Monday, March 11, 2024

Choose socialism, or human freedom

 The link below leads to an article by Murray N. Rothbard that was published in the September 1977 issue of the “Libertarian Review:”

The Myth of Democratic Socialism

Some of the highlights are:

In any debate between a socialist and a free-market capitalist, all too often the socialist quickly puts the free-market advocate on the defensive, and the entire time is consumed by the free-market person fending off attacks on the ability of the market to prevent inequality, or business cycles, or even the ravages of affluence and "materialism." Being on the offensive, socialism emerges spotless and unbesmirched, and it is implicitly assumed on all sides that the market economy must prove its worthiness to be in the same moral and ideological ballpark as socialism. In fact, the morality of socialism is rarely questioned in these discussions, the critic confining himself to doubts about socialism's practicality or workability.

Yet, in truth, socialism is neither workable nor moral; both in theory and in practice, it is a system unsurpassed in brutality, despotism, mass murder and exploitation. It deserves no solemn respect or moral salute.

Before turning to socialism, the morality as well as efficacy of the contrasting system of the free market can be established very quickly. The free market is a vast network of two-person exchanges, conducted voluntarily at each step of the way by each participant because each believes he will benefit from the exchange. Since the exchanges and choices are free and voluntary, the free market economy is harmonious and cooperative, while allowing fullest room for the free play of individual choice. And the economy works splendidly, because the free price system and the profit-and-loss incentives arising from that market bring efficiency and order out of the "anarchistic," seemingly chaotic interplay of free and voluntary choices. Yet it is an order arising spontaneously out of freely adopted choices, rather than one imposed by violence and coercion. Such a free market, in its pure form, does not exist anywhere in the world today.

Socialism, in short, places the lives, the fortunes, and the sacred honor of every citizen under the total command of the State and its ruling elite.

Unfortunately, in discussions of socialism in the United States, socialists have usually been allowed to get off the hook with a general disclaimer: that it is terribly unfair to tar them with the brush of Hitler, Stalin and Mao. For that is not the kind of "socialism" they want and advocate; in fact, they don't consider these regimes to be "socialist" at all—despite the fact that these regimes precisely fit the general linguistic definition of socialism that we have mentioned above. For their socialism would be peopled by "good guys," not by those terrible people who have staffed the actual socialist regimes of this century.

But these disclaimers are simply not good enough. The essence of socialism is not the specific people that the individual socialist would like to see in power. The essence of socialism is the system itself: total State power over the means of production. And if the result of all the socialisms so far has been grisly and monstrous, and if no "humanist" nice guys have yet come to the fore, then perhaps, as the Marxists would say, "this is no accident," but a result embedded within the system itself. And that is our contention: that Hitler, Stalin, Mao, et al. are inherent systematic tendencies within socialism itself.

And so the essence of socialism is forced labor. Where but under a socialist regime could a Mao decide to "end the contradiction between physical and mental labor" by shipping hundreds of thousands of urban students to live permanently in the frontier province of Sinkiang—and to force them to grow rice in a dry climate for the good of their souls—or, to use a more Marxian term, for the benefit of their "reeducation"?

socialism with democracy or civil liberties is a chimera because the socialist government will necessarily have total power over the processes of education: over schools and the media. Possessing that power, the ruling cliques will use it to try to mold a subject population that will be filled with love for their rulers and eager willingness to obey their every command. Call it what you will: "brainwashing," "cultural rehabilitation centers," or whatever, it is inevitable that a ruling elite given total power over education will use it for such "social" purposes, to create an eagerly sought New Socialist Man: a Man who will love and obey his rulers and who will put his rulers' commands above any personal qualms or considerations. Hopefully, human nature is such that the government cannot succeed; but the society is a living Hell while the rulers try their best.

On top of all this moral and social horror, socialism can't work; that is, lacking a free price system, socialism cannot operate an advanced industrial economy to suit even the goals of the rulers of the State. A socialist industrial economy will suffer grave shortages, poverty, famine, and breakdown, and ultimately the death of a large portion of its population.

In short, Professor Falk has stated the choice before mankind correctly: it is socialism, or human freedom. It is one or the other. Humanistic or democratic socialism is a chimera, a contradiction in terms.

Thursday, February 29, 2024

Listen to our neighbors

Our neighbors from Central and South America have provided us with a warning and a virtuoso economics lesson.

