A more somber selection

The following selection is from a book called Silent Moments: The Descriptions of Before & After Death Aspects, it details how the Salaf felt about and dealt with death and dying. It’s a good book and is really eye opening when compared to the materialist western world. We live in a society that focuses on the now, we live for our current pleasures, yet most young people are striving to chart a course to a future that is unknown to them.

The Salaf were keenly aware of the consequences for their actions, they strove to do better everyday, and were aware of how precious time really was. Their relationships with God were truly powerful things, it governed their being and shook them to their core. Both Christians and Muslims could learn something from their modesty and their piety towards other people, the Salaf were among the most respectful of others.

It’s like Abdullah Azzam said “Pay attention to your heart, beware of raising yourself above others, and beware of belittling others. How many of these people have given for the sake of this Religion- but have kept it secret between them and the Lord of the Worlds- from he whose statement is belittled and his appearance mocked, and he might even have given more for this Religion than an Earthful of people like you ever would?”

This is a link to the book: http://kalamullah.com/Books/silent-moments.pdf

-Andross


 

A man was asked when he was dying, “What is your condition,” and he replied, “The condition of he who is starting on a long journey without sufficient provision, entering a lonely grave without any company and going back to the Just King without a valid excuse.”

Also, when death approached Muhammad bin Al-Munkadir and he wept, he was asked why he wept. He replied, “By Allah! I do not weep because of sins I know that I have commited, but because I fear an act I commited thinking it is unsubstancial, while it was substantial with Allah.”

Futher, after ‘Umar was stabbed, Abdullah bin ‘Abbas, visted him and proclaimed, “Reveive the glad tidings, O Chief of the Faithful! You embraced Islam with the Messenger of Allah (Pbuh) at a time when people disbelieved, fought along with him when people betrayed him, he died while pleased with you, and no two men disagreed that you should become the caliph.” ‘Umar asked Ibn ‘Abbas to repet his words and ‘Umar then replied, “Verily, he whom you deceive is the deceived one! If I owned the earth’s fill of silver and gold, I would use it as ransom from the horror to come.”

‘Imran Al-Khayyat said, “We visited Ibrahim An-Nakha’i when he was ill and found him weeping. We asked, “Why are you weeping, Abu ‘Imran?” He said, “I am awaiting the Angel of Death, but I do not know if he will bring forth news of Paradise or the Fire.”

He has said the truth, for what comes after this life, except Pradise or the Fire? Have we thought about where we are headed to and which path we will be taking? Rather, prolonged hopes and unawareness have taken over us. We ask Allah to awaken our hearts from sleep and to fill them with Faith and sound comprehension.

Al-Mughirah bin Habib said, “We visited Malik bin Dinar during his illness before he died and saw him raising his head to heaven and saying, ‘O Allah, You know that I did not like staying in this life to satisfy my sexual organ or to fill my stomach.”

May Allah grant His Mercy to our Salaf, and indeed, there is a far difference between us and them. They loved to remain alive so that they could increase the acts of obedience and worship. Why do we wish to live longer?

Sulaiman At-Taimi said, “I visted one of my friends when he was dying and saw him in a bad shape, and that made me anxious. I asked him, ‘Why are you afraid like this, when you, all thanks are due to Allah, were on a righteous path?’ He said, ‘Why should I not feel afraid? Who deserves to be afraid more than I? By Allah! Even if forgiveness came to me from Allah, the Exalted, I would still feel ashamed from Him for what I have committed.”

May Allah help us when it is time to meet Him and make us among those who prepare for death and are ready for its agonies and stupor, just as our Salaf used to be.

When Muhammad bin Sirin felt the approaching of death, he wept and said in answer to why he wept, “I weep because of my inadequacy in past days and the fewness of my good actions that would bring me closer to the high Paradise and save me from the blazing Fire.”

Verily, death brings unease to people when it is mentioned, so much so that they wish people would cease talking about it. In comparison, ‘Umar bin Abdul-Aziz used to say, “If remembrance of death departed from my heart for an hour, my heart would be corrupted.”

Therefore, just like ‘Umar death should not be absent from our minds for even an hour. However, we do not have the patience to hear about death, even for an hour. Some people would even depart from the gathering where death is being mentioned, because unawareness has taken over their hearts, as well as, eagerness for this life and its short delights.

Let us think about what Caliph Harun Ar-Rashid said when he was choosing his own shroud and looking at it:

“My wealth has not availed me. My power (and arguments to defend myself) have gone from me!” (69:28,29)

When death approached Salma Al-Farisi he wept. He was asked why he wept and he replied, “I do not wept in grief for this life, but because the Messenger of Allah (Pbuh) has recommended that one of us should only collect what is sufficient as provision for a traveler.” After Salman died, what he left behind was counted and its value was of ten Dirhams only.

Where are we from these righteous people?

‘Umar bin Abdul-Aziz reminded us of our destination and of the time when we will depart from this life, saying, “Do you not see that every day, you are preparing a traveler to Allah, the Exalted and Ever-High, by day or by night? You then place them in a hole in the ground, where they will use dirt for pillows, leaving behind loved ones, wealth and power.”

Moreover, when death approached Ibn Al-Mubarak, he said to Nasr, his servant, “Place my head on the ground,” but Nasr wept. He asked him, “What makes you weep?” Nasr said, “I remembered the delight you enjoyed and here you die as a poor and a stranger.” Ibn Al-Mubarak said, “Do not say that. I begged Allah that I live the life of hapy ones and die the death of the poor.” He then ordered Nasr, “Recite Shahadah to me (La Ilaha Illallah) and do not repeat it unless I say something else.”

How can we feel safe, when Al-Faruq, ‘Umar said, “If I have the earth’s fill of gold and silver, I would ransom myself with it. How can I feel safe knowing the horror that is still to come and before knowing the true news (about my final destination)?” Also, after ‘Umar was stabbed, he asked his son to place his cheek on the ground and he did; ‘Umar wept until some mud stuck to his eyes. ‘Umar was weeping and saying, “Woe to me, and woe to my mother, if my Lord did not bestow His mercy on me.”

Futher, Umm Darda said that when a righteous man died, Abu Darda used to say, “Congratulations. I wish I was in your place.” When Umm Darda asked him about it, he said, “Do you not know that one starts the day while a believer and ends it while hypocrite, thus, being rid of his Faith while he is unaware? This is why I congratulate that dead man [for dying while righteous] more than I wish for him to stay alive to pray and fast.”

When Al-Kinani was dying, he was asked, “What type of actions were you doing?” He asked, “If I was not dying, I would not have told you. I stood at the door of my heart for forty years, and whenever any other than Allah passed by its door, I kept him away.”

How many times did we stop at the doors of our hearts so that we find out who went through them?

When Bilal was close to death, his wife said to him, “How said I am! he said, “Rather, how delighted I am! Tomorrow, I will meet the loved ones: Muhammad and his Companions.”

