Wednesday, October 30, 2019

Is Climate Indoctrination Coming to NJ Government Schools?


I have long observed that Environmentalist ideology has been snuck into our schools. Now the wife of Democratic New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy wants to make it official: She proposes to mandate a course on climate change in NJ’s grade schools. Does anyone actually believe that an administration that belongs to a party that has embedded climate catastrophism into its national political platform will formulate an objective course on the subject of climate? Just isolating climate change as an independent course is bias. Anyway, here are some excerpts from Everyone’s talking about climate change. Now, New Jersey’s first lady wants that conversation to happen in every class, too by Devna Bose. You decide: 

As young people around the world are taking to the streets to show their concern about climate change, New Jersey’s first lady wants them to engage on the issue in school, too.

Tammy Murphy, the wife of N.J. Gov. Phil Murphy, is pushing for climate change to be written into the state’s official academic standards, which outline what students should learn in each grade. Murphy, who is a longtime environmental advocate, said in an interview she was inspired by seeing students’ reaction to the activism spurred by 16-year-old climate activist Greta Thunberg.

“I think students are yearning for this,” Murphy said. “The level of enthusiasm these kids have — they’re super excited about what they’re doing and learning. We are educating the future generation of leaders.”

Environmental justice advocate and former Newark school board member Kim Gaddy said she hoped Murphy would tap the expertise of locals in designing climate change curriculum.

“It’s a great first step in trying to engage and inform students,” Gaddy said. “Climate change is the next crisis that, unfortunately, our youth is going to be faced with.”

Yes, that Greta Thunberg, the ranting 16-year old sociopath who demands that the world’s governments put aside all other concerns, including freedom and prosperity, to “do something” about climate change. Yes, those demonstrators, the climate strike children who are taking to the streets rather than stay in school to demand an end to all reliable affordable energy, if not capitalism itself, to save the climate from human progress.

If the climate change curriculum starts with the premise that human-caused climate change is a crisis that requires the subordination of every other human concern to the goal of avoiding a planetary catastrophe, then the debate is over. It is the end of objectivity. It is the explicit expulsion from the schools of education, in favor of Soviet-style indoctrination.

I posted these comments, slightly edited for clarity: 

“Climate change” is obviously about political indoctrination, not education. Proof of political motives? Gaddy’s use of catchphrases like “climate change crisis” and “environmental justice”. The exalting of Greta Thunberg and her biased “climate strike” ilk as inspiration. Murphy as “a longtime environmental advocate,” which means anti-fossil fuels, anti-nuclear, nature over human well being.

“Climate crisis” is a political tactic for a totalitarian socialist agenda, as activists repeatedly tell us. Thunberg’s emotional authoritarian rant against freedom and progress is the new face of the anti-capitalist, energy starvation, statist Environmentalist movement that demonizes any dissenter as a “climate denier.” 

In a real classroom, a subject is the means to an end, which is to give kids the mental tools of objective evaluation so they can assess the facts and draw conclusions based on proper hierarchy and context. It’s about proper thinking methods. Education is about teaching kids how to think, not telling them what to think. 

In the current environment, climate change is the last subject that should be “taught” in schools. Its politicization has foreclosed almost any possibility of intelligent discussion on the subject. Murphy wants kids to “make well-reasoned arguments based on the evidence.” Then she admits that her “vision” “aligns with her husband’s clean energy push”; i.e. his political agenda. Whose “evidence” will the kids be given? Will Murphy’s scheme give “deniers” the prominent place in the classroom curriculum that the children deserve to consider? Government schools are by their nature political institutions. A climate change curricula would only double down on politicization. 

Climate change, objectively framed, is an important subject—too important to be “written into the state’s official academic standards” for young children. Climate change is a subject for adults with ample life experience, including experience observing the political process. It’s not for children. Thunberg climate hysteria has no place in the k-12 classroom. That would be educational malpractice. Teach kids how to think. Later, as adults, they’ll be equipped to do their own research and make their own conclusions about climate.

Kim Gaddy is half right. “Our youth” will have a “next crisis” to deal with. But it won’t be climate change. If Gaddy and her Thunberg fanatics get their way, the crisis our “future generation of leaders” will have to deal with will be a return to the days when humans had to face the ever-present climate dangers without a modern, advanced, progressive energy-driven free industrial economy. 