First, we received a warning from Nayib Bukele, President of El Salvador who was reelected to a second term on February 2, 2024:  

Nayib Bukele speech at CPAC 02/23/2024

Full Transcript

Highlights of this speech:

If you want globalism to die here too you must be willing to unapologetically fight against everything and everyone that stands for it, fight for your freedoms, fight for your rights.

The next president of the United States must not only win an election he must have the vision the will and the courage to do whatever it takes and above all he must be able to identify the underlying forces that will conspire against him.  These dark Forces are already taking over your country you may not see it yet but it's already happening.  

We had to remove corrupt judges and corrupt attorneys and prosecutors.  These corrupt judges and prosecutors were setting the gang members free.  It wasn't just the gangs.  The corrupt system worked in tandem with the so-called international community, the NGOs and of course the fake news.  Just like it happens here in the United States.  Unelected bureaucrats are trying to install public policy.

The people of El Salvador have woken up and so can you.  The global elites hate our success, and they fear yours.  The people's free will to choose their leaders is something they despise because they cannot control that.  You have experienced this firsthand here in the United States.  The global Elites control the mainstream media they finance campaigns, District Attorneys to mention a few.  They abuse their powers; they persecute political opponents.

Institutions were created to serve the people and not the other way around.  Somewhere along the way those people forgot their fundamental purpose, which is more important than the institution itself.  When the judicial system was created it was created out of the necessity to bring justice but now it seems that survival and control of the judges of the attorney generals among others are paramount and the need to bring Justice is merely a little more than an afterthought.

So, who's financing the government?  Your government is financed by treasury bonds.  Who buys the treasury bonds?  Mostly the Fed.  How does the FED buy them?  By printing money.  But what backing does the FED have for that money being printed?  The treasury bonds themselves.  So basically, you finance the government by printing money out of thin air.  Someone could ask well so if the government can print limited amounts of money out of thin air why do they collect taxes? I mean in theory it will make sense right if they can print unlimited amounts of money why would they need taxes?  The answer is simple but it's very shocking.  The real problem is that you pay high taxes only to uphold the illusion that you are funding the government which you are not.  It's shocking but it's true.  The government is funded by money printing paper backed with paper a bubble that will inevitably burst.

We didn't tolerate being told what to do in doing so we did the unthinkable against all adversity we transformed our El Salvador from the most dangerous country in the world to the safest in the Western Hemisphere.  We did it by defying the global elites.  We told them no more and that is my message to you.  Put up the fight because in the end it will be worth it.  It has been for us, and you will have your country back.

The next speech is a brilliant economics lesson from Javier Milei the newly elected President of Argentina:

Javier Milei speech at CPAC 02/24/2024

Full Transcript

Highlights of this speech:

Today I will focus on the technical underpinnings of those political views and along those lines I will focus on neoclassical economics and how its view of market failure is conducive to the advance of statism and how this destroys economic growth, putting a break on the improvements in well-being and the fight against poverty.

The thing about the neoclassical model is that when the model doesn't match reality, they get mad at reality calling it a market failure.

The first thing we need is to have a good definition of the market, what the market actually is.  The free market is actually a social cooperation process where you voluntarily exchange property rights.  Actually, since these exchanges are voluntary there can be no market failure because nobody would be self-inflicting harm.  So, if we define the market properly all definitions that are interventionist in nature collapse.  It is also very important to be clear as to what institutions are the foundations of the market.  Two major institutions are private property and markets that are free from State intervention.  If you're going to exchange property rights it means that private property is important and if the exchanges are voluntary there's no room for the intervention, encroachment, and Invasion by the state.  

Actually, when someone engages in an exchange and gives something in exchange for money this creates a historical record or register which is price and that historical record we call price is an information transmission mechanism and also becomes a coordination mechanism as it makes some people be on the supply side and others on the demand side There’s also an adjustment process because demand and supply don't always perfectly match.  When demand goes up prices go up and the other way around so private property and free markets determine the price system, and this is the basis of economic calculation.

This shows why none of the varieties of socialism can work.  In the most extreme cases because there's no private property you can't engage in the exchanges that the market would require.  In the milder varieties that do allow the existence of the private sector what happens is that state intervention creates noise in the price system and the more State the more government there is the more violence there is the more distortion there is and the worse the system functions.

The division of labor combined with the notion of social cooperation ends up being fully destructive as far as socialist ideas are concerned.  I could actually hate him but I need him to buy my product so I must treat him nicely, so as Bastiat used to say when trade goes in soldiers don't and promoting free trade is promoting peace.