Also, this is the Faruq of this Ummah, ‘Umar, let us see how fearful of Allah he was. Abdullah bin Zubair said, “Ever since I became aware of my surroundings, no sadness struck us more than that which struck us when ‘Umar bin Al-Khattab was stabbed. He had led us in Zuhr, ‘Asr, Maghrib and ‘Isha prayers, as at east and delighted as anny of the people were. When it was time for Fajr prayer, a man led us in prayer and said Takbir in a different voice (not ‘Umar’s). It was Abdur-Rahman bin ‘Awf. When we finished the prayer, they said that the Leader of the Faithful (‘Umar) was stabbed. The people finished the prayer while ‘Umar was still bleeding and did not pray Fajr prayer yet. He was told “O Leader of the Faithful! The prayer, the Prayer.” He said, “Yes, by Allah! One has no share in Islam if he ignores the prayer.” He wanted to stand up, but his wound bled. He asked, “O People! Did this stab occur by your knowledge?” ‘Ali bin Abu Talib said, “No, by Allah! We do not know who was the attacker among the creation of Allah. We would sacrifice ourselves for you and our blood for your blood.” ‘Umar looked at Abdullah bin Abbas and said, “Go out to the people, ask them and tell me the truth.” Ibn ‘Abbas went out and came back declaring, “O Leader of the Faithful! Receive the glad tidings of paradise! By Allah, I never saw an eye that moves belonging to a male or a felame but weeping for you, all wishing the could sacrifice their fathers and mothers for you. The [Majoosi (fire-worshipper)] slave of Al-Mughirah bin Shu’bah has stabbed you and twelve other men, who are now bleeding, and Allah will decide about them whatever He decides.

Congratulations of Paradise, O Leader of the Faithful. ‘Umar said, “Deceive someone else with this talk, O Ibn ‘Abbas! Ibn Abbas said, “Why should I not say this when, by Allah, your embracing Islam brought us might, your migration was a triumph, your leadership was filled with justice and you were killed injustly.” ‘Umar said, “Would you testify to the same before Allah on the Day of Resurrection?” ‘Ali bin Abu Talib said, “Yes, O Leader of the Faithful! We will testify for you before Allah on the Day of Resurrection.” ‘Umar then looked at his son Abdullah and ordered him, “Place my cheek on the ground, my son!” Abdullah said later, “I did not oblig him thinking that he was unaware of what he was saying.” So again ‘Umar ordered Abdullah, “My son! Place my cheek on the ground!” Abdullah bin Umar did not do it, and ‘Umar ordered him for a third time, “Place my cheek on the ground, may you have no mother!” Abdullah knew then that ‘Umar was aware of what he was saying and placed his cheek on the ground, until he saw the hairs on his beared between the sand on the ground. ‘Umar wept until the mud stuck to his eyes and said ‘Woe to Umar and to the mother of ‘Umar, if Allah does not pardon him.'”

In addition, Abdul-Aziz bin Abu Rawwad said, “I entered on Al-Mughirah bin Hakeem during the illness that preceded his death and said to him, ‘Advise me.’ He said, ‘Work for this end.'”

As for us, did we work for this end? Did we work for the Day of Horror?

Advertisements

“This kind of protest is an expression of a philosophy that is grounded partly in Post-Modernism and partly in Marxism”- Professor Jordan Peterson

There has been a lot of debate over the things Professor Jordan Peterson has been saying, particularly about freedom of speech and the reaction against political correctness. The Professor has been invited to give lectures at university campuses and there have been protests trying to shut them down almost each time, mainly due to his ideas about gender and gender pronouns. The people who protest these events are usually sympathetic to other movements such as ANTIFA and other gender based organizations, which makes them interesting to look at and respond to eventually.

The Professor is quite a learned man, he’s a professional psychologist and has been for quite some time, he has tenure at a university and has done many videos on Youtube of lectures from his classes. He says that the people who protest him are Marxists, and maybe they may hold a very limited notion of Marxian ideals, but overall their tactics and ideas that they advocate for don’t say Marxism, they say Social-Democracy. While protesting is a form of avocation of an idea, these protesters don’t seem to have countering viewpoints, they just don’t like what he has been saying, which is perfectly fine.

I would only argue that if they can shut Professor Peterson down, then by their logic anyone else who speaks can be shut down as well. I think one of the basic principles of Marxian thinking is that everyone should be able to express their ideas within society, and then society will choose which to go with. Obviously by that point it’ll be done within the context of the party or the local soviet, but still they’ll have the opportunity to go about choosing different view points. As much as Leon Trotsky was reviled within the Bolshevik Party he was still given the chance to pass out flyers and pamphlets on his ideas, he was aloud to form a power base even if it would eventually conspire to overthrow the government, if they can let someone like Trotsky speak then someone like Jordan Peterson should be aloud to speak as well.

Every ideas should be able to be expressed in a fair and open way, that’s the real purpose of our printing.

This selection comes from a video of the Professor called “Jordan Peterson explains why his speech got silenced.” I hope you enjoy it.

A link to the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RHn-EqdAqU

-Andross


 

Well I can tell you a little bit about why these attempts to shut people down are being made.. Because you need to know this.. So, as far as I have been able to determine, this kind of protest is an expression of a philosophy that is grounded in Post-Modernism and partly in Marxism.

Now, the Post-Modern element is basically this “there is no such thing as genuine individual identity, what there is is group identity. And, like it or not you only have the interests of your group, and the whole world is nothing but a battle ground between groups with different interests.” There is no dialogue, there is no possibility of talking to groups, it’s just a power stage where combat has to take place.

And so the reason that speakers with whom the radical Post-Modernists and the Marxists don’t agree are denied a platform is because those people do not believe from a philosophical position that dialogue can bring consensus.  And all that’s left if you forgo that particular principle is this.. And this is only where is starts.

The fact is that you’re all pretty damn civilized, and thank God for that. Because if there were enough fools in the crowd especially those who’re intent on violence this would turn out very differently. And we do not want to go down that pathway, it’s a big mistake. We’ve been down that pathway many many times.

(There was a question asked to Professor Peterson, and he responds)

I would certainly not conform to a consensus that was against my beliefs, merely because it’s a consensus; often the group is wrong. The question was “if there was a consensus against my beliefs, would I forgo them?” And the answer to that would be:

1st- It would depend on what my conscience said. What are we going to do? Assume that the consensus is correct? The Nazis had a consensus, right? The individual has a conscience. And you have to know when the group has made a mistake, and become nothing but a maddening, chanting mob. In which case, what you should do, is detach yourself from the massive, chanting mob.

(Another question was asked to Professor Peterson)

So there was a question, the question was stemming from my personality class, “do I think that people are willing to abide by their conscience are people who have integrated their shadow?” And I would say yes, because you have to be a bit of a monster to stand up to the crowd. If you’re too concerned about if people like you, and if you’re too avoident of conflict, then you’re going to cave at the first sign of pressure. And you don’t want to do that, because if you let people stop you from moving forward you just end up being someone who has stopped, and if you’re someone who’s stopped then you have no life in you.

And that’s no good, so you have to get tough. But you have to get tough in a way that’s controlled. It has to be controlled, because otherwise you’re the puppet of your worse impulses. And that’s a terrible thing to be.