Related Reading:












Related Listening:

What climate protesters really want | Don Watkins and Steffen Henne

Sunday, October 27, 2019

QUORA: ‘Is fascism a capitalist ideology?‘



No. Fascism and capitalism are ideological antipodes. Here are some excerpts from THE DOCTRINE OF FASCISM by Benito Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile, published in 1932:  

REJECTION OF INDIVIDUALISM AND THE IMPORTANCE OF THE STATE

Fascism is therefore opposed to all individualistic abstractions based on eighteenth century materialism [i.e., Enlightenment liberalism].

Anti-individualistic, the Fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with those of the State, which stands for the conscience and the universal, will of man as a historic entity [i.e., mysticism]. 

No individuals or groups (political parties, cultural associations, economic unions, social classes) outside the State (15). Fascism is therefore opposed to Socialism to which unity within the State (which amalgamates classes into a single economic and ethical reality) is unknown, and which sees in history nothing but the class struggle. Fascism is likewise opposed to trade unionism as a class weapon. But when brought within the orbit of the State, Fascism recognizes the real needs which gave rise to socialism and trade unionism, giving them due weight in the guild or corporative system in which divergent interests are coordinated and harmonized in the unity of the State (16).

8. Conception of a corporative state
(16) We are, in other words, a state which controls all forces acting in nature. We control political forces, we control moral forces, we control economic forces, therefore we are a full-blown Corporative state. We stand for a new principle in the world, we stand for sheer, categorical, definitive antithesis to the world of democracy, plutocracy, free-masonry, to the world which still abides by the fundamental principles laid down in 1789. (Speech before the new National Directory of the Party, April 7, 1926, in Discorsi del 1926, Milano, Alpes, 1927, p. 120)
The Ministry of Corporations is not a bureaucratic organ, nor does it wish to exercise the functions of syndical organizations which are necessarily independent, since they aim at organizing, selecting and improving the members of syndicates. The Ministry of Corporations is an institution in virtue of which, in the centre and outside, integral corporation becomes an accomplished fact, where balance is achieved between interests and forces of the economic world. Such a glance is only possible within the sphere of the state, because the state alone transcends the contrasting interests of groups and individuals, in view of co-coordinating them to achieve higher aims. The achievement of these aims is speeded up by the fact that all economic organizations, acknowledged, safeguarded and supported by the Corporative State, exist within the orbit of Fascism; in other terms they accept the conception of Fascism in theory and in practice. (speech at the opening of the Ministry of Corporations, July 31, 1926, in Di­scorsi del 1926, Milano, Alpes, 1927, p. 250). [All emphasis is added]

Fascism thus rejects the very essential values that form the core of capitalism, Enlightenment liberalism. Capitalism emerged out of the ideals of individualism, including individual rights, and the autonomy of each individual to use his own reason to govern his own life. Fascism rejects individualism. Capitalism holds that government is the individual’s agent whose powers are constitutionally limited to protecting his liberty rights, which protect intellectual, political, and economic freedom based on rights including speech, religion and conscience, assembly, property, and laissez-faire economics—the separation of economics and state, under which government polices the markets for force and fraud, but otherwise doesn’t interfere in voluntary market activity. Fascism subordinates all individuals to the state, which allows no individuals or groups to freely operate “outside the state,” which “controls all forces acting in nature [including] political forces, moral forces, [and] economic forces” by the state. 

In every fundamental respect, fascist and capitalist ideologies are antipodes. So why do some people so often equate the two?

For one thing, many people equate capitalism with capitalists. The existence of capitalists—business, corporations, etc.—is not definitive proof of a capitalist system. Private enterprise must also be free of government interference or “partnership” (cronyism) to qualify as capitalist. Capitalists narrowly defined as a business corporation can exist under certain forms of statism. Capitalism in the broader ideological (or philosophical) sense cannot. 

More fundamentally, unlike fascism’s ideological cousin, communism, fascism “allows” a veneer of private ownership. But it is not genuine private ownership. A system by which ownership of enterprise is nominally private but over which total control is exercised through the state is in no essential respect private ownership. Genuine private ownership of business or property such as is sanctioned under capitalism implies not just a name on a document but the owner’s right of voluntary acquisition, control, use, disposal, and management. Clearly, fascism features control, use, disposal, and management only through or by permission of the state, allowing private individual action “only in so far as his interests coincide with those of the State.” Marxists seize on this superficial equivocation to link capitalism with fascism. And they have been quite successful at this ruse. This helps communism set itself apart from its chief socialist rival, fascism. 

