Southern American Socialism is a LeftUnity to Libleft ideology that reflects the views of Itapi.

Not to be confused with Fitzhughism which was a reactionary socialist ideology. Southern American Socialism advocates for a revolutionary-traditionalist society and takes inspiration from national syndicalism, revolutionary syndicalism, and elective monarchism. It agrees with Georges Valois about class struggle, and national class analysis as the logical development in scientific socialism. It also does agree with Valois and other national syndicalists critiques of fascism as it is a perversion of national syndicalism. It does agree with the concept of proletariat nations but in the context of how national syndicalism views it. It has a disdain for totalitarianism regardless of the ideology. It argues that syndicalism is the most organic and effective form of socialism due to it arguing that socialism must be decentralizally planned to achieve the goals of shifting the means of production to the workers. It agrees with Sorel’s myth of the proletarian strike, his views on liberal democracy, and his dislike for his dislike of certain types of idealism and Positivism.

The government takes inspiration from ideas of industrial unionism, guild socialism, syndicalism, Hamiltonianism, and elective monarchism. The government is within a federal framework as well to prevent over centralization in government as he advocates for both a strong and lean government. The states would be transformed into a more syndicalist structure. Going from guilds, unions, syndicates, ect. The syndicates elect the federation/coperation which assembles as a council to elect the monarch as to fuse these systems. The monarch will still be crowned by the Church to create a revolutionary-traditionalist government. This system allows the poorest person to rise the rank to become the monarch. It does also agree with the Hamiltonian model that the monarch can serve for life on good terms as to have a way to oust a bad monarch.

It argues that the government should be able to legislate morality as it’s one of the responsibilities of the government and it views that if a government does not do that it is irresponsible. However it doesn’t not view it in a totalitarian manner. It means from local to national. It argues that different issues should be dealt with as locally as possible then working its way up because it’s just as irresponsible if the local government ignores its responsibilities.

Context is crucial to better understanding this topic before debunking the arguments that claim this is an unrealistic ideology. Firstly this will discuss why America culturally isn’t simply republican in nature. Secondly this will go into the history and proposals of monarchist ideas. Thirdly this will compare and contrast the American executive to other republican executives. Lastly to debunk claims of it being outside of the American realities. To summarize this will be against the oversimplification of what America is culturally and modern America’s interpretation of this subject.

To start each separate nation of America has a differing view. America is a collection of multiple nations united together as one.For example the South in particular was settled by English Cavaliers and supported the Charles I against the Roundheads.^[14] These particular settlers shaped a part of the Southern nation’s identity even as republicanism became more mainstream overtime the monarchical elements remained especially within symbolism. Even in recent history this influence remains of course it is vastly different than initially but it still is in part one of several cultural myths that in particular shaped this particular nation. Jefferson Davis gives an example that shows even then the influence on this nation (This is not a endorsement of him just giving a specific example). Davis said, “ Our enemies are a traditionless and a homeless race; from the time of Cromwell to the present moment they have been disturbers of the peace of the world.” This influence was carried over from the English Civil War. It just wasn’t settled in America. This rhetoric clearly demonstrates the differing views that each nation had. The Civil War in America eventually settled this centuries old dispute. However even after this the Cavalier influnces still remain its just as the nation amended over time that these conflicting views can co-exist as to forge a more unified American identity. Which eventually over time lessens Davis’ claim but in understanding this topic it is still important to understand the cultural context then and how it shaped now. This is just an overview of the South’s cultural view and suggest more naunce. Also it further demonstrates that monarchical influences are not anti-American but have been present in multiple forms. To suggest otherwise would consider the South “anti-American.” This would be rather odd and unserious as it misses this nuance.

The main reason for this oversimplification of America being culturally republican specificaly comes from the Jeffersonians and by extension the Puritans which make up a different nation within America. These influences come from the Roundheads the settled parts of America. So understanding shows the vastly different views. The Jeffersonians changed the meaning of the war as an ideological and against monarchy in general. Which was opposed to the federalist view. The federalist view didn’t see it as against monarchy in general rather for American self determination and only against the British monarchy. This changing view is also ties into how the Declaration of Independence was viewed as people’s opinions on the past changed. This just a simplification as this topic could go past this entire scope. The political struggle between the two first political parties the federalist and democratic-republican influenced how this was viewed. However by the end of the War of 1812 the Jeffersonian narrative eventually emerged as the victor and this is the source for the oversimplification that make people believe that American is simply culturally republican since its founding. Yes, history is decided by the victors as this is another reason why this nuance was eventually forgotten as the federalist party dissolved and fell out of the mainstream. However this doesn’t mean the ideas faded away.

Here’s a quote to start of before explaining some of the history and proposals of monarchist ideas and it is by Rufus King. He said,” In one of our conversations, and upon the formation of the constitution in the federal convention of 1787, he said some things to me which, I think ought to be remembered by future generations, to enable them to appreciate justly those founders of our government who were in favor of a stronger organization than was adopted. He said: "You young men who have been born since the Revolution, look with horror upon the name of a King, and upon all propositions for a strong government. It was not so with us. We were born the subjects of a King, and were accustomed to subscribe ourselves 'His Majesty's most faithful subjects;' and we began the quarrel which ended in the Revolution, not against the King, but against his parliament; and in making the new government many propositions were submitted which would not bear discussion; and ought not to be quoted against their authors, being offered for consideration, and to bring out opinions, and which, though behind the opinions of this day, were in advance of those of that day." — These things were said chiefly in relation to General Hamilton, who had submitted propositions stronger than those adopted, but nothing like those which party spirit attributed to him.”^[15] This quote is rather important because it shows a rather overlooked topic in American history. It also embodies the federalist view that too those born after the American Revolution would seem very foreign. This further iterates the complexities between republicanism and monarchism.

Also some small context before presenting the propsals multiple decades prior Henry Saint John wrote “Letters On the Spirit of Patriotism: On the Idea of a Patriotic King: On the State of the Parties. To summarize points of these writtings he adavocatea for a monarch that unifies, does stuff for the common good, and is above political parties. He goes further into detail about how this looks like but the short summary should suffice. This ws the foundation for the American executive even if the weren’t exactly in favor of monarch. This wasn’t merely coincidental either but intended. This is why if the ideas sound very familiar to an American audience.

The proposal entertaining the notion of monarchy had existed even prior to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 as some American wanted the then Thirteen Colonies to have a new arrangement and became a British protectorate to not have to deal with the British parliament. Now the specific proposal entertained includinghaving a Prussian Prince become an American king prior to the convention. Then at the convention Hamilton’s model was practically a king but without the title. The Prussian Scheme as it is now call seriously proposed the idea of making Frederick The Great’s broth Prince Henry of Prussia as king. To give context Prussia and Britain didn’t have good relations and the American people really liked Prussia so this was offered him. He then declined due to him stating that the American people wouldn’t accept him and later responded if they were serious about it he suggested a French candidate citing American and France’s alliance. ^[16] Hamilton model to summarize was a very strong executive the served for life unless on good terms which is essential a type of monarch in some sense. It is basically a form of either mixed government or basically an elective monarchy. Hamilton’s model also proposed a lean and effective government as well. Hamilton proposed this as a counter to parliamentary democracy as he disliked and distruted politicans. He like other federalist would had more grievances with parliament more so than the king. His whole model security and stability first. ^[17] Even though these proposal were not implemented it still suggests that monarchy was still a viable and realistic option unlike what other people think and suggest that American is more than simply culturally republican even post-revolution.

The compromise that end the Constitutional Convention of 1787 still kept the monarchical character in the president. As the president is not like a figurehead compared to modern day republics or other liberal republics as well. This was intended by design to bring further national unity and if it weren’t for these influences America could have been like other republics at the time and failed. So ironically it is the monarchical character and symbolism that has made this republic last so long. Another key difference is between this model and the others than authority and character is that people in America actually elect the president separately than how other republics do where other representatives vote the president which would be more akin to the U.S. Speaker of the house. To summarize America’s unique views influnced it to become this way unlike other republics which gave it better strength.

Common objections against American monarchism are mostly shallow or misinformed. Some will state America’s always been a republic. The answer to that is governments can change and the government you know looks vastly different from how you think the founders would and these people would be call the compromise a presidential monarch and not a “real president” within unknowingly debunking themselves. Secondly the other objection is about the goals of the revolution being against the monarchy. The simple answer is that the revolution wasn’t clearly cut and they only know half of the story of America. Thirdly they claim American nonarchism as against the character of America’s. The answer to this objection is they are over generalizing America as it’s a collection of nation and each nation that makes up each part has had nuanced views on this. The last objection is some would say why support some random family to be in charge. The answer to this is to completely miss the concept of monarchism and it is not simply hereditary and the thd closet thing to American monarchy is elective and it ties to America’s values. Another thing to note is these same people follow random celebrities they don’t know and some if want to know what’s going on with the British royals which is a self defeating argument. The last answer to this objection is not about a random family but security, stability, and longevity of a system as if a system cannot survive that what good is the system.

After giving context and clarification helps understand what America is. It debunks the old oversimplified narrative of America. It notes how things weren’t so clear cut. Compares how America’s republic is nothing like others and has monarchical characteristics. Also how this unfolds a better understanding of America’s struggles for independence. Another thing is it ultimately proves the anti-parliamentarian attitudes shaped America despite opinions. With all this put into picture no monarchism is not anti-American nor will it ever be.

Now with explaning the source to the oversimplified narrative and pushing against the claims of being “anti-American” or “un-American on the topic of monarchism provided provide. It will point out it will look like in design too. Also to clarify this is not an advocacy of past monarchies but rather one that understands present realities and pushes to the future. This will entail how it would look like as well. Another thing to mention is to debunk the broad stroke claims that monarchy is reactionary no matter what. It will also clarify monarchism doesn’t equate to feudalism or that is feudalizing in nature. To summarize, this is a proposal for a revolutionary monarchy based on current realities, not idealization of past modes, and methods.