A brief mention of a good source on ‘National-Bolshevism’

This is a really good article that talks not only about the roots of National-Bolshevism, but also how it relates to the modern left and right. One of the really beautiful things about so-called Third Way ideas is that they’re really able to transcend the political spectrum and look at issues through an all encompassing lenses.

One of the topics the article talks about is the ‘New World Order’ and it falls into the usual blaming of international organizations and internationalist people, however one of the things that the writers that we’ve reprinted have always mentioned is that it’s not really a problem of organizations or people, rather it’s a systematic problem of financial capital on an international scale.

So while we at 14:11 don’t have one specific message, this article is definitely worth checking out because Third Way thinking doesn’t get much coverage and it’s usually dismissed by both sides of the aisle. There’s a vast collection of ideas and ways of solving problems if we simply look deep enough.

Here’s the article: https://vansternationell.wordpress.com/national-bolshevik-documents/conservative-revolution-national-revolution-and-national-bolshevism-revisited-the-social-revolutionary-nature-of-australian-nationalism/

Side note: There was a really good article that I found a while ago about Josip Tito and how Yugoslavia handled it’s different national questions, the idea itself was called Brotherhood and Unity but I can’t find the article anymore. However, I will post a link to a collection of Tito’s writings, and there is also an archive of different things that the Yugoslav Partisans wrote during World War 2. I’ll also post a link to an archive of Enver Hoxha’s writings as well because most people either love one or the other. They both have their faults and issues, but 14:11 wants to make both of their messages available to the people.

Tito’s writings:  https://www.marxists.org/archive/tito/index.htm

Hoxha’s writings:  https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works-index.htm

Have a blessed day

-Andross

Enver Hoxha, Marxism-Leninism and the peasantry

”     In bourgeois revolutions, the transformations in the economy bring about the transformations in state power, whereas in the case of people’s revolutions, changes begin immediately in the state power, and it is the task of the latter, the people’s power, to effect the changes in the economy, to construct the economic system in keeping with the interests of the victors in revolution, in keeping with the interests of the working people.

It is true that, as we said, work on this aspect started in the course of the war; during the war the traitors were attacked along with the occupier; it was in the course of the war that the class differentiation took place, but the main work in this direction had to be carried out after liberation.

The building of a new people’s economy called for radical reforms of an economic character; it was the duty of the Party towards the working masses to create better economic conditions.

Of these reforms, the Land Reform was the most important and urgent. It changed the old relations in land ownership once and for all, liberated the peasantry from centuries-old injustice and oppression, made the poor farmers owners of the produce ofht eland which they had worked on behalf of the beys and agas, sensibly restricted the exploitation of man by man, crushed and liquidated for ever the economy of the feudal lords who had deceived and robbed the poor peasant strata for centuries.

In the policy of our Party for the countryside and in the application of the Land Reform we have also had some shortcomings. This explains why, despite the slogans urging the peasants not to recognize their former masters, a law on agricultural rent was drafted according to which, until the complete implementation of the Land Reform, the peasant-farmers were compelled to give the owners up to 30 percent of the produce of the land, a law which was not well received, and aroused discontent among the peasants. Likewise, at the beginning, the Law on the Land Reform did not allow the adoption of radical measures of expropriation.

The distribution of land presented its specific difficulties, it was a struggle in itself. The Party was fully mobilized, and together with it, all the working peasantry. As for the kulaks, in the beginning they sought to arouse doubts among the peasants, saying that, “it takes years, technicians, to carry out the Land Reform”. They supported the slogans of the clergy, “The land belongs to God”, etc. However, when they found that such slogans were of no avail in coping with the powerful attack of the working masses guided by the Party, some of them managed to join even the poor peasants’ committees in order to sabotage their work, to help themselves and their relatives.

According to the Marxist principle that the sharpening of the class struggle makes the enemy more savage and more determined to fight, the kulaks even went to such lengths as to throw bombs at the peasants who took their land. The people’s courts showed that the exproriation of the land was the most painful blow to the bourgeoisie in the countryside.

However, despite the shortcomings of the Law at the state, which derived from the influence of the land policy of the Trotskyite leadership of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia, despite the deliberate sabotage of some technicians, despite the resistance of opposition elements, despite the lack of data and cadres for such an undertaking, thanks to the work of the Party and to the full support of the mass of the poor and middle peasants, the Land Reform was carried out, and one year afterwards the first title deeds were distributed, and in general the job was well done.

The peasants discovered from real facts that they were in power, discovered the great concern and interest in them of the Party and the people’s power. This gave our peasant a courage he had never had; it made him conscious of his strength, convinced him that, just as he had won the war under the leadership of the Party, so with the Party he could achieve new successes.

The peasants were convinced that only the Party, inspired by the Marxist-Leninist teachings, relying on the great achievements and the invaluable experience of the motherland of socialism, the great Soviet Union, was capable of implementing such a reform in the interest of the working masses.

The triumph of the people’s revolution opened a brilliant page in the history of the peasantry, just as it had done for the entire working people. The distribution of land, no doubt, was the first step, but the Party and the state were not satisfied with just this in their policy concerning the peasantry which had thrown off its two-fold yoke but had suffered heavy damage in the war. Despite their good will, the poor peasants were not in a position to recover without assistance. The Party and the state did not fail to tackle this task. Aid in this respect has been allsided, and, with the strengthening of the people’s power, it has been increased from year to year.

In administering this aid, our policy has been, and will be, that the cooperatives and poor peasants should benefit first of all.

The changes in the ownership and relations in regard to land, the beginnings of the use of advanced means, the great material assistance from the state, and the new political and social conditions in our country brought about a new situation for the peasantry. The sweat and toil of the poor peasants no longer go to the benefit of the landowners of yesterday; the peasants own the fruits of their labour. Whereas prior to liberation the labouring peasants were serfs, exhausted, ragged, famished, and despised, with the victory of the National Liberation War they were rescued from that plight and are now perceptibly improving their economies, convince that under the leadership of the Party and with ceaseless work they will see still better days.

We can express ourselves in comrade Stalin’s words: ‘Now the countryside cannot any longer be termed a stepmother to the peasant’.

As is known, up to the liberation of Albania, land was mainly the property of feudal owners, kulaks and, partially, of poor peasants. As a result of the seizure of the power by the people, following the changes in the economic, political and social relations, apart from the private sector in agriculture, conditions were created for setting up two new sectors; the sector of cooperatives of the socialist type and the entirely socialist state sector.”- Enver Hoxha

Source: http://ciml.250x.com/archive/hoxha/english/enver_hoxha_selected_works_volume_2_eng.pdf

Pages 14 to 17

 

 

 

 

 

 

“The basic contradiction of capitalism has never been settled”- Kim Jong Il

This selection was found on the website of the Rural People’s Party, it’s a very interesting party and deserves a look, they have a lot of really good ideas on their site and could definitely be a model for some of the new left.