But in fact, communism and fascism are ideological cousins. Fascism is guild socialism expanded to include all groups as identified by the state, all of which can operate only  “within the sphere of the state.” Fascism differs from communism only superficially. Essentially, there is no difference. Both are virulently anti-individualist. Both are collectivist, or group supremacist (Fascism actually derives from fascio, which literally means “group”). Both are mystical, believing in the collective as a kind of deity separate from and supreme over the individual, for whom the state carries out what it says is the deity’s will. They merely define the deity differently—to the communist, it’s the “proletariat”, for the Italian fascist, the” universal”, for the German national socialist (NAZI), the race. For any kind of socialism, a deified collective is fundamental. Both fascism and communism are uncompromisingly totalitarian statist. Both are variants of socialism; communist socialism is internationally oriented, fascist socialism is nationalist. The fascist is merely more “practical”, seeking to tailor its socialism in a way that makes it more palatable to specific national and cultural realities. For example, to avoid total economic collapse, the fascist preserves some semblance of private initiative. Fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer--that is, nominal private ownership of business but controlled by the government. A fascist, to put it simply, is essentially a pragmatic communist, packaging its socialism to fit a Western culture that reveres private property rights and private enterprise. 

Communism and fascism are akin to rival underworld crime families fighting a turf war. Just as crime families are united in their antipathy to the rule of law, fascism and communism are united in their hatred of capitalism. The only opposite to both fascism and communism, and all variants thereof, is the system whose government recognizes and protects individual rights equally and at all times. That system is capitalism. So, “Is fascism a capitalist ideology?” Capitalism derives from Enlightenment liberal ideology. Fascism explicitly rejects Enlightenment values—derided by Mussolini and Gentile as “all individualistic abstractions based on eighteenth century materialism.” So the answer is obviously no, Fascism is not a capitalist ideology.

For a more thorough understanding, I recommend reading THE DOCTRINE OF FASCISM in its entirety, including all footnotes. As to capitalism as a system of political/economic social organization, I recommend Andrew Bernstein, The Capitalist Manifesto: The Historic, Economic, and Philosophic Case for Laissez Faire and Capitalism Unbound: The Incontestable Moral Case for Individual Rights. And The Declaration of Independence, the United States of America Founding document, which states in highly essentialized form, especially in the second paragraph, the basic Enlightenment principles that enable capitalism to emerge.
Related Reading:




Individualism vs. Collectivism: Our Future, Our Choice—Craig Biddle for The Objective Standard

Related Listening:


* [Quora is a social media website founded by two former Facebook employees. According to Wikipedia:

Quora is a question-and-answer website where questions are created, answered, edited and organized by its community of users. The company was founded in June 2009, and the website was made available to the public on June 21, 2010.[3]Quora aggregates questions and answers to topics. Users can collaborate by editing questions and suggesting edits to other users' answers.[4]

You can also reply to other users’ answers.]

Thursday, October 24, 2019

PennEast Turns to Eminent Domain, Violating Rights


The long-running battle over the PennEast corporation’s application to run a natural gas pipeline from the fracking fields of Pennsylvania into New Jersey, which I have strongly supported, last year reached a point that I cannot support. In an article updated January 2019, Landowners are holding up PennEast. Now the pipeline is fighting back, Michael Sol Warren of NJ Advance Media for NJ.com reported:

Carla Kelly-Mackey has been fighting to keep a pipeline off of her farm for years.

Now, the private company is looking to use eminent domain, a right usually reserved for the government, to get at the land.

I posted these comments:

I am a big supporter of energy production, including pipelines that deliver natural gas. Energy is vital to human life and flourishing. Energy is the industry that powers all other industry that keeps us alive and well. 

I am also a big supporter of freedom based on individual rights, including property rights. So I draw the line on my support for the PennEast pipeline at eminent domain. 