This idea of the market as a social cooperation mechanism is a tremendous bomb for socialism because if exchanges are voluntary, it means that it's win-win for both sides so there's no room for the theory of exploitation or for surplus value or for Marxism and socialism.  

Regulating prices and quantities or amounts destroys property rights.

The other major threat or attack from socialists and statism has to do with efficiency as opposed to distribution and so they say that capitalism is high individualist as opposed to the altruism of socialism, (always with the money of others).  This aberration is pursued in the name of social justice.   Hayek used to talk about weasel words whenever they chose an adjective it was actually the exact opposite.  So social justice is violence and unjust, it's not just or anything of the sort, far from it.  It's an aberration.  It's unjust because it involves unequal treatment before the law.

I come from a country that bought all of those stupid ideas and from being one of the most efficient countries in the world now we rank 140.  Don't surrender your Liberty, fight for your freedom.  If you don't fight for your freedom, they will drag you into misery.

I would also like to leave a message of optimism with you.  Argentina seemed to be a country doomed to be like sheep driven by socialists.  When I started my political career in Congress as a congressman, I said that I wasn't there to herd sheep, but rather to awaken lions.

Wednesday, February 21, 2024

Five converging issues

Adherents of the political ideology that considers themselves socialists, democratic socialists, woke, progressive, social justice warriors have achieved gains that were unimaginable at the beginning of the 20th century.  The following five issues are converging to fracture the collation that has supported this ideology.

1. Transgender militancy.  Young children diagnosed with "gender dysphoria" are now prescribed hormone blocking therapy or gender reassignment surgery, sometimes over the objections of one or both parents. Men using women's restrooms.  Men competing in women's sports.  Lowell Collegiate, and then there is this: Members bar

2. Support for Hamas.  The largest donors to the left have traditionally been Jewish.  Even though many in the Jewish community do not support Zionism or the current war in Gaza, very few members of that community will provide financial support to organizations openly support Hamas and the destruction of Israel.  DSADSA LayoffsHarvard

3. Immigration.  Immigration has exploded into a fiery debate in the "sanctuary cities".  Black citizens are outraged that new immigrants are receiving tax funded benefits and resources.  Chicago

4. Inflation. Average ticket price paid for Taylor Swift's Eras Tour was $3,801.00.  Average ticket price paid for Super Bowl 58 was $8,600.00.  The assets owned by the Federal Reserve have increased from $475 billion in 2008 to $4.7 trillion today.  The money supply (M2) has increased from $7.5 trillion in 2008 to $20.8 trillion today.  Taylor SwiftSuper Bowl 58, Fed AssetsM2, and then there is this: Hyperinflation

5. Lawfare.  The use of the legal system to persecute political opponents is becoming obvious to even the casual observer. A loser stateFocus on Texas & Florida 

Monday, January 22, 2024

Long Live Freedom, Damn It!

 Javier Milei delivered a fearless speech to The World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland on 1/14/2024.  He presented a classical demolition of collectivist policies and extolled the accomplishments of individual liberty.  Watch the speech by clicking on this link:

Javier Milei speech to WEF

Read the transcript of the speech at this link:

This was such a well written speech you should watch or read all of it.  In my opinion these are the highlights of his speech:

Unfortunately, in recent decades motivated by some well-meaning individuals willing to help others and others motivated by the wish to belong to a privileged cast the main leaders of the western world have abandoned the model of freedom for different versions of what we call collectivism.  We're here to tell you that collectivist experiments are never the solution to the problem that afflicts the citizens of the world, rather they are the root cause.

That said when you look at per capita GDP since the year 1800 and until today what you will see is that after the Industrial Revolution Global per capita GDP multiplied by over 15 times which meant a boom in growth that lifted 90% of the global population out of poverty.  We should remember that by the year 1800 about 95% of the world's population lived in extreme poverty and that figure dropped to 5% by the year 2020 prior to the pandemic.  The conclusion is obvious.  Far from being the cause of our problems, free trade capitalism as an economic system is the only instrument we have to end hunger, poverty and extreme poverty across our planet.  The empirical evidence is unquestionable.

The problem is that social justice is not just and it doesn't contribute either to the general wellbeing.  Quite on the contrary it's an intrinsically unfair idea because it's violent it’s unjust because the state is financed through tax and taxes are collected coercively or can anyone of us say that they voluntarily pay taxes?  Which means that the state is financed through coercion and that the higher the tax burden the higher the coercion and the lower the freedom.