This is their website: http://ruralpeople.atspace.org/

Kim Jong Il was the leader of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea), he is the son of Kim Il Sung, the man who liberated the country from the Japanese during World War 2. Kim Jong Il provided the idea of Songun, a policy that was in response to the changes that the ‘new world order’ brought to the third world. In this case, the new world order simply means international capital, or international finance capital, Kim Jong Il fought to keep North Korea independent by modernizing their military forces and he was quite well versed in Marxist thinking.

His writings are quite interesting, and are worth a read by anyone who wants to learn a bit more about Marxian socialism.

This is the full article: http://ruralpeople.atspace.org/kim_jong_il_on_labor_aristocracy.htm

-Andross


 

As a result of capital being internationalized and of world imperialism having realigned itself, centering on US imperialism, capitalism has survived its imminent doom and made rapid economic and technical progress.

Since the end of the second world war the imperialists have not only aligned themselves with each other politically, economically and militarily, but also evolved more cunning techniques of domination and crafty methods of plunder. This is also an important feature of contemporary imperialism.

The imperialists could not help being extremely alarmed at the rapidly growing socialist forces and the upsurge of the working-class movement and national-liberation movement in the colonies. That is why they devised new and more cunning technqiues oof ruling and crafty methods of plundering to weaken the influence of socialism and appease the working-class movement and national-liberation movement in the colonies.

The imperialists were keenly aware of the fact that they would not be able to maintain the capitalist system unless the working-class movement in their own countries was undermined, so they brought up large numbers of labor aristocrates, while striving to conceal capitalist exploitation and to subdue the resistance of the working masses through unemployment and poverty.

The imperialists also had to change the method of plundering their colonies. Imperialism has always existed by exploiting and plundering colonies. As a result of the second world war, the national-liberation movement gained unprecedented momentum and the colonial system crumbled. This was a fatal blow to imperialism. The imperialists resorted to the crafty method of neocolonialism to regain their lost colonies. Unlike in the past when they had ruled and plundered their colonies by means of overt corecion, they now nominally recognized the soverignty of the newly independent colonies and developing nations and offered them so-called ‘aid’. In this way they subjugated these countries optically and economically, exploiting and plundering them.

Neocolonialism became a means for the imperialists easily to infiltrate the developing countries. In former days the imperialist powers scrambled fiercely for colonies, but since beginning to rely on neocolonialism they have conspired together to penetrate the developing countries to pacify the resistance of their peoples using ‘aid’, in particular, as bait. In this way they were able to seize commodity markets and raw material resources without difficulty.

With capitalist countries acting in collusion economically and technically and acquiring large markets and raw material resources in the developing countries, the level of socialization of production rose markedly, and production and technology developed quickly in the capitalist world.

These changes in the capitalist world offered the advocates of imperialism grounds for the argument that the basic contradiction of capitalism had been resolved and that capitalism was no longer moribund capitalism, but growing and prospering capitalism.

However, the basic contradiction of capitalism has never been settled, nor has the predatory nature of imperialism ever changed.

Capital cannot be anything but capital however international it becomes. The multinational company is nothing but a mode of existence for major monopolies; it intensifies capitalist exploitation and guarantees imperialist domination, on a world scale. A change, if any, has taken place in the method of capitalist exploitation and plunder in that it has become much more sly, and in the range of capitalist contradiction in that it has extended on an international level beyond the bounds of individual countries. Formerly, capitalist exploitation caused the phenomenon of ‘the rich getting ever richer and the poor getting ever poorer’ to prevail within individual capitalist bounties, but nowadays this phenomenon is getting worse on a global scale with the world divided into rich capitalist countries and poor developing countries.

Today the contradictions of the capitalist world have been exacerbated shall further, and imperialism finds itself in serious political and economic trouble.

Because of neocolonialist exploitation and plunder by imperialists, atonal industries in the developing countries have further deteriorated, the people of these countries have become pooer and their foreign debts have increased as the days go by. In these developing countries the purchasing power for capitalist communalities has declined and their ability to pay foreign debts has diminished. This cannot be but a blow to imperialist powers, which have grown fat at the cost of the developing countries.

” There is no such thing as socialism and communism with poverty”- Deng Xiaoping

” In 1949, when the People’s Republic of China was founded, the Chinese people finally stood up. It is true that in the 38 years since then we have made a lot of mistakes. Our basic goal — to build socialism — is correct, but we are still trying to figure out what socialism is and how to build it. The primary task for socialism is to develop the productive forces. Our seizure of state power in 1949 liberated those forces as a whole, and the agrarian reform liberated the productive forces of the peasants, who constitute 80 per cent of China’s population. So far so good. But we did a poor job of expanding the productive forces. That was chiefly because we were in too much of a hurry and adopted “Left” policies that hindered their development instead of accelerating it. We began making “Left” mistakes in the political domain in 1957; in the economic domain those mistakes led to the Great Leap Forward of 1958, which resulted in enormous damage to production and much hardship for the people. From 1959 through 1961 we experienced tremendous difficulties — people didn’t have enough to eat, not to mention anything else. In 1962 things began to look up, and production was gradually restored to its former level. But the “Left” thinking persisted.

Then in 1966 came the “cultural revolution”, which lasted a whole decade, a real disaster for China. During that period many veteran cadres suffered persecution, including me. I was labelled the “No. 2 Capitalist Roader” after Liu Shaoqi. Liu was called “commander-in-chief of the bourgeois headquarters” and I “deputy commander-in-chief”. Many strange things happened in those days. For instance, people were told that they should be content with poverty and backwardness and that it was better to be poor under socialism and communism than to be rich under capitalism. That was the sort of rubbish peddled by the Gang of Four. There is no such thing as socialism and communism with poverty. The ideal of Marxists is to realize communism. According to Marx, communist society is a society in which the principle of from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs is applied. What is the principle of to each according to his needs? How can we apply this principle without highly developed productive forces and vast material wealth? According to Marxism, communist society is a society in which there is overwhelming material abundance. Socialism is the first stage of communism; it means expanding the productive forces, and it represents a long historical period. Only if we constantly expand the productive forces can we finally achieve communism. The Gang of Four’s absurd theory of socialism and communism led only to poverty and stagnation.

In the first couple of years after we had smashed the Gang of Four not all the “Left” mistakes that had been made were corrected. The years 1977 and 1978 were a period of hesitation in China. It was not until December 1978, when the Eleventh Central Committee convened its Third Plenary Session, that we began to make a serious analysis of our experience in the 30 years since the founding of new China. On the basis of that analysis we formulated a series of new policies, notably the policy of reform and the policy of opening up both internationally and domestically. We set forth a new basic line, which was to shift the focus of our work to economic development, clearing away all obstacles and devoting all our energies to the drive for socialist modernization. To achieve modernization and to implement the reform and the open policy we need political stability and unity at home and a peaceful international environment. With this in mind, we have established a foreign policy which in essence comes down to opposing hegemonism and preserving world peace.