It is said that “Eminent domain is generally used by local, state and federal agencies to seize private land for projects that serve the public good.” But a public good justification is vague. Since every person is a part of the public, then any project that serves any member of the public can be deemed to be in “the public good.” Thus, you get bizarre distinctions like, if its for a road, we can seize your land. But a pipeline?—no way.

But roads are different than private nat-gas pipelines, you say? Why? Are users of roads “the public,” but users of natural gas are not? But the PennEast pipeline is used for private profit, you say? But so are the roads. Did you ever see all those trucks traveling the roads carrying merchandise intended for sale for profit? What about all those cars carrying people to work—people looking to profit from their labor? Why are their jobs more important than the jobs of people who would work on building and maintaining the pipeline? When the “public good” is the standard, it turns out that the “good” of some people takes precedence over the “good” of others.

Why? How is that just? Just because the good of some people is deemed good for “the public”?

Patricia Kornick, a spokeswoman for PennEast, observes that “organized and unaccountable opposition groups have their own political agenda.” True. Everyone has a political agenda, thanks to eminent domain. When “the public good” (or “public need”) is the standard, then the public good turns out to be defined by whoever gets the upper hand of government power on their side. 

Federal approval or not, there is no justification for anyone using the power of government to seize private property—not even by government officials; not even for a road. The “public good” or the “public need” is a terrible standard, precisely because there is no way to be fair about it. The proper standard is to protect private property rights. This means PennEast can only gain access to land by voluntary agreement of landowners, or not at all. What if owners refuse? Then find another route, make a better offer, etc. 

Most of the arguments used by opponents of the pipeline are hogwash, driven by Environmentalist dogma or “clean energy” agendas or bogus and irrelevant economic arguments. However, much as I want to see the pipeline built, I side with the property owners on this. This is another example of why eminent domain should be abolished in all of its manifestations. America is the land of unalienable individual rights. Eminent domain is un-American. Except, perhaps, for very narrow military purposes directly related to national security, the power of eminent domain should be abolished.

Related Reading:







Monday, October 21, 2019

Elizabeth Warren’s ‘Accountable Capitalism Act’ Reprises Benito Mussolini


The following excerpts are from a letter published in The New Jersey Star-Ledger on 8/5/19. Apparently inspired by Elizabeth Warren’s proposed "Accountable Capitalism Act," Gordon Sell wrote under the heading Time to reconstruct corporate America:

The “CBODOA” [corporate boards of directors of America] is making its members rich beyond their wildest dreams, while sacrificing America’s resources, innovation and future greatness on the pyre of shareholder equity.

We’ve been taught to think of these boards of directors as collections of wise business leaders who supposedly help corporations make prudent decisions. The reality is that it is a vast old boys’ network of golfing buddies who serve on each others boards, vote for exorbitant pay raises, give unqualified people powerful jobs and vote to sell out America’s corporate resources to the highest bidder, even if they are our international competitors.

The current corporate board-of-directors system is not working. It is time to rewrite corporate law to tear down the conflicts of interest, focus on core business rather than stock price and give managers, engineers, workers, communities and even customers a seat at the table.

Throughout history, whenever someone succeeds at producing wealth, greedy people want to take it and/or power-lusters want to control it. Sell is one of them. “Corporate resources” are not “America’s.” They belong to the corporation’s owners, the shareholders. “America’s . . . greatness” lies in the fact that private property rights are protected. So this letter totally contradicts fundamental Americanism, which lies in the protection of individual rights. Sell does, however, regurgitate an old ideology.

Warren’s "Accountable Capitalism Act" would require this:

American corporations with more than $1 billion in annual revenue must obtain a federal charter from a newly formed Office of United States Corporations at the Department of Commerce. The new federal charter obligates company directors to consider the interests of all corporate stakeholders – including employees, customers, shareholders, and the communities in which the company operates. This approach is derived from the thriving benefit corporation model that 33 states and the District of Columbia have adopted and that companies like Patagonia, Danone North America, and Kickstarter have embraced with strong results.

Note that the list of stakeholders is preceded by the word “including,” meaning “not limited to.” The list of stakeholders that would be granted the “right” to run business corporations that they neither financed not built would be limited only by the whims of government officials, including politicians and bureaucrats. Warren may have been inspired by Ralph Nader’s 1970s scheme  for federal chartering of large corporations. But it is really aligned with someone from the early 20th Century. Now read these excerpts from THE DOCTRINE OF FASCISM by Benito Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile, published in 1932.