If the goods or services offered by a business are not wanted the business will fail unless it adapts to what the market is demanding.  If they make a good quality product at an attractive price they will do well and produce more.  So, the market is a discovery process in which the capitalist will find the right path as they move forward.

Countries that have more freedom are 12 times richer than those that are repressed.  The lowest decile in terms of distribution in free countries are better off than 90% of the population of repressed countries.

...libertarianism is the unrestricted respect for the life project of others based on the principle of non-aggression in defense of the right to life, liberty, and property.  Its fundamental institutions being private property, markets free from State intervention, free competition, the division of labor, and social cooperation as part of which success is achieved only by serving others with goods of better quality or at a better price.  In other words, capitalists, successful businesspeople are social benefactors who, far from appropriating the wealth of others, contribute to the general well-being.

Why do I say that the West is in danger?  I say this precisely because in those of our countries that should defend the values of the free market, private  property, and the other institutions of libertarianism, sectors of the political  and economic establishment some due to mistakes in their theoretical framework and others due to a greed for power are undermining the foundations of libertarianism, opening up the doors to  socialism and potentially condemning us  to poverty, misery, and stagnation.

It should never be forgotten that socialism is always and everywhere an impoverishing phenomenon that has failed in all countries where it's been tried out.  It's been a failure economically, socially, culturally, and it also murdered over a 100 million human beings.

On the pretext of a supposed market failure, regulations are introduced which only create distortions in the price system, prevent economic calculus, and therefore also prevent saving, investment, and growth.

The market is a mechanism of social cooperation where you voluntarily exchange ownership rights.  Therefore, based on this definition, talking about a market failure is an oxymoron.  There are no market failures if transactions are voluntary.  The only context in which there can be a market failure is if there is coercion and the only one that is able to coerce generally is the state which holds a monopoly on violence.

However, faced with the theoretical demonstration that state intervention is harmful and the empirical evidence that it has failed couldn't have been otherwise.  The solution to be proposed by collectivists is not greater freedom but rather greater regulation which creates a downward spiral of the spiral of regulations until we're all poorer and the life of all of us depends on a bureaucrat sitting in a luxury office.

Neo Marxists have managed to co-opt the common sense of the western world and this they have achieved by appropriating the media, culture, universities, and also international organizations.

Today states don't need to directly control the means of production to control every aspect of the lives of individuals.  With tools such as printing money, debt, subsidies, controlling the interest rate, price controls, and regulations to correct the so-called market failures, they can control the lives and fates of  millions of individuals.  This is how we come to the point where by using different names or guises a good deal of the generally accept political offers in most Western countries are collectivist variant whether they proclaim to be openly communist, fascist, Nazis, socialists, Social  Democrats, National Socialists, Democrat, Christians, Christian Democrats, progressive populist, nationalists, or globalists.  At bottom there are no major differences.  They all say that the state should steer all aspects of the lives of individuals.  They all defend a model contrary to that one which led humanity to the most spectacular progress in its history.  We have come here today to invite the rest of the countries in the Western World to get back on the path of prosperity, economic freedom, limited government, and respect for private property are essential elements for economic growth.

...I would like to leave a message for all businesspeople here and for those who are not here in person but are following from around the world.  Do not be intimidated either by the political cast or by parasites who live off the state.  Do not surrender to the political class that only wants to stay in power and retain its privileges.  You are social benefactors, you are heroes, you’re the creators of the most extraordinary period of prosperity we've ever seen.  Let no one tell you that your ambition is immoral.  If you make money, it's because you offer a better product at a better price thereby contributing to general wellbeing.  Do not surrender to the advance of the state.  The state is not the solution, the state is the problem itself.  You are the true protagonists of this story and rest assured that as from today Argentina is your staunch unconditional ally.

Why would WEF invite Javier Milei to speak?  

FOX Business host Maria Bartiromo attended the WEF annual meeting.  She witnessed Executive Chairman Klaus Schwab walk out of the room during President Milei’s speech.

Bartiromo

Daniel Hannan writes in The Telegraph that WEF invited Milei to speak to provide "at least a warning to that most self-regarding of conferences that voters can make terrible choices."

Hannan also notes that Milei, a former economics professor made no attempt to meet his audience half way. On the contrary, he began by warning that Western values had been betrayed by “those who want to belong to a privileged caste”.