In the last eight years our work has been successful, and the overall situation is good. That doesn’t mean we haven’t met with any obstacles. It’s not so easy to rectify the “Left” thinking that has prevailed for several decades. “Left” thinking is our chief target because people have become used to it. There are not many in China who oppose reform. But in formulating and implementing specific policies, some people unintentionally reveal a yearning for the past. That’s because old habits of thinking tend to reassert themselves. At the same time we have also encountered interference from the Right. Certain individuals, pretending to support the reform and the open policy, call for wholesale Westernization of China in an attempt to lead the country towards capitalism. These people don’t really support our policies; they are only trying vainly to change the nature of our society. If China were totally Westernized and went capitalist, it would be absolutely impossible for us to modernize. The problem we have to solve is how to enable our one billion people to cast off poverty and become prosperous. If we adopted the capitalist system in China, probably a small number of people would be enriched, while the overwhelming majority would remain in a permanent state of poverty. If that happened, there would be a revolution in China. China’s modernization can be achieved only through socialism, not capitalism. There have been people who have tried to introduce capitalism into China, and they have always failed.

Generally speaking, we have changed the image of China, although in our efforts to build socialism we have made mistakes. There has been interference both from the Right and from the “Left”, the “Left” interference being the more dangerous. That’s because people have become accustomed to “Left” thinking, and it’s not easy to change their ideology. As for some of our young people, they should be on guard against Right thinking, especially because they are not clear about what capitalism is and what socialism is. So we have to educate them about these things.

In our efforts to modernize, to introduce reform and to open to the outside world, we may encounter dangers and difficulties. And we may make fresh mistakes, because China is such a big country and what we are doing is something that has never been done here before. Since China has its own characteristics, we can only run our affairs in accordance with the specific conditions in China. Of course, we can learn from the experience of others, but we must never copy everything. Since reform is a brand-new undertaking, mistakes are inevitable. We must not be afraid of making mistakes, and temporary setbacks must not make us abandon the reform and just mark time. We have to be daring, or we shall never be able to modernize. But we also have to be cautious about introducing particular reforms and review our experience regularly. Minor errors are inevitable, but we should try to avoid major ones.”

(Excerpt from a talk with Alfonso Guerra, Deputy General Secretary of the Spanish Workers’ Socialist Party and Vice-Premier of Spain.)

Source: https://dengxiaopingworks.wordpress.com/2013/03/18/we-shall-draw-on-historical-experience-and-guard-against-wrong-tendencies/

 

A really good resource for learning about Deng Xiaoping

Anyone who’s interested in learning more about Deng Xiaoping’s ideas should check out this website: https://dengxiaopingworks.wordpress.com/

It has a lot of the speeches and writings of Deng Xiaoping, including some of his early writings dating back to the early days of the Chinese Civil War. I encourage anyone to check it out, it’s a really good source of information both to Marxists and non-Marxists.

 

-Andross

“China belongs to the Third World”- Deng Xiaoping

The writings of Deng Xiaoping are interesting because he’s one of the few ‘revisionists’ who has writings online and available for people to read and examine. Most socialists would see him as someone who took China further down the road of social-imperialism, even so his writings should be examined to find out why and how he did it. He was an important part of China, he always gave praise back to Chairman Mao.

This selection is from a speech delivered to the U.N, the speech in it’s entirety can be found here: https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/deng-xiaoping/1974/04/10.htm

We hope you enjoy.

-Andross


 

Innumerable facts show that all views that overestimate the strength of the two hegemonic powers and underestimate the strength of the people are groundless. It is not the one or two superpowers that are really powerful; the really powerful are the Third World and the people of all countries uniting together and daring to fight and daring to win. Since numerous Third World countries and people were able to achieve political independence through protracted struggle, certainly they will also be able, on this basis, to bring about through sustained struggle a thorough change in the international economic relations which are based on inequality, control and exploitation and thus create essential conditions for the independent development of their national economy by strengthening their unity and allying themselves with other countries subjected to superpower bullying as well as with the people of the whole world, including the people of the United States and the Soviet Union.

Mr. President,

The essence of the problems of raw materials and development is the struggle of the developing countries to defend their state sovereignty, develop their national economy and combat imperialist, and particularly superpower, plunder and control. This is a very important aspect of the current struggle of the Third World countries and people against colonialism, imperialism and hegemonism.

As we all know, in the last few centuries colonialism and imperialism unscrupulously enslaved and plundered the people of Asia, Africa and Latin America. Exploiting the cheap labor power of the local people and their rich natural resources and imposing a lopsided and single-product economy, they extorted superprofits by grabbing low-priced farm and mineral products, dumping their industrial goods, strangling national industries and carrying on an exchange of unequal values. The richness of the developed countries and the poverty of the developing countries are the result of the colonialist and imperialist policy of plunder.

In many Asian, African and Latin American countries that have won political independence, the economic lifelines are still controlled by colonialism and imperialism in varying degrees, and the old economic structure has not changed fundamentally. The imperialists, and particularly the superpowers, have adopted neo-colonialist methods to continue and intensify their exploitation and plunder of the developing countries. They export capital to the developing countries and build there a “state within a state” by means of such international monopoly organizations as “trans-national corporations” to carry out economic plunder and political interference. Taking advantage of their monopoly position in international markets, they reap fabulous profits by raising the export prices of their own products and forcing down those of raw materials from the developing countries. Moreover, with the deepening of the political and economic crises of capitalism and the sharpening of their mutual competition, they are further intensifying their plunder of the developing countries by shifting the economic and monetary crises on to the latter.

It must be pointed out that the superpower which styles itself a socialist country is by no means less proficient at neo-colonialist economic plunder. Under the name of so-called “economic co-operation” and “international division of labor,” it uses high-handed measures to extort superprofits in its “family.” In profiting at others’ expense, it has gone to lengths rarely seen even in the case of other imperialist countries. The “joint enterprises” it runs in some countries under the signboard of “aid” and “support” are in essence copies of “trans- national corporations.” Its usual practice is to tag a high price on out-moded equipment and sub-standard weapons and exchange them for strategic raw materials and farm produce of the developing countries. Selling arms and ammunition in a big way, it has become an international merchant of death. It often takes advantage of others’ difficulties to press for the repayment of debts. In the recent Middle East war, it bought Arab oil at a low price with the large amount of foreign exchange it had earned by peddling munitions, and then sold it at a high price, making staggering profits in the twinkling of an eye. Moreover, it preaches the theory of “limited sovereignty,” alleges that the resources of developing countries are international property, and even asserts that “the sovereignty over the natural resources is depending to a great extent upon the capability of utilizing these resources by the industry of the developing countries.” These are out-and-out imperialist fallacies. They are even more undisguised than the so-called “inter-dependence” advertised by the other superpower, which actually means retaining the exploitative relationship. A socialist country that is true to its name ought to follow the principle of internationalism, sincerely render support and assistance to oppressed countries and nations and help them develop their national economy. But this superpower is doing exactly the opposite. This is additional proof that it is socialism in words and imperialism in deeds.

Plunder and exploitation by colonialism, imperialism, and particularly by the superpowers, are making the poor countries poorer and the rich countries richer, further widening the gap between the two. Imperialism is the greatest obstacle to the liberation of the developing countries and to their progress. It is entirely right and proper for the developing countries to terminate imperialist economic monopoly and plunder, sweep away these obstacles and take all necessary measures to protect their economic resources and other rights and interests.