Firstly many Americans are simply unaware how little changes could realistically result in the presidency being presented as an elective monarchy. Hypothetically if the term limits on the president were removed and great authority was included you already have a type of elective monarchy in nature. This points out the little change even without the title king as in an elective monarchy that doesn’t necessarily require the title king. Monarchy doesn’t result in an aristocracy as evident in other societies throughout history. This doesn’t diminish popular sovereignty either as the government still is bound by the people. This is not unrealistic it just that many people are unaware of the foundations of many institutions.

The elective monarchy shall be framed in a way the reflects the current America not the old. America faces problems of class, identity, domination of bureaucracy, a self serving congress that only cares about their own interests, a duopoly of the two party system. This elective monarchy will be a unifying figure above the two party system entirely challenging this. The executive will be reframed to properly put congress in check and prevent the executive being a puppet of congress. The executive and others shall not own any property themselves as they are to serve the interests of the proletariat and nation refusal to abide by this results in an automatic dismissal. The reason is to prevent interest that don’t represent the proletariat and to reinforce the government is supposed to help the people not be over it. This framework clearly puts a face instead of faceless bureaucrats. Have a unifying figure also foster national unity.

Monarchy simply doesn’t exist within a feudalistic framework or feudalizez society. The reason is monarchy has existed before feudalism. Feudalism specifically arose due to the harsh and unpredictable outcomes of the medieval world not because monarchy existed. To state otherwise is to mischaracterize it or misunderstand the historical conditions. Monarchism existed outside of feudalism as well during the response to the growing capitalist class and enlightened despots intially filled the vacuum that was caused by the abolition of feudalism in certain countries. They lost out due to the bourgeois control. The next stage resulted in the monarchy being limited to the bourgeois because they wanted to control the outcome. This is further evident by how hereditary monarchy functions in reality because its only considered hereditary because the bourgeois say so. For example in the United Kingdom the line of succession is approved by the parliament and any changes have to be further approved by parliament and the monarchy has very little say other than suggesting possible alternatives.

This observation points out how weaky monarchy has become under capitalism and not that it strengthened it as some claim. In other countries the bourgeois themselves overthrew the monarchy because they saw it not worthwhile to keep them in power. These revolutions were not of the people but rather the ruling class some included sympathetic nobility. The explanation is due to the curtailing of the nobility after the slow death of feudalism and transitioning into capitalism and as the nation started to become more unified so the aristocracy had a stake in seeing this undone and a return to the old status-quo. The one who was actually feudalizing society was aristocracy because of their own interests. The new capitalist class that arose then sided with the aristocracy until it wasn’t profitable. So ultimately the bourgeois threw both aristocracy and nobility to the side. Those that keep it only see it for something to profit from

With this context provided if a monarchy is framed in a push against the bourgeois and remaining aristocracy left it can be worked into a revolutionary framework. This is not nonsensical because if positioned as a unifying figure for and by the proletariat it will be a tool against the bourgeois and free it from their clutches. Thus if monarchy placated nobility if given new life it can be a tool to crush the bourgeois. This again isn’t silly but understand how historical conditions played into both.

This proposal isn’t a contradiction to syndicalism in any shape or form either. The reason is syndicalism puts its union goals above structure. If any government supresses union activities and strike it is heavily opposed regardless of its structure. So a potential monarchy in this framework is actually pretty consistent within syndicalism. This pragmatism on governance makes it better to keep to others goals without diluting it. Syndicalism view governance as tools rather than ends and this clarification explains why this seeming contradiction isn’t one to begin with.

(WIP) The state is not absolute but rather a tool to be utilized by the community to protect itself internally and externally. The state also prevents chaos and barbarism from spreading into the community. The state is a safeguard and not something that demands an individual to submit their entire will to it or is above the community. The state exists in a mutual relation with the community and each must respect each other. However this doesn’t mean the state’s authority is invalid.

This is one example of what was stated earlier based on Christian principles:

Matthew 21:15 Then the Pharisees went and plotted to entrap him in what he said. 16 So they sent their disciples to him, along with the Herodians, saying, “Teacher, we know that you are sincere, and teach the way of God in accordance with truth, and show deference to no one; for you do not regard people with partiality. 17 Tell us, then, what you think. Is it lawful to pay taxes to the emperor, or not?” 18 But Jesus, aware of their malice, said, “Why are you putting me to the test, you hypocrites? 19 Show me the coin used for the tax.” And they brought him a denarius. 20 Then he said to them, “Whose head is this, and whose title?” 21 They answered, “The emperor’s.” Then he said to them, “Give therefore to the emperor the things that are the emperor’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” 22 When they heard this, they were amazed; and they left him and went away.- Matthew 21-15-22

Now with this in Christian principle explained are things that given to the secular and to what is God and this heavily rebukes the notion that state can assume what is God’s. This doesn’t mean theocracy is a contradiction but rather the idea of the state creating a civil religion that demands submission to it as it goes beyond the confines of the state and its authority.

To explain why a theocracy doesn’t contradict this is because it still governs in a proper way that is influenced by religion and is carried out as such. Also theocracies by definition cannot be totalitarian in the Christian sense because then the state would be something that it isn’t. This means theocratic government have to keep a steady balance despite the ruler being in the secular and non secular.

The Christian principle is grounded in reality and not of arbitrary abstractions claimed by liberals of various types and others who support a state beyond its responsibilities. When the notion that state is no different than the individual it is no longer in reality and under an idealistic notion. This is very problematic because of the state is abstract and not clearly defined and understood it can justify anything as to why it needs to expand. Therefore the mutual relationship between it and the community is done away with. This is why this abstraction should be rejected.

This is abstract because it is rooted in extreme idealism and it brings with the notion that the state can solve every problem. Therefore a larger state comes with this over time and the community is sidelined due to this over emphasis of the state. Another example is rooted in the social contract theory because how can someone consent to this contract when their born and didn’t know it existed? This is very much idealistic and abstract because when and how can this be achieved without real consent? It makes the state into something that is removed from reality.

Recognizing and consenting to a legitimate authority makes more sense than a social contract. For example recognizing that your local community leader is in charge and does his job responsibly is an example. A written document like a constitution outlining rules and how authority should be executed is another thing that makes more sense because you can consent to it. While a social contract is just an idea that isnt rooted in reality for the most part. Yes there is an agreement with the critiques against the social contract but you know of this and can consent to it.

In the syndicalist view the state is a tool for proletarian liberation and the state is necessary to help aid in this. With this view it can allow the needed autonomy of producers this it reinforces the community’s check on the state. The reason is to prevent tyranny from above or below. This is way more consistent than say the state should be supreme or rejected. Without understanding the mutual relationship you cannot have an effective government no matter what it is.

The reason is because abstraction cannot be effective or efficient because it becomes something it is not. An analogy would be a child making the rules for the entire household. Therefore a child would poorly fill out the responsibilities. This is way the state is only a piece and if considered more it will be just like a child making the rules for the entire household.

Another thing is since that state is something out of necessity if it goes beyond its means and uses tyranny to enforce laws then it becomes unconsentual due to it violating principles of what the state is. Therefore the state is voluntary until a proper legitimate state is re-established and the community can take arms in self defense against oppression. The state is means to an end ultimately. The end is granting proper authority to where it belongs to. However if the means which is the state is invalid so does that secular authority. It is only applicable to secular governance because God’s perfect.

Southern American Socialism supports an authentic national syndicalist model and not one that advocates for corporatism. It supports creating more local planners due to them being able to better understand local communities interest than the national planners do. However this model doesn’t undermine the national planners it puts more accountability on the local planners to handle problems to the best of their ability before sending the issue up the ladder. It is also is skeptical of centrally planned economics.

Southern America Socialism supports a single payer tax healthcare system because it believes people shouldn’t have to worry about medical expenses or have the cost reduced for those that pay into the system. This will be in a syndicalist and local prioritized manner. It also supports expanding public education in a more sustainable manner too. Another thing he supports is economic nationalism due to the over reliance on outsourcing. It argues fair trade is better than free trade too. He also finds it absurd to import a good his country has for a lower quality good of the same type from another country.

Socialism should develop organically and follow in the context of the nation and the includes incorporating the traditions of said nation. The Sorelian myth will be emphasized into this as well. It views both syndicalism and guild socialism as vital to the idea of an organic socialism. If socialism is to be truly scientific it should also be subjected to the truth which encompasses Christianity specifically Catholicism. It doesn’t like for example how some Christians socialist make Christianity subject to socialism instead of the inverse.

Socialism starts at the workshop floor. Taking this into consideration socialism by design needs to have a decentralized planned economy due to its emphasis on the working class and the community at large. Otherwise it becomes the same problem that capitalism causes thus eventually creating the borderline totalitarian oversight of people’s way of life. It also becomes similar to capitalism as treating people as numbers if not decentralized. The different distinction between capitalism and state socialism is that instead of seeing people as potential profit it sees them as potential replacements for those who don’t live up to the system’s standards. State socialism isn’t real socialism because it doesn’t benefit the community and doesn’t fulfill the basic requirements of socialism which is to shift the means of production to the workers. Also people must be treated as people instead of numbers and their labor must be recognized and should be adequately compensated for in a fashion that doesn’t enslave the laborer. Socialism goal should be the community not this utopian ideal that some describe. The local planners know how to accommodate for their people better than the national planner could ever due to the local planners knowing the locality better. Each has a part to play as a greater whole. The local planners are just as responsible if not more than the national planners. So socialists realistically should consider this when implementing it.

(WIP) To start off this will be discussing utopian socialism and it’s implications. Some get this and communism mixed up. While both are bad Utopian socialism is far worse due to the fact its main aims are an idealistic utopia that won’t be feasible and they don’t analytically think about how to achieve their ideas and. While we’re on the topic of utopianism I would like to mention despite Marx’s doubious claims Proudhonian thought is not a variant of Utopian socialism due to it actually coining the term scientific socialism before Marx even used it. Some utopian socialist are either simply very primitive socialists or naive socialists who think vaguely egalitarian ideas equals socialism. Utopian socialism isn’t as much of a thing as it used to be but its influences are more inherent in other variants of socialism.