Did WEF invite Milei to speak so that they can concoct a narrative to embarrass or discredit Milei?

Does WEF intend to edit Milei's speech so that they can release soundbites that will discredit his message?

If Milei's invitation to speak was without hidden intentions, then it suggests that the WEF believes they can dismiss any critique and continue with their collectivist plans.

To enhance your knowledge of the philosophy of individual liberty, click on the link below:

The Root Of Liberty

Sunday, January 7, 2024

Climate Quiz

Click on the link below to test your climate knowledge.  You will be surprised by some of the answers.

Climate Quiz


Thursday, December 28, 2023

A New Year and a New Opportunity

 
2024 Happy New Year!


Put this resolution at the top of your list for 2024:

I resolve to become a stronger advocate for individual liberty.  I will accomplish this task by completing the “Essential Reading List” featured on The Root of Liberty website.

www.TheRootOfLiberty.com


Sunday, November 19, 2023

Don’t cry for the Central Bank, Argentina

 

Argentina has elected Javier Milei a uncompromising Libertarian to the office of President.  Milei has promised to shut down the Central Bank.  In honor of this most noble crusade, I present the following song (sung to the music of Andrew Lloyd Webber’s "Don't Cry for Me Argentina"):

Don’t cry for the Central Bank, Argentina
The truth is, it never helped you
All through its wild days, its mad existence
It never kept a promise. Don't keep your Pesos
Has it said too much?
There's nothing more it can think of to say to you
But all you have to do is look at it to know
That its every word is a lie

Tuesday, October 24, 2023

The Cultural Impact of the Dollar

 I was fortunate to have attended a speech delivered by Dr. Jörg Guido Hülsmann to the Supporters' Summit of the Mises Institute.  

The term epiphany is usually reserved for life changing spiritual events, but in the case of listening to this speech I can honestly say that I experienced several epiphanies.

Monetary policy and the actions of the Federal Reserve Bank are normally regarded as technical economic babble and not something that most people pay attention to.  If you currently feel this way, I guarantee that your life will change after watching Dr. Hülsmann’s 52-minute speech.

The era of permanent price inflation that we currently live in has had a devastating impact all aspects of our society.  The changes in behavior and personal decision making are shocking.

There have been many times in the past that I have urged you to read or view an article or speech, but there has never been a more important opportunity for you to expand your understanding of our current social and economic situation than the speech at the link below.




Monday, September 4, 2023

Honor Labor

 

Honor the labor force by eliminating the involuntary servitude demanded by the insatiable spending of the federal, state, and local governments.  Abolish the income tax and replace it with nothing.

“Taxation is theft, purely and simply even though it is theft on a grand and colossal scale which no acknowledged criminals could hope to match. It is a compulsory seizure of the property of the State’s inhabitants, or subjects.” -- Murray N. Rothbard.

“When someone removes a cancer, what do you replace it with?” -- Thomas Sowell.


Saturday, August 19, 2023

Foundations of Modern Progressive Thought

 Foundations of Modern Progressive Thought:
From Social Justice, Woke, Intersectionality to Identity Politics.


1. The long march through the institutions

In the annals of revolutionary thinkers, few match the impact of Antonio Francesco Gramsci, who lived between January 2, 1891, and April 27, 1937. Notably, as a founder and once the leader of the Italian Communist Party, he became an emblematic figure who symbolized resolute resistance to Benito Mussolini's fascism. While imprisoned by the authoritarian regime from 1926 until his death in 1937, he penned what can be considered his magnum opus – the “Prison Notebooks” - more than 3,000 pages filled with a seductive blend of history and political theory.

It would be a tragic oversimplification to think that Gramsci simply stood in opposition to bourgeois values. Rather, he sought to convey that these values were not the quintessential or default values for a society. Lenin, with his pragmatic focus, believed culture was a mere sidebar to the larger political game. However, for Gramsci, culture wasn't a side act; it was the headline show. In his eyes, achieving cultural hegemony was paramount to obtaining genuine power. He keenly observed that a class could not gain dominance solely through pursuing economic ambitions or through unbridled force. A more sophisticated method was necessary: a class had to ascend by showcasing intellectual and moral leadership, crafting alliances, and yes, even making compromises. Borrowing a term from Georges Sorel, Gramsci termed this alliance of societal forces a "historic bloc". This bloc, in essence, was the linchpin that ensured the continuous reproduction of the hegemony of the prevailing class through a web of institutions, relationships, and ideologies.