The doings of imperialism, and particularly the superpowers, can in no way check the triumphant advance of the developing countries along the road of economic liberation. In the recent Middle East war, the Arab countries, united as one, used oil as a weapon with which they dealt a telling blow at Zionism and its supporters. They did well, and rightly too. This was a pioneering action taken by developing countries in their struggle against imperialism. It greatly heightened the fighting spirit of the people of the Third World and deflated the arrogance of imperialism. It broke through the international economic monopoly long maintained by imperialism and fully demonstrated the might of a united struggle waged by developing countries. If imperialist monopolies can gang up to manipulate the markets at will, to the great detriment of the vital interests of the developing countries, why can’t developing countries unite to break imperialist monopoly and defend their own economic rights and interests? The oil battle has broadened people’s vision. What was done in the oil battle should and can be done in the case of other raw materials.

It must be pointed out further that the significance of the developing countries’ struggle to defend their natural resources is by no means confined to the economic field. In order to carry out arms expansion and war preparations and to contend for world hegemony, the superpowers are bound to plunder rapaciously the resources of the Third World. Control and protection of their own resources by the developing countries are essential, not only for the consolidation of their political independence and the development of their national economy, but also for combating superpower arms expansion and war preparations and stopping the superpowers from launching wars of aggression.

Mr. President,

We maintain that the safeguarding of political independence is the first prerequisite for a Third World country to develop its economy. In achieving political independence, the people of a country have only taken the first step, and they must proceed to consolidate this independence, for there still exist remnant forces of colonialism at home and there is still the danger of subversion and aggression by imperialism and hegemonism. The consolidation of political independence is necessarily a process of repeated struggles. In the final analysis, political independence and economic independence are inseparable. Without political independence, it is impossible to achieve economic independence; without economic independence, a country’s independence is incomplete and insecure.

The developing countries have great potentials for developing their economy independently. As long as a country makes unremitting efforts in the light of its own specific features and conditions and advances along the road of independence and self-reliance, it is fully possible for it to attain gradually a high level of development never reached by previous generations in the modernization of its industry and agriculture. The ideas of pessimism and helplessness spread by imperialism in connection with the question of the development of developing countries are all unfounded and are being disseminated with ulterior motives.

By self-reliance we mean that a country should mainly rely on the strength and wisdom of its own people, control its own economic lifelines, make full use of its own resources, strive hard to increase food production and develop its national economy step by step and in a planned way. The policy of independence and self-reliance in no way means that it should be divorced from the actual conditions of a country; instead, it requires that distinction must be made between different circumstances, and that each country should work out its own way of practicing self-reliance in the light of its specific conditions. At the present stage, a developing country that wants to develop its national economy must first of all keep its natural resources in its own hands and gradually shake off the control of foreign capital. In many developing countries, the production of raw materials accounts for a considerable proportion of the national economy. If they can take in their own hands the production, use, sale, storage and transport of raw materials and sell them at reasonable prices on the basis of equitable trade relations in exchange for a greater amount of goods needed for the growth of their industrial and agricultural production, they will then be able to resolve step by step the difficulties they are facing and pave the way for an early emergence from poverty and backwardness.

Self-reliance in no way means “self-seclusion” and rejection of foreign aid. We have always considered it beneficial and necessary for the development of the national economy that countries should carry on economic and technical exchanges on the basis of respect for state sovereignty, equality and mutual benefit, and the exchange of needed goods to make up for each other’s deficiencies.

Here we wish to emphasize the special importance of economic co-operation among the developing countries. The Third World countries shared a common lot in the past and now face the common tasks of opposing colonialism, neo-colonialism and great-power hegemonism, developing the national economy and building their respective countries. We have every reason to unite more closely, and no reason to become estranged from one another. The imperialists, and particularly the superpowers, are taking advantage of temporary differences among us developing countries to sow dissension and disrupt unity so as to continue their manipulation, control and plunder. We must maintain full vigilance. Differences among us developing countries can very well be resolved, and should be resolved, through consultations among the parties concerned. We are glad that, on the question of oil, the developing countries concerned are making active efforts and seeking appropriate ways to find a reasonable solution. We, the developing countries, should not only support one another politically but also help each other economically. Our co-operation is a co-operation based on true equality and has broad prospects.

Mr. President,

The Third World countries strongly demand that the present extremely unequal international economic relations be changed, and they have made many rational proposals of reform. The Chinese Government and people warmly endorse and firmly support all just propositions made by Third World countries.

We hold that in both political and economic relations, countries should base themselves on the Five Principles of mutual respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, mutual non-aggression, non-interference in each other’s internal affairs, equality and mutual benefit, and peaceful coexistence. We are opposed to the establishment of hegemony and spheres of influence by any country in any part of the world in violation of these principles.

We hold that the affairs of each country should be managed by its own people. The people of the developing countries have the right to choose and decide on their own social and economic systems. We support the permanent sovereignty of the developing countries over their own natural resources as well as their exercise of it. We support the actions of the developing countries to bring all foreign capital, and particularly “trans-national corporations,” under their control and management, up to and including nationalization. We support the position of the developing countries for the development of their national economy through “individual and collective self-reliance.”

We hold that all countries, big or small, rich or poor, should be equal, and that international economic affairs should be jointly managed by all the countries of the world instead of being monopolized by the one or two superpowers. We support the full right of the developing countries, which comprise the great majority of the world’s population, to take part in all decision-making on international trade, monetary, shipping and other matters.

We hold that international trade should be based on the principles of equality, mutual benefit and the exchange of needed goods. We support the urgent demand of the developing countries to improve trade terms for their raw materials, primary products and semi-manufactured and manufactured goods, to expand their market and to fix equitable and favourable prices. We support the developing countries in establishing various organizations of raw material exporting countries for a united struggle against colonialism, imperialism and hegemonism.

We hold that economic aid to the developing countries must strictly respect the sovereignty of the recipient countries and must not be accompanied by any political or military conditions and the extortion of any special privileges or excessive profits. Loans to the developing countries should be interest-free or low-interest and allow for delayed repayment of capital and interest, or even reduction and cancellation of debts in case of necessity. We are opposed to the exploitation of developing countries by usury or blackmail in the name of aid.

We hold that technology transferred to the developing countries must be practical, efficient, economical and convenient for use. The experts and other personnel dispatched to the recipient countries have the obligation to pass on conscientiously technical know-how to the people there and to respect the laws and national customs of the countries concerned. They must not make special demands or ask for special amenities, let alone engage in illegal activities.

Mr. President,

China is a socialist country, and a developing country as well. China belongs to the Third World. Consistently following Chairman Mao’s teachings, the Chinese Government and people firmly support all oppressed peoples and oppressed nations in their struggle to win or defend national independence, develop the national economy and oppose colonialism, imperialism and hegemonism. This is our bounden internationalist duty. China is not a superpower, nor will she ever seek to be one. What is a superpower? A superpower is an imperialist country which everywhere subjects other countries to its aggression, interference, control, subversion or plunder and strives for world hegemony. If capitalism is restored in a big socialist country, it will inevitably become a superpower. The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, which has been carried out in China in recent years, and the campaign of criticizing Lin Piao and Confucius now under way throughout China, are both aimed at preventing capitalist restoration and ensuring that socialist China will never change her colour and will always stand by the oppressed peoples and oppressed nations. If one day China should change her colour and turn into a superpower, if she too should play the tyrant in the world, and everywhere subject others to her bullying, aggression and exploitation, the people of the world should identify her as social-imperialism, expose it, oppose it and work together with the Chinese people to overthrow it.