The next one is on the agrarian socialists. My main criticism of it is due to socialism being a industrial movement of the proletarian and not the peasant farmer. However peasants farmers and their struggles are important but it’s not the focal point of socialism. Agrarian socialism realistically in my opinion cannot compete with the full brunt of capitalism and it ends up creating a system that reduces production, proficiency, and living standards for the rural peasant. Also in today’s age most farmers have transitioned into proletariats in some shape as industrialized farming equipment has changed the farmer in developed nations. So ultimately agrarian socialism in its orginal conception is outdated and impractical for socialism. My other concern is the semi-feudal type of socialism that might arise through agrarian socialism. This is why I tend to agree with others saying that 3rd World countries at the moment cannot reach socialism yet. However it isn’t due to me viewing them as lesser rather that the industrialization must be in the context of the nations of the various 3rd World countries first in order to start the process for socialism.

Reactionary socialism is a broad term it includes Fitzhughism, fedual socialism, certain types of utopian socialits, and “German national socialism” just to name a few. It is in an extreme opposition to scientific socialism in its form. Reactionary socialism has the same underlying problems as utopian socialism and reactionaryism but up scaled. Fitzhughism holds that socialism must incorporate slavery to be achieved and this would be an abomination if put into practice. Also in reality this is just the old slave elite using its power to keep the proletariat down. Fedual socialism is less extreme than Fitzhughism but it’s problem is basically using socialism to return to fedualism and it will not be able to fight against capitalist. German “naional socialism” is not about the proletariat but rather putting the bourgeoisie as the master of the proletariat according to statements by various nazis. It’s economic policies were disastrous and mainly built upon war. ^{[18] [19]} The racial occultism, blood and soil type of idea puts others at odds with each other and it doesn’t unify the nation but it divide it into what it deems as “Aryan.” It also does this to keep a tight grip on the population by the bourgeoisie. To summarize German “ national socialism” it is a vile ideology built on occultism, racialism, and anti-Westernism. German “national socialists” actually hates the West and rather looks towards Eastern civilization mainly Eastern occultism. Their goal was to make a occultist religion on race. Its “Christianity” was merely a place holder. It is not at all like fascism ^[20]

State socialism in every variation due to it not achieving socialism’s goals which is that the means of production belong to the workers isn’t good. Under state socialism that means of production belong to the bureaucracy. Also it ends up treating people as numbers. It eventually causes a bloated bureaucracy and stagnation because of how it prioritizes. It doesn’t make things better for the working class period. It’s idea of class harmony is also a facade.

Anarchism takes the necessary decentralization for socialism to extreme. Yes socialism should get rid of uncessary parts of the state but not state in its entirety. Anarchism also isn’t practical either way because it basically ends up in barbarism and since its basically every man for themselves there is nothing stop anyone from doing as they please. Also anarchism in practice has shown to reject its own ideas for survival. Anarchism is impractical no matter how you try to make it work. Also it breeds is barbarism and chaos.

Marxism-Leninism has some things right like the vanguard party idea, using elections as a means, and understanding national conditions. However it doesn’t really grasp class analysis on a national level since its still international but the only difference is it understands that there are necessary steps. What it gets wrong is the socialist commodity production. This ideas was an uncessary development within socialism due to contradiction previous statements. Another flaw is it’s bloated bureaucracy which leads to inefficiency. Also its centralized planned economics were a failure. It never got to the socialist phase but rather a state capitalist phase and if it did reach socialism it wasn’t ideal (its state socialism). Stalin’s collectivization was a failure and the right faction of the Soviet Union during that time was correct to point out this massive failure. Stalin’s purges did nothing but make the bureaucracy problem worse. He even made things worse for the proletariat. ^[21]. After Stalin the Stalinist bureaucracy that was complacent prevented any meaningful changes to actual help the proletariat and Stalin’s successors weren’t that great either. Other ML states suffered economic difficulties but at a large expense. For example Hoxha’s Albania was economically devastated and it’s policies are one of several factors as to why it’s in the shape it is. ^[22]. So overall Marxism-Leninism really didn’t live to socialist ideals. There is a reason why it lost against the liberal order. Despite it being against liberalism doesn’t make it better. Its fell so back behind due to its political and economic incompetency throughout its existence in power. It ultimately was outdone. Marxism-Leninism is ultimately a warning of what happens with centralized planned economics, a bloated bureaucracy system, poor political decisions, and poor economic decisions led to if not dealt with.

Now onto fascism. Despite what people may think about fascism it is not right-wing. Fascism is in fact a left-wing ideology. Fascism is a variant of a somewhat semi-scientific socialism at best and at its worst a variant of bourgeois socialism. It misapplies national syndicalism due to creating what I’d call a crude version of national syndicalism. Why due to it mainly inverting a purely national syndicalist economic structure. Also due to political opportunism and other reasons it works with the bourgeoisie under false assumptions because of its philosophical foundations (All are subjected to will of the state by any means). The bourgeoisie is one result of many that leads to their downfall. Also it’s Jacobin like methods use the state way beyond its responsibilities. Philosophically it is basically in a way a type of humanism due to its philosophical founder being Gentile. A flaw of one of its metaphysical presumptions is that human and state have no distinction and this actually leads to worship of the state in a very Jacobin manner which is their aim but this aim is its own undoing. Also it goes against its organic state principles by contradicting itself do to inorganically unifying the people within the nation. Fascism isn’t capitalism in decay like ignorant people state but rather it is the results of an extreme rationalist type of socialism and ultimately leads it to passivity due to its Hegelianism and humanism.

Blanquism is a bourgeois socialist ideology that existed around the time of Marx and its influence eventually slowly creeped into proper socialist circles. Marx, Sorel and others heavily criticized it due to it rejecting a spontaneous mass worker movements and instead using Jacobin like methods of a secret elite. Lenin himself was actually acused of this btw but in my opinion it was mainly his enemies exaggerating his vanguard and misunderstanding it. However the USSR post Lenin and other socialist countries countries could be considered adjacent to this but it would have to be considered by each respective nation as to properly understand if it truly is blanquist or not. My main problem is that it can be used against socialism and is in reality an illusion of actual progress towards socialism. Sorel one of the great influentical socialist writers made sure to emphasize how dangerous blanquism can be and in my opinion socialists regardless of their school of thought should consider his warning as it undermines the socialist movement as a whole.

Guild Socialism is a better variant of socialism compared to others discussed here however it does have flaws. To call it bourgeoisie is to misunderstand it because it has proletariat elements very much imbedded in it as it has some syndicalist factions. Also it’s social corporatist position is only good in so far that this corporatism makes this unity embody class struggle to its very core. Guild socialism is not reactionary either despite it taking inspiration from the guilds of old. Guild socialism is correct on wages, prices, ans other economic matters. What it gets wrong is it’s sympathy to reformism but not all of them were really reformists so this is pretty nuanced in areas. Some guild socialism in areas were more or less precursors to different types of syndicalism. Guild socialism needs to rely on syndicalism nowadays because the conditions that made guild socialism plausible no longer exist and so it should instead take refuge within aspects of syndicalism otherwise it won’t amount to much.

Markets aren’t a permanent solution to the problems caused by capitalism in a very primitive form they could be argued to be necessary to achieve a more sustainable long term socialism. For example economically mutualism is this short term solution but should not be the long term. Mutualist economic structures should only be used to further develop it not exist on its own. The amount of time this in a specific area various in different factors These factors include but are not limited to industrial development, economic development, and various standards of living measures. Southern American Socialism advocates for a more mutualist organization in underdeveloped areas because it wants these areas to establish a better industry based off of quality and not quantity and it suggests that underdeveloped areas use this longer due to its lack of proper industry. While it suggests that more industrialized regions last in this phase shorter compared to the underdeveloped regions. Eventually markets as we know them will be completely dissolved and obsolete once socialism takes over in its post-primitive form.

Once post-primitive socialism occurs and a more developed socialism arises commodity production becomes abolished and a syndicalist structure will take over as the profit base system will be outdated at this point. This creating a non profit based society bounded together by unions, syndicates, ect all for the sake of helping each other in their respective communities rather for the sake of profit. However this doesn’t mean automatic equality as some people would suggest. Struggle will continue and human nature will still be flaw it’s just profit in this society will no longer be the main factor anymore and other factors will arise.

Before going into the solution of fixing property the most be some further context in as to not cause confusion. Firstly there is a difference between personal property and private property. Personal property includes things such as your house, your personal items, etc. Private property includes things like land, factories, ect. Also prior to modern property it was very different before the rise of capitalism as well. Private Property was also more community oriented as is evident throughout most of human history. Also another thing to note private property is not absolute either.

Now onto how modern property is and how its used. Modern property is used in a way that threatens the value of people by corporations and other entities based on the pursuit of profit. For example in some areas there are pseudo monopolies by corporations that prioritize it over the community resulting in the community being over reliant on it to survive this tight grip on it. Also types of bourgeoisie buy out land and do nothing with it which further escalates the problem further. Another thing in more recent times things are made worse due to the renter society mentality where the bourgeoisie makes sure you own nothing and that everything even outside of private property is just a simple contract agreement.

In the past their were different ideas and solutions that could have lessed the problem or avoided some issues of modern property. For example had distributism been implemented earlier it would have redistributed property a lot better and be a buffer during the period of rampant growth in capitalism. However we no longer live in that specific period as distributists solutions are for the most part outdated. Since we cannot go back to the past and use what worked in the past we must find a new solution to the issues of modern property.

The solution is to abolish how modern property is and over a period of time make private property more communal oriented as to build better solidarity amongs communities and radically change it. The community owns the land and the factories. However individuals still own their personal property and the mode of private property will have to shift to adequately triumph over capitalism. The Church will still be able to maintain its property and the state cannot nationalize their land. Another thing is that parish communities would be better suited to manage Church land than the government.This syndicalist shift should not harm religion in any form whatsoever. There is a possibility for private property in essence to exist within this model however it would look vastly different from the capitalist model and this is simply a speculation as a developed socialism has not been implemented at this point.

