
You're not wrong. You'd think we'd have learned the tells by now. Information age, making us all dumber. SNR is always a killer.
No goy they're fake ignore them and keep supporting your greatest ally.
Post Reported for: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks
Post Removed: Rule 12 - Intentional Falsehoods. This is actually one of the examples I use of intentional disinformation.