Mr. President,

History develops in struggle, and the world advances amidst turbulence. The imperialists, and the superpowers in particular, are beset with troubles and are on the decline. Countries want independence, nations want liberation and the people want revolution — this is the irresistible trend of history. We are convinced that, so long as the Third World countries and people strengthen their unity, ally themselves with all forces that can be allied with and persist in a protracted struggle, they are sure to win continuous new victories.

Gottfried Feder talked about “interest slavery” and the value of money before Zeitgeist and documentaries like it

“So what is understood by ‘interest slavery’? By  interest slavery is to be understood the interest-bound debt of the state and people to the superanational financial powers. Here therefore it is a matter of a new form of slavery, of the slavery to the rule of finance. This slavery is more frightful and cruel than any form of rule ever was under the rule of absolute princes, because it is exercised in an impersonal way, without an human feeling, obsessed only with an insatiable instinct to expand and enlarge, with a greed for power without comparision.

The customary expression for the existence of this rule is: ‘money moves the world’. But here money is only used as a symbol of mastery for financial power. Money itself, the metal and paper currencies, are in themselves naturally neither good nor bad, and exercise no sort of rule. Money as a currency is indispensable for the exchange of goods and services. That is why all attempts to deal with the rule of the financial powers from the side of money alone are from the start erroneous and doomed to ineffectiveness, because in this rule we are not indeed dealing with a question of the narrow monetary system but with questions of power.”- Gottfried Feder (The German State on a National and Socialist Foundation)

“National Socialism stands unconditionally on the standpoint of the law insofar as everyone should be equal before the law.”- Gottfried Feder

What is Fascism? The word Fascism gets thrown around quite a bit in our modern political landscape, it’s a word that is feared but isn’t really understood in its context. The definition of Fascism has become viewed through a right-wing lense, it’s something that has become a word to use towards people who have rightest views, yet most ‘Fascists’ of the old days didn’t consider themselves fully on the right.

Gottfried Feder was one of the main economic theorists of the National Socialist state, he was the main economic influencer of Adolf Hitler and of many early policies that the National Socialists put forward in their campaigns. His main contribution was the idea that financial capital and industrial capital were two different things in social life, and that usury was inherently bad for the people. There is a movie called Zeitgeist which has introduced a lot of people to the problems of usury, Gottfried Feder pointed it out before the alternative media of today.

Everyone should check out his book called Manifesto for the Abolition of Interest Slavery, it’s a long and fairly intricate read but it’ll really broaden your horizons when it comes to economic thought, especially if you’re on the left side of things, I’m sure that Marx-Lenin-Stalin had the same ideas about financial capital/usury, but I’ve never seen anything really mentioned in their writings.

This reprint comes from his book The German State on a National and Socialist Foundationwe hope you enjoy.

-Andross


The National Political Foundations

No state without power and, without authority, no government. Nothing is more self-evident, and more immediately obvious to common sense. One must attribute it to the entire neglect of our public thought if, among us in the government circles, one still believes today that one is able to rule at all with a total lack of military and political power.

     Power without an instrument of power is unthinkable; political power and military means of power condition each other mutually just as intimately as economy and morality may not be separated. In order to regain lost power there is only the sole means of creating a military instrument of power.

     How frightfully our poor fatherland has been punished because it has abjured the idea of power and given itself to the pacifistic fanfare we experience now daily and hourly. “To prevent a worse situation” we have ourselves surrendered and destroyed our weapons, “to prevent a worse situation” we have signed the Versailles dictate, “to prevent a worse situation” the Berlin government has said yes and amen to everything that was demanded of us, “to prevent a worse situation” we have allowed every malice, every humiliation, every exploitation to be enacted against us. With this shameless catchword of cowardice and abjectness the German people have been led into ever deeper misery. We fulfilled what was demanded of us, and a minister who wished to be German, Dr. Rathenau, dared to declare publicly: There is no absolute inability to fulfill, it is only a matter of how deep a people may be allowed to fall into distress!! This means in other words- although the words of Rathenau are already clear enough: the German nation is completely defenseless, it is politically completely powerless, intellectually it has been almost stultified, it can just continue to work. It has allowed itself to be burdened with such a gigantic burden of guilt that the members of the Chosen People can, on these reparations, forever lead a glamorous work-free life in all the countries of the world at the cost of German work. But now there exists the danger that even the enormous workforce of the Germans may break under the fantastic burden. Therefore the Germans must be kept alive constantly through stimulants and precisely in this way be maintained at the limit of thier physical performance capacity that they may work summoning all strength always in the deceptive hope that they might one day free themselves from their burdens. “It is only a matter of how deep a people may be allowed to fall into distress!” This was the political sentiment of the Minister Rathenau so celebrated by all republicans.

     If we recalled this paradigm of modern German statecraft it was only to confirm this so frightful example lying so close to us of a defenseless and weapon-less nation having to simply put up with everything, even every derision. Against this is valid for us the belief in an externally powerful state which alone can guarantee peace and freedom. We dispense with historical reasons, this is not the task of a manifesto but a matter for the historian.

     The counterpart of the idea of externally directed power politics is the internally directed rigid constitutional state. We came rather close to this ideal condition in the Bismarckian power state but in the fields that concerned the financial system and the unlimited recognition of private property and the demands that were derived therefrom our legal ideas stood fully under the capitalistic idea.

     It requires no special emphasis that in terms of internal politics National Socialism stands unconditionally on the standpoint of the law insofar as everybody should be equal before the law and there should be no differences in social orders. But an essential transformation must be realized with respect to the basic idea of the law which signifies to the German an inner need, a voluntary subordination to the higher interests of the whole, whereas the prescriptions of the law valid among us today appear simply as a commandment of power and indeed as commandments of a power that does not stand in the service of the whole but, precisely in relation to the questions of property, has placed the protection of property before the protection of the person. The question of the new ordering of the public law will have to be discussed further in greater detail in another section.

     Now we turn briefly to the questions of the external state form. A final decision on this question is in no way urgent. It can in general be solved only after a quite basic purging of our internal political conditions. The only possible way to this internal political purging seems to us to be exclusively through a dictatorship which with total determination cuts off and burns the sources of decomposition and disease in our national body.