(WIP) Property will be shifted to become more communally owned and this reflects how it has been historically. The abolition of property isn’t to rid property away completely but rather to do away with the capitalist notion of property. Without this distinction it leads to a grim reality. Why because if property is entirely abolished then it includes personal property. Therefore it would lead the state controlling everything which no socialist would agree to. This clarification is necessary before expanding it further.

“32 Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common. 33 With great power the apostles gave their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. 34 There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. 35 They laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. 36 There was a Levite, a native of Cyprus, Joseph, to whom the apostles gave the name Barnabas (which means “son of encouragement”). 37 He sold a field that belonged to him, then brought the money, and laid it at the apostles’ feet.” -Acts 4:32-37, The Holy Bible (RSVCE Translation)

Now with the quote explained earlier I will lay down the first principle. The role of property should serve the well being in the community not solely the individual. It should be arranged under Christian principles as provided by the quote. This also shows that property is communal owned and is intended to help one another. This contrasts the capitalist views and practices of property. Once property is corrected it makes sure the community provides for everyone as much as it can.

Secondly the state cannot simply seize or colectivize property on a whim as this in my opinion contradicts socialism. Rather it’s the proletariat that seizes it and gradually makes it communal to make sure that principle of each according to their needs is fulfilled. Another thing is that the locality has a greater responsibility to ensure their wellbeing as issues must be solved more locally before going to the national government. The state can only seize for the wellbeing of the people as to prevent monopolies or to punish those who don’t abide by the rules. It is more about ensuring that the community is safe and following its duty rather than collectivizing everything.

The notion that the proletariat must sumbit itself to the state even with property is also absurd because it creates a state beyond it’s duty. Socialism doesn’t want this because it clearly clashes with liberating the proletarian. This is also to prevent people becoming a ward of the state. Things will be shifted to promote productivity to ensure that this doesn’t happen as the state is only a necessity not an absolute. This even extends to property outside of personal property.

This radical view is just simply understanding property’s organic roots without using reactionary means. Instead it proposes to push forward while being againist capitalism. It has to have a more naunced approach to property and this includes some more guild styled view otherwise you simply will ultimately expand capitalism’s grip. This is what some socialists don’t get. Even someone like Marx would recognize this dichotomy otherwise you would have an enslaved proletariat with the state fully collectivizing property. Socialism is doomed if this reality is ignored.

The reason why socialism becomes doomed with out this distinction it slowly concedes power to the state and fully ensuring who every controls the property is entitled to it all. The most logical conclusion would be an all encompassing totalitarian state. Thus the proletariat would be enslaved in this framework and not liberated. This is why the solution is to make nuanced distinctions and still have a communal property system. This will put balances on the state over time and the property that people know will go away over time.

Socialism truly frees property and makes it no longer theft. Why you may ask? The reason is this becomes consensual instead of by coercion. Property radically changes and respect the proletarians wishes.This will get rid of abstractions and allow the proletarian to fulfill their own destiny. This distinction better clarities what socialist mean by abolition of property as it avoids confusion and helps foster true liberation.

(WIP) To clarify this is taking about after the abolition of the bourgeoisie. This is proposing the steps to a higher stage of syndicalism after the revolution. It also accounts the realities that some bourgeoisie will still be around after the revolution. It is more or less a proposal in preventing the return of their influence and power.

The peasants aren’t the only ones the require proletarianization within socialism. The first and foremost one is the remaining bourgeoisie. If not these elements will still exist in socialism. This process will be methodical and its aim is to prevent any bourgeois. resurgence. Second will be the petite bourgeoisie as they aren’t as harmful but eventually they will be holistically encompassed into socialism. Finally the argarians as they need the most due to their undeveloped economic realtizes. The whole point of this is to frame what class struggle will ultimately do which is revitalize society.

This will not be done by the state but rather through the community over time as things become more syndicalist. This is more outlining a higher stage of syndicalism so to speak. The methodical approach is needed to prevent the bourgeoisie from destroying the notion of autonomous producers being the mode society is organized by. The mechanism in syndicalism specifically the union structure will help with this. The party that exists will merely aid in this to reach the higher stage of syndicalism. After that the party’s role is completed.

If socialism doesn’t somehow get rid of bourgeois influence it will be doomed to fail in multiple ways but ultimately it won’t result in the liberation of the proletariat. Instead it will take the place of the bourgeois and make a new wage slave class. Which should be heavily fought against. The emancipation and autonomy of the proletariat is paramount otherwise we will create a new capitalism.

Southern American Socialism holds tradition as very important to the development of socialism and as an importantnce to the nation and people. It argues that there should be more of revolutionary approach against the status-quo that wants to kill tradition. It views that traditionalists nowadays are more revolutionary than the so called modern revolutionaries because they culturally are similar to the status-quo. It sees using more revolutionary-traditionalist methods making a more feasible socialist society. It views liberal progressivism as nothing but a decadent bourgeoisie ideology. Since it holds Sorelian positions the nation myth holds great importance. The myth brings people together in the revolution and in it’s opinion this dynamic to socialism makes it whole. It views Sorelianism as adding the final touches and fully polishing socialism.

Southern American Socialism is opposed to modernist and post modernist views of society. It views that these two are vile ideologies and that these two are slowly killing civilization. It likes more traditional and organic views of society and sees Sorel’s variant of syndicalism as a more organic approach by incoprating traditional aspects into its more revolutionary framework.

Southern American Socialism holds a synthesis of revolutionary and traditional ideas thus making revolutionary-traditionalism. It sees reacrionaryism as missing the point of conserving society and recognizes that not everything of the enlightenment was bad. It believes that some variations of nationalism are good and some developments are good but he still is skeptical about other elements of the enlightenment. It holds the position that spontaneous reactionaryism will inevitably collapse in on itself and doesn’t really like the rose tented types of reactionaries that don’t understand how society functioned before the enlightenment. It still is ultimately skeptical about reactionaryism

It is pro-life without exception and views that life is a very precious things. It holds the position that the society should have harsh policies to prevent abortion as a consideration.

Even though it agrees with socialism it still thinks the Church is essential to society and respects what the Church has done. It is not opposed to the Church like other socalists are. It still thinks the executive should be legitimized by the Church as well.

It understands that America is actually made up of multiple nations united as one. It sees this as one of America’s strengths. It believes that every culture in America should be persevered and respected. It believes in the perseverance of other local dialects and strongly supports federalism because of this. It also believes in persevering native cultures too because they’re just as America as the rest of America. It also advocates recognizing all the native nations in America. It also suggests when the syndicates are implemented they should reflect the various local communities throughout America too.

It also believes that America is stronger together than divided and he believes that the status quo wants the various different parts of America fighting against each other and to prevent them from realizing its more of a class issue in America. It also believes the status quo wants to keep the class issue out of the minds of people on purpose to keep themselves in power and to prevent the full strength of those against them.

Despite America having a strong Protestant heritage it also has a strong Catholic heritage and those who argue otherwise don’t understand American history as they think they do. The Catholic heritage of America starts with Maryland as it was founded as a Catholic colony. Also a lot of other parts of America have Catholic heritage. It holds the position that the strong anti-Catholic rhetoric that has existed and in small parts today in American society is actually un-American because it disrepcts a vital aspect of the nations that make up America that have a Catholic heritage. It also views that negative rhetoric as a way to weaken American unity.

It upholds a position closer to the classical ideas of what freedom of religion meant in the United States which was more closer to freedom of denomination rather than the more secular idea that Americans think today. It sees America as a Christian nation. It however does extend some religious toleration to some other religions but unlike secularism it doesn’t include the toleration to various cults. It also supports protecting the historical Christian heritage of America. It does believe that people have the right to be right or wrong but ultimately wants those in America to find the fullness of the truth which is Catholicism.

Its revolutionary views aren’t one from below which disregard family, religion, and traditional values. Its revolutionary ideas are one from above which aims to counter act against modernism/post modernism, capitalism, hyper individualism, and all those who oppose traditional values. The society will aimed at correcting the errors of modernity society ultimately. Society must move forward in hand with the Church.

To take a page from Gramsci we must gain a better understanding of culture to overcome cultural hegemony of the ruling class. The key to this is intransigence within the institutions once the institution have been taken over. The intransigence is not from a snobbish or bigoted outlook but rather one the doesn’t lose the meaning of the movement within socialism. This is to counter bourgeoisie socialism as well as they are within the bourgeoisie cultural and political sphere because they gave up aspects of their movement for bourgeoisie legitimacy. So instead this should be rejected to prevent the fraction of the mass movement which includes all sorts of people regardless of religion, race, gender, sexuality, ect. To paraphrase Connolly he states regardless of the identity socialism is human and the movement should not be fractured based of what is considered identity politics should be left to curb and tactics should be used against the distractions of the bourgeoisie to weaken their cultural hegemony. This interpretation ties back into the Sorelian myth which encapsulates the struggle against the bourgeoisie not merely political but culturally as these two are intertwined. The traditionalism as meantioned in sections prior is not a reactionary one but rather one that moves with us and this is another example of the Sorelian myth because it unites the movement together against the bourgeoisie.

Eventhough these two have completely different outcomes they share a same end goal which is something above themselves that transcends culture and reason. The Christian Mystic wants the closer union to God that transcends reason itself as divine revelation is more powerful and insightful than mere human rationale. While the socialist who makes a myth of the general strike crafts a unifying unwavering movement above themselves and pushes regardless if the revolution succeeds or fails because their movement transcends reason as well.

The common shared goal between the two is transcending above reasoning and these two can actually learn something from each other despite what people think. They can both learn ways for unwavering irrational commitment to something more grand than themselves. This irrational behavior is not against logic or reasoning but rather too much reliance on rationalism and each has their own explanation as to why they act as they do.

There is one thing that is not a myth but a reality of the general strike is that this movement is something striving above mere action and risking everything for a noble, just, virtuous, and ethical type of governance against tyranny. It does point to something more than just the self or collective as well. This is not idealistic meandering because this myth is more than idealism or even materialism because it is neither one of the two due to actions. Its action is the driving force that goes beyond simple class analysis and is the essence of class struggle. Without action there is no class struggle only potential. Which other socialist agree with it but those who embrace the myth of the general strike go beyond that is the very myth itself is the embodiment of class struggle not just in words alone.