Gramsci's focus on the political and ideological superstructure is a crucial mechanism in maintaining and breaking the chains of the economic foundation. He vociferously contended that to truly challenge the capitalist stronghold, it was paramount to erect a counter-hegemony. This wasn't about sheer opposition; it was about crafting an alternative, a counter-narrative to the prevailing bourgeois ideology. The peculiar nature of Russian societal structures, according to Gramsci, exempted them from this process since their ruling elite did not exercise genuine hegemonic power.

In a proclamation that would echo through the annals of history, Gramsci articulated, "Socialism is precisely the religion that must overwhelm Christianity. … In the new order, Socialism will triumph by first capturing the culture via infiltration of schools, universities, churches, and the media by transforming the consciousness of society." It's essential to note that his proclamation, describing the current state of culture in 2023, was penned during his confinement from 1926 to 1937.

Fast forward to 1967, German sociologist and political student activist Rudi Dutschke coined the phrase "the long march through the institutions". A strategic blueprint for initiating revolutionary conditions, it aimed to dismantle capitalist society's grasp by permeating various societal institutions. Dutschke  promoted working against the established institutions while working within them, but not simply by 'boring from within', rather by 'doing the job', learning (how to program and read computers, how to teach at all levels of education, how to use the mass media, how to organize production, how to recognize and eschew planned obsolescence, how to design, et cetera), and at the same time preserving one's own consciousness in working with others. The term "long march" wasn't mere rhetoric; it was an ode to the prolonged endeavors of the Chinese communists, epitomized by their literal march across China.

Interestingly, while many draw parallels between Dutschke's "long march" and Gramsci's "war of position", concrete evidence linking Dutschke's familiarity with Gramsci remains elusive. Despite countless references to other revolutionary figures like György Lukács, Che Guevara, and Mao Zedong in Dutschke's writings, a conspicuous absence of Gramsci looms large.

The strategies laid down by figures like Gramsci and Dutschke remain a testament to the multifaceted nature of the communist manifestos – they do not merely intend to change governments but instead attempt to transform the very soul of societies.

2. Critical Theory

Amid the ocean of intellectual movements of the 20th century, none perhaps remains as poignant and provocative as the Frankfurt School, more rigorously referred to as Critical Theory. Originating from the proverbial corridors of the Institute for Social Research, affixed to Frankfurt's Goethe University in Germany, this movement was conceived in 1923, borne out of Felix Weil's munificence, and aimed to kindle the fires of Marxist analysis within German academia. But, with the Nazi regime's tightening noose in 1933, this intellectual bastion found refuge across the Atlantic, settling within the esteemed walls of Columbia University in New York City.

The luminaries of this philosophical force included figures like Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, and the potent Herbert Marcuse, to name but a few. By the time the 1970s dawned, a new guard, spearheaded by Jürgen Habermas, commenced, casting the Frankfurt School's intellectual net beyond its original confines, influencing scholarly methods across the European continent. During this metamorphosis, the American academic realm was not untouched. Richard Bernstein, a philosophical contemporary of Habermas, fervently adopted Critical Theory's agenda, infusing its essence into the academia, starting notably from the New School for Social Research in New York.


But it's Herbert Marcuse, the German-born philosopher, who deserves closer scrutiny. Associated intrinsically with the Frankfurt School's philosophy, Marcuse championed the New Left in 1960s America. His critiques often pierced the heart of conventional liberalism, most controversially via his "Repressive Tolerance" hypothesis published in 1965. Marcuse argued that the liberal concept of tolerance, which allowed for the free expression of all ideas and opinions, actually served to reinforce the existing power structure and maintain the status quo.

According to Marcuse, in a society where there is unequal distribution of power and wealth, the notion of "equal" or "neutral" tolerance simply perpetuates the dominant ideology and represses the oppressed. He believed that the ruling class, with the help of the media and other institutions, used the idea of tolerance to maintain their power and control over the masses, while suppressing any dissenting voices that threatened their authority.

In Marcuse's view, therefore, true freedom could only be achieved through "liberating tolerance," which would actively promote and encourage alternative, dissenting viewpoints, while challenging the dominant ideology. This would involve a form of "discriminatory tolerance," in which the oppressed were given more latitude to express their views than the oppressors, in order to redress the power imbalance.