REJECTION OF INDIVIDUALISM AND THE IMPORTANCE OF THE STATE

Fascism is therefore opposed to all individualistic abstractions based on eighteenth century materialism [i.e., Enlightenment liberalism].

Anti-individualistic, the Fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with those of the State, which stands for the conscience and the universal, will of man as a historic entity [i.e., mysticism]. 

No individuals or groups (political parties, cultural associations, economic unions, social classes) outside the State (15). Fascism is therefore opposed to Socialism to which unity within the State (which amalgamates classes into a single economic and ethical reality) is unknown, and which sees in history nothing but the class struggle. Fascism is likewise opposed to trade unionism as a class weapon. But when brought within the orbit of the State, Fascism recognizes the real needs which gave rise to socialism and trade unionism, giving them due weight in the guild or corporative system in which divergent interests are coordinated and harmonized in the unity of the State (16).

8. Conception of a corporative state
(16) We are, in other words, a state which controls all forces acting in nature. We control political forces, we control moral forces, we control economic forces, therefore we are a full-blown Corporative state. We stand for a new principle in the world, we stand for sheer, categorical, definitive antithesis to the world of democracy, plutocracy, free-masonry, to the world which still abides by the fundamental principles laid down in 1789. (Speech before the new National Directory of the Party, April 7, 1926, in Discorsi del 1926, Milano, Alpes, 1927, p. 120)
The Ministry of Corporations is not a bureaucratic organ, nor does it wish to exercise the functions of syndical organizations which are necessarily independent, since they aim at organizing, selecting and improving the members of syndicates. The Ministry of Corporations is an institution in virtue of which, in the centre and outside, integral corporation becomes an accomplished fact, where balance is achieved between interests and forces of the economic world. Such a glance is only possible within the sphere of the state, because the state alone transcends the contrasting interests of groups and individuals, in view of co-coordinating them to achieve higher aims. The achievement of these aims is speeded up by the fact that all economic organizations, acknowledged, safeguarded and supported by the Corporative State, exist within the orbit of Fascism; in other terms they accept the conception of Fascism in theory and in practice. (speech at the opening of the Ministry of Corporations, July 31, 1926, in Di­scorsi del 1926, Milano, Alpes, 1927, p. 250). 

All emphasis is mine.

Warren would require corporations to seat on their boards of directors members elected by a vote of its employees. Other stakeholders would be “represented” on corporate boards by government dictate. Don’t be fooled by the “democratic” ruse. When the government mandates, the government dictates the interests of these various groups. The individual members may gain a vote. But it is a useless vote, gained in exchange for sacrificing their right to think, determine, and act according to what they judge to be their own personal interests. The election is infected with the disease of all democracy, mob rule; that is, the interests of minority voters is subjugated to the will of the majority. They are forced to accept, by government decree, someone they may not know to represent interests that may not be their own. Private corporations are of course free to allow its employees to vote for corporate directors. But when the government forces it on corporations, it violates the rights of shareholders to govern their own corporations as they see fit.

Only a free market recognizes the rights of individuals to determine their own interests. In regard to business corporations, the individual judges based on voluntary choices--as a consumer, the choice whether to buy the product; as a worker, the choice whether to work for a company; as an investor, the choice whether to invest in the company; as a supplier, the choice of whether to contract with the buying company, and so on. 

All of that will be superseded by some new American incarnation of The Ministry of Corporations. Warren’s “accountable capitalism” would not empower stakeholders. It would strip the stakeholders of their power and transfer that power to the state. All these interests will be “brought within the orbit of the State [and] coordinated and harmonized in the unity of the State.” That is what it means to have government gun its way into private corporation boardrooms, whether in the name of “stakeholders” or “divergent interests." The Accountable Capitalism Act is neither accountable to stakeholders nor capitalist. It is accountability to the state. It is fascist.

There is nothing wrong with a company considering many interests other than shareholders, of course. In fact, as I observed in my previous post “On the Purpose of a Corporation by the Business Roundtable PART 2”, the best interests of the company’s shareholders often requires it. And Warren acknowledges that “For much of their history, American corporations tried to balance the interests of all of their stakeholders, including employees, customers, business partners, and shareholders.” She claims without evidence that this is no longer the case, so the Federal Government must force them to. But that is just a thin and transparent rationalization. Her bill is really just a power grab by a socialist trying to frame it to appear to fit Americans’ generally free enterprise-respecting culture.