Socialism needs a unying myth to bring all peoples together because without it there’s a limit to what it can accomplish. This is why socialism not only needs to remove the abstraction of the mind as in idealism but it needs to remove materialism from itself as well. Some Marxist will object and say historical materialism isn’t like crude materialism and it can in part be a good explain for the revolution. However they’re partially correct because historical materialism has a limit to the whys and hows but it doesn’t explain the action in itself which is why it is good insofar in its understanding. Material conditions can only go so far in explaining a revolution but action do much more than anything an individual can even comprehend. This ties back into the why as to the reason these socialist what something makes the movement transcend mere human reasoning. The idealistic notion is also partially correct because it tries to make an abstraction of a particular thing. What it fails to understand is that you cannot fully abstract what it will be in reality and it will only be confined to the imagination. This is why action is the emphasized as it is real and the act is far more effective than just merely a idealist or materialist explanation because action is and not a how or what it just does. So there’s not contention between the realist approach that exists within it.

Now back to the Christian Mysticism part. The Christian Mystic push more than just the intellectual Christian. However there’s nothing wrong with the intellectual Christian but intelligence only goes so far. Yes some Christians who aren’t mystic realize this too. The difference is the mystic pushes and lives this out and wants a closer connection even if they don’t fully understand the why or how. They simply act and that is what in their opinion is what people long for ultimately for something great than them.

These two long for something above themselves as stated prior just different means. Neither should oppose each other but rather better understand each other in the shared goals to merely act and to have an end goal to transcend cultural and reason. This is why in Southern America Socialism’s opinion another reason Sorel has respect for early Christians and doesn’t reject their insight because he saw this shared goal. However he might have not been so inclined on everything but nonetheless it is still important to understand the myth of the general strike. Without understanding these connections it makes it seem like the myth came out of nowhere and is idealistic but in reality the myth has always been in us the entire time which is the act to do.

The fact that socialism is primarily an industrial movement does not mean the environment should be ignored. Various socialists in the past had either ignored this or did very little to improve things. To change things like other socialists suggest the exploitation of the environment should be vastly considered because if not this would continue the capitalist exploitation on the environment and said exploitation would directly effect everyone in society.

However just because the environment should be considered doesn’t not mean worse conditions to only benefit the environment as some people would suggest. It should rather take a wholistic approach the benefits both people and the environment. To go against bourgeoisie exploitation of the environment the environment not profit should be considered when building house, infrastructure, ect. The industrial mode should not take over the environment but complement it.

(WIP) The role of industry should not replace the environment because the environment provides at lot for us. Another reason is what would be worth having industry if you struggled just to do basic things due to pollution. Also just because man is at the top doesn’t mean we should tear up the environment. Instead it should be framed to manner to how things were but updated to today’s time.

Firstly the industry should take into consideration the environment and the ecosystem in this area. This is to minimize radical changes in an ecosystem which would also affect us. For example a factory should be built environmentally conscious. What this would entail is material that makes sense for the environment and taking everything else into consideration. Having this would allow more natural looking architecture as well.

Secondly the industrial output should be able to aid in things like reforestation for example. If the industry cannot help reduce waste it’s simply inefficient. Industry is not just about producing goods it’s also about providing solutions for society. A solution that harms not only you but society is not good. Therefore modern industry must be reimagined to better handle problems. Also it will be a win for everyone if it helps reduce pollution.

Industry shouldn’t be based off of profit. With the profit incentive do away with under socialism this will truly transform industry. It will advance it yet return to what it was before super industrial capitalism. What it looked like was more organic and in ways more sustainable for the environment. In the past that was because of the technology. However today we should do that not to imitate the past but to make things better for not only our future generation but for a better future.

Ultimately industry should have a mutualistic approach and relationship with the environment. This will insure in the long term more efficiency and productivity whilst lowering pollution which is a “win” for both areas. This will also make sure that there is balance made between the two. This all ties back into do things for the better of society because society cannot function without the environment so therefore it is making society more organic with this framework.

It is neither East nor West diplomatically because it puts American interests first into diplomacy. Its diplomatic thinking is closer to the Non-Aligned Movement and thinks America should be more neutral in diplomacy. It also doesn’t really like the old Cold War mentality of the U.S and thinks that America is too tangled up internationally and that’s why it’s Non-Interventionist. It also agrees with George Washington’s statments of not getting too tangeld up in the affairs of other countries. Even though it’s mostly non-interventionist it does believe in necessary circumstances America should be involved more. For example in Palestine and for other humanitarian issues. Even to overthrow foreign governments in the extreme cases but however overthrowning foreign governments shouldn’t be the norm. It is Anti-NATO because it belives that NATO is outdated and has served its purpose and it believes that America should make a new alliance and even rethink its allies because there are a lot of so called “trusted allies” of America who don’t do anything for America or only just benefit off of America. It thinks some of Americas allies are just simply leaching off of America. Southern American Socialism belives in closer relationship with its neighbors. It is also heavily Euroskeptic and thinks the EU is nothing more than a globalist, liberal, and capitalist project to errode the sovereignty of Europe. It holds the position that it’s not about unity in Europe but for a way for the status quo to have a harder grip on European politics and to make Europe passive to the status quo.

It is pan nationalist and suggests that America and Canada due to their shared culture, history, and values should be united as one country. How this would happen is gradually over time through diplomacy rather than war. It would suggest different agreements that would eventually form a political union between the countries. It believes they’d both benefit from this. Even though its a pan-nationalist it wouldn’t want to erase the unique cultures in Canada because it views them just as important as the other cultures in America as some people groups in America orignate in Canada like the Acadians who are the ancestors of the Cajun peoples for example. It believes that what has prevented this from happening for a long time is the political elite, their bourgeoisie, and Canada’s anti-Americanism to give them some kind of justification for not being a part of America. It argues this was the real reason for this. Since this sentiment is decreasing it thinks they’d both benefit from this. It can also be a way for them to become united as one. Also the various provinces would be redrawn to fit alongside local and cultural lines.

Southern American Socialism proposes a confederation of sorts between Latin American. This confederation is not to diminish the sovereignty of these individual countries within Latin America rather for cooperation. The confederational body will serve as a mediator as to fix borders and to prevent instability in the Americas. Each nation has representation and each member can vote are various different things pertaining to cooperation. The body does have specific authority but since this a confederal model members have more authority than the head body so it priorities locality. However there is an exception if the confederation cannot agree in certain issues such as borders the confederal judiciary shall decide on the matter and disagreeing members shall take the matter to court to sort things out instead of waging war against each other.

It is against imperialism due to it taking the negatives of nation building and of empire. Also it disproportionately affects the native population and other people within the nation. It also critques the European Union for being a imperialist project in the worst way possible due to economic reasons and due to this it believes that the EU in reality is a French or German project for dominance and not one of real European unity. It also criticizes China as an imperialist power and he doesn’t like the treatment of its own people and their centralized approach. It criticizes China’s economic imperialism in Africa as well due to them taking advantage of poorer African countries.

Southern American Socialism views just as nationalism in the Western sense as forward thinking it suggests a similar concept within civilization. Why he views that is due to nation being integral to civilization. It suggests diplomatically that America should view how does this also affect the advancement of civilization. So he suggested that the greater cooperation should lead to civilizational unity in not just North America but also South America. Even though it dislikes the modern West it still would support a strong Western force. It mainly dislikes the modern Western due to it wasting its potential and chosing the worst options. It advocates for a renewed West that fixed the wrongs. It heavily dislikes anti-Western civilization forces. It argues that an anti-Western Civilizational America makes zero sense due to America being massively influenced by the West and built by it.

(WIP) This is a diplomatic proposal to build a block against neoliberalism. It will focus on cooperation rather than promoting globalism. Trade will be framed in a way that takes more national sovereignty in consideration. The sovereignty and economic autonomy will be maintained and a core principle of this block. For example if a nation does not want to be integrated with another nation that is their prerogative to do so. This flexibility will be allowed to prevent unnecessary pressure from other members.

This block is not a static block either because if it does it will be no better than the current one. The block every so often will be rejuvenated and it should not be hesitant to kick members that aren’t willing to agree to this. New representative will be selected every so often. The representative will be selected for each member state to be reflected each members aims. It shall also be decentralized in nature as check for weaponizing the block.

The block will first start with America and its neighbors then branch out to other Western nations. This Western block is also a means not an end. The end goal is civilizational unity but not under one government as this isn’t realistic at the moment. The reason national struggle is very important currently. However in if future conditions due change members can debate on further unity. However the block being only a means should still be emphasized.

This block will be separate from the eventual confederation established between Latin America as stated in the previous section. This block is the stepping stone to for greater Western unity. While the confederation has more to do with North and South American unity. However members of the confederation can join this block but those outside of the Americas cannot join this confederation as they sever different purposes despite similar aims.

Southern American Socialism views through a historical lense that a truly noble monarch and the DoTP are essentially almost identical. It was the monarch who placated the nobility over time which led in some nations to embrace a more absolute monarchy while those who didn’t still emphasized a strong monarchy. It wasn’t the people who overthrew the monarchy but rather the disgruntled bourgeoisie in a power grab because they knew they’d be next. Intially the enlightened absolutist postion the fixed the problems and learned from the mistakes and saw fit to make sure the bourgeoisie didn’t get too strong. The mistake they made is that they at times were too friendly to the bourgeoisie and didnt find ways to prevent the bourgeoisie inflation and eventual takeover. How does the DoTP relate to this you may ask? The DoTP addresses the mistakes of the enlightenment and is the accumulation that will placate the bourgeois similar to the monarchies that placate the fedual nobility of the past. The DoTP can also be considered the parent of the revolution similar to the concept of the monach as the parent of the nation. In its opinion the DoTP is a monarch fully freed from the shackles of capitalism and can serve the responsibilities of the people. It is essentially a non-liberal popular monarch. This monarch is also platonic in nature. Then Sorel’s myth attached to this makes even more sense to it as well.