His hypothesis captivated many, not least his most famous student, Angela Davis, who echoed Marcuse’s sentiments in her preface to “The New Left and the 1960s”:

While Marcuse's ideas were controversial and attracted criticism from some quarters, they were influential in the development of the New Left movement and continue to be discussed and debated in political and philosophical circles today.  Marcuse engaged with the civil rights movement and the emerging feminist, environmental, gay and lesbian, and other oppositional social movements of the era.

 One of the great challenges of any social movement is to develop new vocabularies. As we attempt to develop these vocabularies today, we can find inspiration and direction in Marcuse’s attempts to theorize the politics of language. In “An Essay on Liberation” he wrote: Political linguistics: armor of the Establishment. If the radical opposition develops its own language, it protests spontaneously, subconsciously, against one of the most effective “secret weapons” of domination and defamation. The language of the prevailing Law and Order, validated by the courts and by the police, is not only the voice but also the deed of suppression. This language not only defines and condemns the Enemy, it also creates him. . . This linguistic universe, which incorporates the Enemy (as Untermensch) into the routine of everyday speech can be transcended only in action.

Critical theory encourages dissidents to demand that society accept their changes in vocabulary and also to demand more latitude to express their views than their opponents.

3. Postmodernism

During the 1970s, the intellectual salons of France bore witness to an emerging philosophical storm. Taking inspiration from the likes of Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, and Heidegger, a maverick group of thinkers, led by luminaries like Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, Jean-François Lyotard, and Jean Baudrillard, began to radically dismantle the established paradigms of modern philosophy. By the time the 1980s rolled around, these audacious ideas had not only traversed the Atlantic to find a haven in America with thinkers like Richard Rorty but had garnered a global resonance.

This intellectual movement, branded as "postmodernism," ventured where few had dared to tread. It was a brazen challenge to the very edifice of Enlightenment rationalism, an intellectual legacy that had held sway since the 17th century.  Postmodernism is associated with relativism and a focus on the role of ideology in the maintenance of economic and political power.  Postmodernists are "skeptical of explanations which claim to be valid for all groups, cultures, traditions, or races, and instead focuses on the relative truths of each person".  It considers "reality" to be a mental construct. Postmodernism rejects the possibility of unmediated reality or objectively rational knowledge, asserting that all interpretations are contingent on the perspective from which they are made; claims to objective fact are dismissed as naive realism.

Deeply influenced by strains of critical theory, postmodernists viewed knowledge and moral systems through a lens of contingency, describing those systems as products of political, historical, or cultural discourses and hierarchies. Accordingly, postmodern thought is broadly characterized by tendencies to self-referentiality, epistemological and moral relativism, pluralism, and irreverence.  Postmodernism is often associated with schools of thought such as deconstruction and post-structuralism.  Postmodernism relies on critical theory, which considers the effects of ideology, society, and history on culture. Postmodernism and critical theory commonly criticize universalist ideas of objective reality, morality, truth, human nature, reason, language, and social progress.  Schools of thought like deconstruction and post-structuralism found their lineage in the postmodernist canon. In essence, postmodernism, coupled with critical theory, presents a scathing critique of any pretense to an objective reality, immutable truths, or the infallibility of reason. 

An essential figure in this intellectual tableau was Richard McKay Rorty. A product of institutions like the University of Chicago (BA and MA) and Yale (Phd), Rorty's academic sojourns spanned the hallowed halls of Princeton, the University of Virginia, and Stanford.

Rorty rejected the long-held idea that correct internal representations of objects in the outside world is a necessary prerequisite for knowledge. Rorty argued instead that knowledge is an internal and linguistic affair; knowledge only relates to our own language.  Rorty argues that language is made up of vocabularies that are temporary and historical and concludes that "[...] since vocabularies are made by human beings, so are truths."

4. Conclusion: The Accumulated Results

The long march through the institutions has been underway for over 100 years.  It is apparent that the collectivists have gained control of all institutions in society including but not limited to:

Elementary schools.

High Schools.

Universities.

Government agencies and bureaucrats.

Elected officials.

Corporate management.

News media of all types.

Entertainment of all types.

Religious organizations.

The family.

Having control of the institutions provides the collectivists with the opportunity to control public discourse using the methods prescribed by critical theory.  Propaganda favoring the collectivist doctrine is promoted throughout all institutions and opposition to collectivist doctrine is censored and labeled misinformation or disinformation.  Finally, collectivists are able to redefine the vocabulary using postmodernist methods to define long held beliefs as false and new and unimaginable concepts to be true.