But what Warren actually proposes is a reprise of Mussolini’s Doctrine of Fascism, a form of guild socialism expanded to encompass “all stakeholders,” or as Mussolini puts it, “divergent interests.” Guild socialism is a “socialistic theory advocating state ownership of industry with control and management by guilds of workers.” Fascist collectivism expands beyond “workers” to encompass all of society, organized into groups, or guilds. Fascism, after all, derives from the Italian word fascismo, which literally means group. Hence, Mussolinin’s hostility toward individualism. In the fascist version of guild socialism, the workers are joined by all other groups. In the American version, nominal ownership remains in private hands, but controlled by state-mandated board members. “Fascism,” explains Mussolinin, “is . . . opposed to trade unionism as a class weapon,” instead “giving . . . due weight in the guild or corporative system [to] divergent interests,” all under the auspices of the state. “Managers, engineers, workers, communities and even customers” would all have “a seat at the . . . corporate board-of-directors . . . table,” as Gordon Sell demands. Elizabeth Warren would add an open-ended list of other “stakeholders” categories. “No . . . economic unions . . outside the state,” explains Mussolini. 

The parallels are stark, and scary. Warren’s “accountable capitalism” puts us on the way to “a full-blown Corporative state.” It puts us on the way to socialism—national guild socialism. Warren claims her proposal is “derived from the thriving benefit corporation model that 33 states and the District of Columbia.” It is not derived from, but an override of the states--a power grab by the federal government of a function now relegated to the states under the Founders’ federalism. It is another attack on the separation of powers, further marginalizing the balancing power of the states. Warren’s “accountable capitalism” is a power grab--taking away a corporation’s accountability to the stakeholders it deals with in the free market, making it accountable to the government. It is a power grab from the rights of individual and from the powers of state governments—a repudiation of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, respectively.

In a free country based upon individual rights, there is no room for fascism. There is no room for Benito Mussolini, or for Elizabeth Warren. In America, the moral rights of individuals to finance, build, and run a company for profit is protected by constitutional and moral law. The rights of voluntary exchange are protected by law. The rights of any individual “stakeholder” to judge for himself whether or not to deal with the company is retained by each individual, not forcibly transferred to some collective guild via a government-imposed “representative.” According to American principles, the government cannot step in and dictate how private business is run, or how private individuals or voluntary associations of individuals trade with each other. It can only police the market for force or fraud, otherwise leaving individuals to their free choices.

As regards Gordon Sell’s Star-Ledger letter, I posted these comments:

Contra Gordon Sell, American business is not a tribal resource. Corporations are private businesses started, financed, and built by the shareholders. Only the shareholders have the moral right to choose who and how to govern their corporations. Non-shareholders who think they have the “right” to muscle in on what others own are no different from underworld crime bosses.

Sell apparently draws from Elizabeth Warren’s so-called “Accountable Capitalism Act”. The “managers, engineers, workers, communities, and customers” that Sell says should be “represented” on corporate boards via legal federal mandate, and other “stakeholders” Warren would add, are essentially no different from the “divergent interests” of Benito Mussolini’s Italian fascism. Warren’s ACA reprises Mussolini’s 1932 “DOCTRINE OF FASCISM,” in which all economic groups are “coordinated and harmonized in the unity of the State” leading to “a full-blown Corporative state”—i.e., totalitarianism. Everyone is enslaved to the corporations, which are corralled “within the sphere of the state.” 

Of course, the state corporatism of Warren’s ACA is not capitalism. Capitalism protects the rights of individuals to operate businesses and consumers, job-seekers, suppliers, and others to decide for themselves whether to work for, contract with, or patronize what business. A capitalist government polices the markets for criminal activity like force and fraud, but otherwise leaves people free to work, contract, and trade. What Warren, Sell, and their ilk are advocating is not corporate accountability to consumers, employees, et al. That’s a free market. They are advocating accountability to government masters. They are abandoning capitalism, and introducing to America the guild socialism of fascist state.

Related Reading:




The Capitalist Manifesto by Andrew Bernstein