It takes inspiration from Plato’s philosopher king and Henry St.John’s patriotic king which in part in the context of America loosely influenced the Founding Fathers’ view of a strong executive. These two gave it a more naunced position of the DoTP that are quite unorthodox to socialism.

National syndicalism firstly pre-dates fascism because the first national syndicalist party was the Circle Proudhon in 1911. While the earliest fascist party wasn’t founded until 1919. However something to note fascism was was merely a faction within the national syndicalism movement and vastly different to what it developed into. Around some point national syndicalism and fascism had a split resulting into two different movements because of the later clash between anti-Jacobin and pro-Jacobin influences of the two. Edouard Berth and Alceste De Ambris are two examples of national syndicalist who opposed fascism for example. Georges Valois is another example of one but he wasn’t one initially and his realtion between fascism is messy at times. Even though these two have overlapping ideas in areas they have completely different conclusions. For example classical national syndicalists and anti-fascist national syndicalists tend to reject totalitarianism and a top down approach to economics and build up on the revolutionary syndicalism. Some are also more critical of idealism. Also they promote a more federative syndicalist framework which fascists would disagree with due to their different ideals of the state and economic development. These types also tend to support class struggle more so than fascism does overall. Fascists are different as they support a corporatist approach that rejects class struggle in parts because of its philosophical and economic frameworks. It has a top down economics approach. Also since it upholds actual idealism, which is a variation of humanism in the non liberal sense, its metaphysical presumption ends to a totalitarian state which is very different from how classical national syndicalists and anti- fascist national syndicalists view the state. The reason why people think national syndicalism is fascist is due to fascism piggybacking off of national syndicalism. While in reality the two lead to completely separate outcomes due to their influences and developments.

(WIP) Marxism is like any scientific socialist school of thought needs to adopt and change as to better understand how a changing economy and society is achieved. It also has to put into consideration that scientists can be wrong on certain things as well as people’s knowledge have limits. This doesn’t mean it doesn’t have interesting insights rather the problem is it is not a complete system. This is evident even before Engels died. ^[23] Things have to be reanalyzed and if somethings Marx got entirely wrong they have to be dismissed for it to be consistent. Marxists today due this but the problem is they don’t go beyond Marx’s initial system therefore they get half baked results due to using outdated models or the model isn’t adjusted enough.

The scientific socialists to realize this problem was Georges Sorel and others. Marxists of his time had largely made it static and stagnant. This criticism is expanded on Sorel’s work “The Decomposition of Marxism.” Marxism had become stagnant due to very rationalistic inputs instead of focusing on direct action. Things like positivist influences also hampered it for example. Sorel initially sought to prevent the decomposition but he ended up moving past Marxism entirely over time.

After Sorel, his student, Èdouard Berth continued what Sorel had started and wrote in detail about moving beyond Marxism. He is better than a lot of Marxist thinkers due to truly understanding the scientific nature of socialism. He mentioned how incomplete communism is and would simply devolve into mutualism. This is a difference between syndicalism and communism. This shows a triumph of syndicalism over communism even though Berth didn’t see it in his life time. The reason is that history proved him correct with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the development of China and the failures of other ML states.

Why this vindicates this syndicalist position is due to communism not being able to combat neoliberalism. Bolshevikism was defeated after the Cold War and only four to five ML states exist today however they are a former shell of what they used to be. China, Laos, Vietnam and Cuba are generally considered to be this four. North Korea according to some is included ^[24] Also since communism wasn’t able to adapt it eventually took on neoliberal like characteristics to survive. An example is Deng Xiaoping’s reforms in China. Another is how communist parties look like in Western countries and their values they hold would be considered very bourgeois compared to communist principles. Even though syndicalist experiments were few this doesn’t invalidate their position. It shows that Berth was correct in his analysis as market socialism is more popular amongst “communists” today then back then basically unknowingly adopting mutualist positions to survive.

This doesn’t mean socialism has no core and essential principles. For example the abolition of modern private property is one. When looking into the applications of socialism to see it must be compatible with the essential principles and this is the key. For example the myth of proletarian strike understands action needs something to keep socialism united. This allows for an evolution of socialism and to better understand how it will look later on. This is a key to avoiding revision or refoemism and this should be avoided to allow for proper evolution. However this doesn’t mean the dynamic character should be minimized as this a key characteristic.

Marxism misses the multidimensional nature of economics as it mainly focuses on the material reason and this is on reason why it is incomplete. Without understanding in depth of other factors such as cultre for example you will have a puzzle with missing pieces so to speak. Sorel and others gradually filled in the missing pieces and this greated advanced socialism. Also the syndicalist tradition in this topic has been more consistent on authority unlike Marxist sub ideologies due to them consistently being against authoritarianism. While the Marxist sub ideologies gradually become more authoritarian and some totalitarian. This also suggests another case of something incomplete. The reason is that it still resembles something that exists prior to socialism.

(WIP) Communism is unachievable due to its philosophy and metaphysics. The reason is not because of material conditions but rather how it goes about these. Another thing is the improbability of its conclusion that the state will wither away but not falling into utopianism or idealism. These problems regardless of updating make it highly unlikely or impossible to actually be achieved.

Firstly when communism is broken apart by its metaphysics and philosophy things have to be clarified. First communism is not materialistic in the traditional sense as it views materialism differently and this due to the major influence which is Hegelianism. Despite Marx breaking away from it he still uses what he would consider the good parts of it. This modernist philosophy is ultimately its downfall because of what it implies. Its modernism also brings it to the conclusion that wouldn’t be ideal.

Why it isn’t ideal is due to the language of Hegelianism because it creates a totality. Communism contradicts itself because this totality clashes with proletarian liberation and the state withering away. It’s metaphysics would actually point towards something differently. It would create this upward synthesis which also comes from his influences other than Hegel. Communism instead would have a further centralization and a new state would be form that would look vastly different from the bourgeoisie one.

So by this logical by their own framework this shouldn’t happen logically. It would continue to collectivize morde due to this nature and if the interest of this commune deems the proletariat an obstacle it will defend itself from this. Instead of tyranny of above it creates it from below. This totality will eventually make the proletariat submit itself to it. Even if hypothetically the old state this new pseudo state will replace it meaning communism’s conclusion by its framework doesn’t make sense.

Secondly the the idea of the state eventually withering away is a pretty idealistic. I get that this is more of a post socialist ideal. However without falling into idealism or utopia like thinking this is a very absurd thing to claim. This contradiction in the framework of being against utopianism while realistically speaking it leads to some form of utopian thinking makes it impossible.

The reason why this is impossible because it is synthesizing clashing forces which are anti-utopian and utopian like ideas. So logically this synthesis would collapse into itself as the opposing forces would clash so much that the framework would be very fragile. This meaning it is unlikely and improbable from this

If the obstacles are so hard to overcome the superstructure will collapse and as stated earlier this is problematic . It means communism cannot really be statless by its own principles. Which is the biggest problem in the system which the other two aren’t as much of problem if you exclude the stateless requirements.

The classless and moneyless are actually achievable in so far as long as there is a force strong enough to prevent this consolidation. Which cannot be achievable without a state. This is the ironic part of communism. The administration of things is the new state and with the philosophy the leads to something way worse than what existed prior and it seeks to encompass everything within this commune. Which would make it in practice more similar to a form of fascism than anything. However the difference is everything is concentrated in this pseudo state and instead of an organic state by fascist principles.

The reason there will be a pseudo state arising is to have this force to try to prevent outside forces hampering the commue and realistically any form of governance uses some type of force to prevent it from being overrun from other forces. This is a reality of governments regardless. If not then barbarism and chaos will rain supreme at the expense of others. Communism ends up contradicting itself and creating tyranny to protect the commune. To summarize nothing against the commune, all within the commune, and nothing outside the commune. The reason for all of this is that communism is a type of absolutism and this is why it is not achievable as outlined by Marx and Engels.

(WIP) The year 1688 was chosen as the point of British Liberalism’s rise because this accumulation of ideas resulted in the “Glorious Revolution” which was supported by bourgeois who were particularly Protestsants who disliked the more High Church policies of the Church of England and the anti-Catholic attitude resulted in these bourgeoisie calling the support of the Dutch overthrew King James II of England and VII of Scotland who was legitimate monarch of England, Scotland, and Ireland. This revolution sentimented the parliament as the one who called the shots and slowly the monarch became ceremonial. This also was furthermore felt more slowly throughout the British colonies in North America. These actions as ultimately ended up in the breaking point of that resulted in the American Revolution which the Americans saw the British parliament is the true enemy but realized that king wasn’t free from the blame due to King George III following parliaments orders. Then by the end of the American Revolution you see the split between Anglo Liberalism. One of British and American thought thus creating a rivalry until sometime prior to World War I. Ultimately the America liberal thought beat the British because Great Britain is basically a satellite of America now.

This analysis isn’t to say that we should return to a society prior to 1688 but to understand what the “Glorious Revolution” caused for Britain and that liberalism had existed in Britain well before the French Revolution and really that the British were the perpetrators of liberalism and spread its ideals. Another thing it’s aftermath isn’t what the Whigs thought a liberal society would come about and Britain is not really recognizable as much to those who championed the liberal cause early on. Liberalism in Britain didn’t help the lower classes it only made them passive and weak. Liberalism only benefited the bourgeois classes that’s why they were so keen on it and still are despite its negative impacts.

(WIP) There were those who fought in the 3rd Jacobite Rising of 1745 and some of these men ended up fighting in the American Revolution. This will mainly go over how the Jacobites had some influence in the American struggle for independence. For example Hugh Mercer the great grandfather of General Patton was a Jacobite veteran and he was a friend of Washington and he served under him as well ^[25]
[26]
Jacobite thought finding a home in parts of America does make a lot more sense than some people think. Mainly due to the Scottish not wanting to be a mere province in Britain and this idea did influence some people thinking in American. So with this context in mind the fighting against the British crown left the plains of Britain and into the American plains and culminated into the American Revolution. So in a way America independence in some sense indirectly was a win for the Jacobites.