     The demands that we place on such a leader are extraordinarily high; a passionate love for his people, an unbending will, a virtual somnambulisitic certainty in all his decisions must distinguish him. That his intellectual capacities must rise above the average is self-evident, but knowledge and capacities in the different fields are not the decisive factor. Knowledge and learning can be realized by others- How many men there are of high knowledge, great clarity of thought, of great intuition, the finest artistic talent- but if the last thing is lacking in them, the passionate will, the unswerving impulse, based on the deepest moral seriousness, then they will never stride forward at the head of nations, as trailblazers and leaders to new heights. we think of religious geniuses like Christ and Luther, Savonarola and Mohammed, statesmen like Bismarck and Cromwell, generals like Friedrich the Great and Yorck, etc. The dictator must be completely free of all unnecessary restrictions and hesitations, for him there cannot be any inevitabilities, for it must be he who makes history and he seizes with a daring determined hand when his his hour strikes, he embodies the longing of the nation, and therefore he never errs and is borne by the fanatic love of those to whom his deed brings liberation.

     He must be able to hate, so strongly and ruthlessly as he loves his people and his sacred task. In relation to his assistant and colleagues he stands as the first among free and equal people. 

     This old German idea forms the foundation of this iron connection between the leader and his friends for the sake of the cause.

     He is the leader because he has proved himself, and so long as he proves himself.

     Every power seems as it were redoubled by his presence, he draws forth every latent energy, Showing to each his own peculiar talent, yet leaving all to be what nature made them, and watching only that they be naught else, in the right place and time (Schiller, Wallenstein) 

    He is strict and hard with regard to himself, he orients himself according to his own laws. He has time for and listens to everybody, but he is quite able to differentiate between the important and the unimportant. For the accomplishment of his goal he may not be afraid of blood and war, he may not rest and relax until his goal is reached, then he secures his creation further as far as this is humanly possible, but he can himself withdraw, as the dictator Sulla did, and thereby secures his work in a twofold manner in that he operates from a distance but still does not force everything through his strong personality to be measured by extraordinary standards; on the other hand, a freer and more independent following will be able to develop if the Titan does not constantly determine the political daily life but remains the leader in the spiritual sense. Such a brilliance of action and will distinguish the dictator who will again lead Germany to a height. If then the way out of the mire is found through the accomplishment of an extraordinary leader, the internal and external preconditions for an independent national life will have been regained, then the nation may once again decide regarding the external form of the state.

     Our view of the future state form will be essentially influenced by the manner in which certain forms of the public life, especially the suffrage and popular representation deriving therefrom, will be constituted. We could certainly think of the possibility of a healthy republican state form, rather as in ancient Rome. Indeed, almost all historical memories in Germany point to the monarchical state form. Now, with the monarchical state form is in no way inseparably bound the dynastic idea. On the contrary, it seems that only too often dynastic interests have developed greatly to the harm of nations. Another factor admonishes us to extreme caution in the question of a possible reintroduction of the monarchic state form- the consequence of heritabilitity among dynasties. In the painful history of the German people one may find repeatedly that the third generation after a significant ruler has squandered the heritage of its forefathers, damaged the honour and worthiness of the nation, lost the position of power of the empire, and destroyed the peace and welfare of the citizens. What the German imagines when he speaks of the advantages of the monarchy especially under a hereditary ruling house is always the thought of those to whom history has given the epithet “the Great”. We think thereby of Charles the Great, Otto the Great, Frederick the Great, and the few who are ranked on a par with these real rules; but just a fleeting memory of the gallery of incapacity, indolence, selfishness, prodigality, fantasy, distance from the people, and other dangerous characteristics that are bound with the names of Louis the Pious, Otto the 3rd, Wenceslaus, Charles VI, Friedrich Wilhelm III, Wilhelm II suffices to recognize clearly that the dynastic state form in no way includes a guarantee of the welfare of the nation.

     That which expresses the inclination of the German to monarchy is the need of the German for a leader, and the readiness to subordinate himself to a leader. Precisely this last characteristic is perhaps an especially typical characteristic of the German, we know only too well this trait of the German character in its good and bad aspects. The loyalty unto death allowed him fight for and win the most powerful victories, it allowed him to follow even foreign flags; but it includes also very much lack of independence among the weaker types to the point of worthlessness and slavishness, love of things foreign and lack of judgement.

     The question regarding the succession is therefore, in Germany itself, not hard to solve. The much harder question lies in the problem of the leader.

     The selection of the leader has up to now been more ore less always left to pure chance. The princely marital bed is indeed in no way a guarantee of the intellectual capacity and of the necessary character traits that are by all means to be demanded of a monarch. And if we remember the modern German economy, where mere membership in the party decides on the qualification for the highest official posts, we must give this question special attention.

     The difficulty lies, in any case, in the safeguarding of the moral and character qualities of the one in whose hands the destiny of the people should be laid. While however a dictator takes the leadership upon himself from himself, as the bearer of the national longing, a future leader must emerge actually from the conscious will of the nation as the best and most suited. Thereby it may remain completely open whether the highest worth should be united in one person or whether the state leadership should be constituted of two or more. In any case, one thing stands firm for us, that the one entrusted with the leadership of the highest state affairs, whether it be crowned heads or a consular duumor triumvirate, the highest responsibility will, in the best possible case, be anchored in the constitution. Highest responsibility will therefore be the most essential national political foundation that will distinguish the National Socialist state from the previous forms of rule.

     A special aspect of the national political foundations of the National Socialist state is the demand for a nationalist state in which the members of foreign countries and races are excluded from the leadership of the state affairs as well as from the assumption of public offices.

     The great lesson of the whole of German history can be summarized in the fact that Germany was always poor, weak and miserable when its rulers pursued foreign interests and when the narrow small concerns of the individual provinces and cities were placed above the common affairs of the Reich; and likewise was Germany always strong and powerful when it was united and its rulers thought and felt in a German way and the provinces and cities felt as members of the great common fatherland. Closing of the nation externally with all freedom and diversity internally. This is the correct idea of a German state. The Bismarck Reich already came very close to this ideal of the idea of the German state, only that our racial brothers in German Austria still remained outside of the Reich.

     The unification of all German tribes in a closed national state is therefore our most distinguished national political goal. Internal politically the federative and federal character of the larger provinces as it was produced historically is to be maintained or rebuilt. The national political base lines in this respect are the following: All functions of the Reich in which it is a question of the power political position of the German Reich with regard to foreign countries are matters of the Reich. These are the Foreign Office,  embassies and consulates, the passport system, the control of foreign trade, the customs system, and, above all, the army and navy. Internal politically, on the other hand, the idea of the most far-reaching independence of the individual provinces or federal states is to be fostered. Financial independence is the precondition for the independent existence of the nation, so the tax legislation will have to be delegated mainly to the provinces.

     The legislation for the civil-, trade-, and the penal law will be regulated by the law of the Reich, but subordinated in practice to the provincial justice and police authorities.

     In a similar way the transport institutions will certainly be regulated according to the directives of the law of the Reich but they will nevertheless remain, in their finances and administratively and operationally, under the provincial sovereignty.

     That the freedom of religion should remain fully upheld by the constitution requires no special mention; on the other hand, religions whose writings are not written fully in the German language and accessible to everybody and whose content contain doctrines dangerous to the state will not enjoy this protection.

     The constitutional form of the basic socialist character of the Reich is stressed especially in the field of labour law as well as in the fields of illness-, accident-, old age- and disability insurance and will be better implemented than happens today.