Firstly before addressing this we need to outline what clas struggle means as it is not simply a Marxist position nor does it mean humanity is only confined to view that a reduces it to only economic factors. This view predates Marx by a lot and is evident in Proudhon and other philosophical writings. It is also clearly present in Vico’s work because he talks about the differences in human civilization but somethings aren’t unique and struggle between interests groups is one. Also class struggle is not a utopian or idealistic view in where society peacefully propells a specific class. Rather class struggle is confined into a realist view noting that action determines how struggle between interests groups shape society. Nor does it propose people are reduced only to material parts or to the chemical make up. Rather it recognizes things within people are complex and this ties into areas such as class. Once this baseline is understood it becomes better to understand that this view isn’t incompatible with Catholic teaching. The reason it isn’t incompatible because it doesn’t automatically mean classes will be done away with rather it realizes the dynamic nature of people and by extension society. Also if we generalize class struggle then some like Vico or others that are clearly not materialistic or Marxists would be condemned but since they are not then peeling back the misunderstanding makes it better to start from a dialogue.

Next there are various views on class struggle but the one that makes the most sense is that class struggle can be viewed in a divine light instead of as something demonic. Why because it doesn’t promote senseless violence nor does it put people above God rather it tries to better understand people without caving into rationalism. Also it views ethical defense grounded in divine law in this view. So with this into consideration it cannot be anti-Christian when carefully studied and applied appropriately due to the fact it considers what is part of divine law. It can also be tied into just war. The reason is if a specific group uses tyrannical methods against the other then ethical violence like self defense would be appropriate. So therefore it establishes an ethical response to tyranny.

This is not to change what class struggle is but rather understand what it actually is as this idea has different connotations due to being misapplied by modernists in my opinion. I bring this up due to the fact the ideas of development of doctrine are still defended by the Church despite modernists misappropriating it. So why isn’t something like class struggle not defended as much? It’s rather unfortunate but it feels like something could be lost if this is hostily opposed. Class struggle viewed in better context does explain something that is evident within society.

In my opinion due to Sorel understanding a Catholic writer like Vico he fixed Marx’s misunderstanding. Why because Vico is opposed to reductionist definitions like Sorel and puts emphasis on act and doesn’t put rational thinking on this pedestal. This makes class struggle not just an economic condition confined by materialism but a breathing force caused by action embodied by myths or poetry to better understand people. He shattered the decaying misconception that always was there. Why because Sorel was influenced by Catholicism directly or indirectly due to his various influences and which in the Catholic view contains the fullness of truth. So therefore if pushed enough we can find the truth of class struggle that no Catholic could simply say is false. This clarification is provided to prevent skepticism that has been prevalent for a while on this topic.

Class struggle is also not about abolishing the community, class, or proletariat in the communist notion. Communism fails at understanding socialism because it thinks to solve the contradictions by abolishing it which goes against its anti-Utopian stance thus making it weirdly utopian according to syndicalists. So if class struggle does not make all classes go away what does it do you my ask? It actually rejuvenates society and in the syndicalist perspective uses this to propel society to a proudcer society bound together by community built from the bottom up. With this clarification out of the way it is closer to a unity amongst society despite its revolutionary nature. However this doesn’t mean it placates to class collaboration because this force does a lot to rejuvenate and facilitate a unity because it is solidarity that allows class struggle to begin with because without a joined struggle what can an individual do on its own? If it is viewd like this there might be less push back from the Church as this view aims to be united by truth.

I understand there will be objections because other will say but what about harmony amongst classes? Which is not a convincing argument and is pretty idealistic as different interests groups will eventually be at odds and clash or cause struggle between each other. So really struggle is the only thing that can bring amongst greater unity. Sure a the capitalist class will be abolished because post-abolition there would be no distinction between the two so then enventually greater unity will be formed not be impressive words but by action. To further clarify why I said there would be no distinction because the capitalist mode would be done away with and a new society would take its place. This society will have no distinctions as it will transition into a society of producers rather than one of consumers so then everyone will be at varying levels be responsible for a specific output as there no longer be one class responsibile for this.

Neo-jacobinism has existed in various ideologies from liberal to non liberal ideologies. This ideology has similar problems to its predecessor but the difference is that it is a more recent variant. Therefore it has other problems too. This will give a few examples of neo-jacobin ideology as well.

The first example of neo-jacobinism would be liberal post-Napleonic War. However at this point it was rather underground and other types of liberalism had took its place or in other countries was just classically conservative. The then Concert of Europe largely forced other influenced by this ideas to be pragmatic so if some weren’t underground they had to become pragmatic. Charles X’s failures could have lead to a resurgence but it did not. The 1848 liberal revolution which argued could be somewhat neo-jacobin failed due to poor tactics and also other forces crushing them. Also the very weak second republic dissolved and Napleon III creating the Second French Empire practically forced it underground in France yet again.

The Second example would be the blanquists. I pointed this out due to them heavily borrowing from jacobin thought and ideal especially with their secret elite emphasis. These ideas would go on to influence other movements that took inspiration from them. An idea in specific is the view of a vanguard however it is different from Lenin’s. The difference is this vanguard is to be permanent and has no plans to remove it in the future. The other ideas of the blanquists include their views on centralism which could be argued to be liberal in nature compared to Lenin’s centralism. If you want to the more detailed critique of please refer to the section called “ Criticques of other variants of socialism and ‘socialism’” for better clarity. To summarize its failing is the cold calculated elite. However this ideas spread further than the previous examples

For the third example the argument provided is that the proponents of Italian unification were themselves neo-jacobin. As they believe only a unitarian centralized government could unite Italy. They dislike traditional organized religion but viewed religion as a necessity. There problem is that it didn’t really solve the Southern question. However by this point this ideology is becoming more strengthened. An example of a figure would Giuseppe Mazzini.

The final example is the accumulation of this into one very recognizable 20th century ideology. Yes there were other movements but they were not as relevant compared to others. This ideology is fascism. Fascism realizes this as it moves beyond classical jacobinism. For example instead of just merely stating the government is for the people they would state the government is the people and there cannot be any separation between the two. It is due to its philosophy and practices. They also go further on the civic religion and move beyond the dichotomy of freedom of religion and freedom from religion to the state itself is religion. The reason is they argue the the state should not only encompass the spiritual but everything of the individual. The idea of traditional religion co-existing within fascism would be opposed so far as it benefits it as explained earlier as the state is religion itself as well. Even the philosophical founder himself links this to liberal tradition. To clarify jacobinism is a form of liberalism. He said,

Of which liberalism does one wish to speak? I distinguish two principal forms of liberalism. For one…liberty is a right; for the other a duty. For one it is a gift; for the other a conquest… One liberalism conceives liberty rooted in the individual, and therefore opposes the individual to the State, a State understood as possessing no intrinsic value—but exclusively serving the well being and the improvement of the individual. The State is seen as a means, not an end. It limits itself to the maintenance of public order, excluding itself from the entirety of spiritual life—which, therefore, remains exclusively a sphere restricted to the individual conscience. That liberalism, historically, is classical liberalism—of English manufacture. It is, we must recognize, a false liberalism, containing only half the truth. It was opposed among us by Mazzini with a criticism, that I maintain, is immortal. But there is another liberalism, that matured in Italian and German thought, that holds entirely absurd this view of the antagonism between the State and the individual.- Giovanni Gentile

Now with this quote out of the way this points that neo-jacobinism was realized by going beyond mere classical liberalism and that in the fascist view is liberalism finalized hence why they reject classical liberalism. The problem with this is that it is extremely rationalist in nature as in itself using everything it can to justify it for true “liberty.” This makes jacobinism look tame as they go beyond the culte of reason. This is an abhorrent understanding of liberty and justice. This proves that this ideology is the conclusion of what was simply an extension of the Ancien Regime.

To clarify what this position entails context will be provided. The Jacobin Regime was merely an extension of the Ancien Regime not in character but by institutions and proposals. The Jacobin regime didn’t end the ongoing propses of centralism that occurred during the absolutism in the Ancien Regime. Secondly it further expanded the state more. Sure the ideas and means where different but still resonates with King Louis XIV. He said, “I am the state.” Fascism is simply the conclusion of what continued under the Jacobin regime. Also to mention just because they oppose monarchy doesn’t mean they oppose absolutism. Their framework has differences but it parallels it. They would state that the state is me and all of us because we are the grantors of liberty which is indistinguishable from the state.This still echoes King Louis XIV statement just beyond him.

In conclusion neo-jacobinism is a problem due to their idealistic and quite frankly flawed view of liberty. It completely subjects the will of the people to the state to justify their tyranny. This is simply the jacobin menace but on steroids. The reason is it results in a very warped state that unknowingly becomes the sole thing it hates which is the status-quo. It is the the result of misguided fanatical revolutionary thinking not reactionaryism. Socialism opposes liberalism not because its reactionary but rather it wants to fight against the notion that the state is all and realizing this grants more liberty. The state is a means not an end.

(WIP) Fourth Positionism is not a sufficient force against neoliberalism. This will be clarified before going into more detail. Firstly fourth positionism will be explained. Secondly the methods will be explained. Thirdly the issues with will be discussed. Finally this will provide reason why it is not sufficient against neoliberalism.

Fourth position takes multiple variations but the most recognized variation is the one formulated by Dugin. To summarize fourth position it proposes a new alternative against what it dubs first,second, and third position. The first is liberalism, the second communism and the third fascism. It also states each have outdated methods and were ideologically defeated. It recognizes civilization has an important role into geopolitical analysis as well.

It tries to achieve this is mainly through a geopolitical analysis by supporting of a multipolar order that is against the current unipolar order. It supports various movements against the unipolar system typically anti-Western though. Dugin’s variant specifically claims Russia’s civilization is influences are Eastern should be a part of a proposed Eurasian civilization state. It also further explains the differences between this and what it calls Altantis or the West. This is just a summary of its methods as to not go beyond the scope of the critique.

The main issue is how civilization is defined in my opinion. Dugin tries to put Russia in a neat Eastern Civilization box and history debunks this. For example Russia was more aware and in contact with Western ideas more than than Greek scholars were. This is evident in debates amongst Western writers and Russian writers well before the Peter the Great. The “Eastern” notion of Russia is purely geographical and even considering it politically Eastern is a stretch.

Russia is only “Eastern” because at times it wanted and still wants to make itself distinct from the West. When Russia specifically isolates itself this occur more. The Eastern positions in practice are really Western. For example the notion of Third Rome is pretty Western. Russia tying itself to Rome as a source of legitimacy comes from Western idea. The dominant Western portion has shaped Russia rather than the Eastern section so this shows why it is that way. Also this better shows the complexities in Russia and the Eastern civilizational Russia makes little sense when we properly analyze the context.

Western Civilization actually extends a lot further then people realize. The core of Western civilization is within the direct and indirect influences of what was the Roman Empire. The Eastern Roman Empire was only geographically Eastern and somewhat culturally Eastern but the civilization was still Western. To be more semantic it was an Eastern-West hybrid and this better describes the hybrid nature. Therefore logically Russia inherited this from the Eastern Roman Empire if we seriously consider their idea of Third Rome.

The next issue is what can be created economically to be an alternative to the positions its against? The fourth position solution is pretty vague on this as it’s priority isn’t economic as much. Instead it focuses on the geopolitical analysis rather than economics. This is problematic because if it is trying to make an alternative then a robust economic model should be proposed too. The lack of economic analysis is its own failing because if it is trying to beat neoliberalism with a sound economic model it will be crushed by neoliberalism.

These oversights will in the long possibly have neoliberalism out do fourth position due to neoliberalism trying to survive by an means. Therefore it will become something it dislikes which is an outdated theory and position. It is only a small antidote to neoliberalism but not the cure. What good is a multipolar world if neoliberalism still exists? Instead a force that can properly deal with neoliberalism without ignoring key elements should be considered to prevent being crushed by it economically and politically.

(WIP) This is analogy to King Charles II of England, Scotland, and Ireland. He was called “The Black Prince” it is a nickname given to him by some people and has been used in both literature and music. The nickname derives from his perceived appearance by some and parliament even used it during his exile. This to symbolize a hope for better America. This will explain a stable America that isn’t polarized. The black prince will return and take his rightful throne and he will restore the true liberties of the people. The throne is not literal but a metaphor for a strong figure assume rightful power supported by the people. Then he will justly reign and be a figure that people will remember for a while. I can see this hypothetical executive to be one of the best in a long time.

The black prince will be precise in decision making and deal with America’s enemies from within. He will also deal with Congress and force greater transparency and faithfully serve the people. He will end lobbying in the country. He will seek righteous vengeance against all those that harmed the American people. He will also effectively deal with capitalism as being the parent of the revolution. This is analogy to Charles II’s regin and speculating it in a revolutionary manner.

The black prince is supposed to represent hope and renewal not gloom. That is why in the beginning I clarified he will bring hope to America. He will to the best of his ability fight the politicans. Under him I would also say he will allow limits on Congress while making sure the executive is stronger to prevent a messy situation in the future. He will not use executive orders frequently to ensure his changes aren’t done away with.

It is hard to say who exactly will embody this figure but he will come to revitalize America society just as it did to British society for a time. His regin will create a new Era of Good Feelings. People who live after this will note propsperty and note the emergence of a new cultural impact in America. However this America will look different from what it is currently. He shall start the course to ensure his successors can combat new challenges.

I would say his successor will be his daughter rather than his son and it won’t be inherited rather the people will choose her. Then eventually she will reign and her reign will be far greater than the black prince. The reason is that black prince will come to stabilize things and set the stage for something grandeur and that pushes to new heights.This possibly could be the first official female head of state in America. Her reign could be possibly greater than any executive America has seen. She will fully embody and symbolize the spirit of the revolution against liberalism and capitalist.

This myth of the black prince is tying into something within America’s vast history . I particularly framed in a way of a hopeful America by using a myth we inherited from Britain. This should maybe give a better idea of a future executive. I don’t think America will have a Cesar figure nowadays because I’ve realized what America pulls from more. This is why instead I pulled from something else. Ultimately the black prince will be a myth of hope for the future. Even if he doesn’t come as expected regardless this myth will still encourage hope for America in the years to come.

To further clarify what I mean is since America has Anglo-Celtic influences this won’t create a Cesar figure. Instead the parallel is akin to Charles II or other Anglo-Celtic figures arising from polarizing times. Cesar figures have different context and is more appropriate to myths from Latin influences. This is why I moved away from the American Cesar idea. A figure like Charles II is more plausible in an American context. However certain things are speculations except for the Charles II type figures

(WIP) Before going into the arguments against Whig historicity there needs to be clarifications. Then seeing how this view has been put into practice. Also different similar views that are influenced by this will be mentioned to. Finally the arguments of how this view of history is shakey and misses this. This all ties back into the central point.

Firstly Whiggism arose from various ideas and arose during the time of the English Civil War. An example of what we’d call this early iteration would be some supporters of Oliver Cromwell and we’d call them proto-Whigs. However Cromwell later broke with the proto-Whigs fractions. This didn’t prevent it from still influencing ideas within England and by extension Britian. Once the monarchy returned everything was different due to Parliament being more emphasised. This still didn’t prevent Charles II from being ineffective as a leader as the supremacy of parliament hadn’t been achieved so it initially was a balanced.

Whiggism developed from there and they seized the opportunity of their goals which is the supremacy of parliament. This opportunity was allowed after Charles II died and his brother James II of England and VII of Scotland assumed power. You may ask what allowed this? James II of England and VII of Scotland was Catholic. The Whigs who were anti-Catholic used this to overthrow the government and this resulted in what they named the Glorious Revolution of 1688. If you want a more detailed explanation refer to “1688 The Rise of British Liberalism and Its Aftermath On Anglo Civilization.”

Now with the explanation of Whiggism out of the way now we can discuss the historicity. Whigs uphold a very linear view of history and resulting into a gradual end point with liberalism being fully achieved and they call this the “End of History.” This thinking influenced a lot people’s views of history and how it should be analyzed and it put a larger emphasis on the end of history than others did prior to it. This challenged the older view of history which is more cyclical than purely linear.

Whiggism is the source the inspired Hegel’s march of progress. He believed as technology increased things would continue to get better over time because of advancement. Other liberal ideologies did similar things to Hegeol. Regardless they all put an emphasis on the end of history with some kind of moving progress of sorts being realized at the end. This is what I meant by it influenced a lot of peoples think of history. This also had some influence on Marxs and Engels with historical materialism in areas as well but they broke with liberalism in areas on this subject such as bourgeois notions of progress but it still remained in a similar structure as Marxists technically believe in an end of history like the Whigs did.

In practice it mainly resulted in everything must be done in the name of progress and this shouldn’t be questioned. It also gave a very idealistic view to history and some ignored the realism within history. This view was heavily tested during World War I because the technology that was supposed to make things better resulted in the deaths of millions. Then World War II crushed this even harder. These events lead to a rise in ideas challening the Whig historcity on a more mainstream level as people felt lied to. The Whig historicity in the meantime had to adopt so these events didn’t kill it rather it had to go to the drawing board so to speak and find something else to say is the end of history. It nowadays goes by a different name.

Neoliberalism is the successor to Whig historicity and what it goes by political nowadays. It dropped the continual progress in general and replaced it with continual democracy as a better measure of progress. The reason is to due to them analyzing World War I and II. They use liberal democray’s triumph over the Axis in World War II as a reason to justify this. So really they just changed methods and approaches with new language and name but they’re essentially linked. They still essentially believe in an end of history but in stead of a continual progress marching on its democracy marching on for a better world and future.

This is actually a very shaky and problematic view of history. Firstly it presumes history is always linear. In reality history isn’t always linear and it rhymes so it is a combination of both. An example is an even might have a similar cause but it results in a completely different outcome so that’s why history doesn’t repeat rather rhymes. Also the Whig view of history and others in this view justify things in the name of progress or democracy. This becomes self defeating because it’s really just a tool for the status quo to use this as a mouthpiece.

Progress doesn’t happen linearly rather it takes grit and struggle and doesn’t abandon people. This why the whole march of progress is an illusion because it’s not about the people rather bourgeois interests groups using means to make sure the status quo doesn’t collapse. Another things is they use impressive language to make sure you have hope in the staus quo. Meanwhile they uses this tactics they already are plotting and planning to use any methods to protect this illusion because if not they have no justification for the status quo they want to maintain.

True progress exists beyond a ballot box or a machine. It is done by those who don’t give up despite the odds. It also rejuvenates society and it isn’t done in the name of it. Instead it something that happens because of blood, sweat, and tears. This is the realism of it all because progress is not this idealized notion the magically fixes everything either. Also it doesn’t abandon tradition either as it is imprortant to the community and the individual. This is the difference between real progress and the progress proposed by the Whigs and others mentioned.

• Union Democracy
  • Fusion Populism
  • Constitutionalism
    • Political-Executive and Economic-Legislative Duality

• The Political Executive Branch
  • Elective Monarchism
  • Monarcho-Syndicalism
  • Executive For Life
    • Temporary Vanguard
    • Union Above Party
    • Nomination by Merit
    • Representation by the People
    • / Legtimization by the Church
  • Federalism
    • Regonial Autonomy
      • Restructuring of State Lines
    • Foralism
      • Municipal Polities
      • Local and Regional Constitutions
      • Community Stewardship

• The Economic Legislature
  • Syndicalism
    • Multi-Level Union Legislation
      • Municipal Level
      • State Level
      • National Level
  • Decentralized Planned Economics
    • Agro-Industrialism
      • Urban-Rural Synthesis
      • Technologically Moderate
      • Nuclear Power Advocacy
      • Civilizational Architecture Appreciation
    • Local Economic Organization
      • Syndicalist Organization
      • Mutualistic Economic Organization in Underdeveloped Areas (transitional to syndicalist organization)
      • Workingman Guilds
      • Mutualist Banking
  • Protectionism
    • Limited Autarky in Essential Goods
    • National Self Sufficiency
      • Combined Production of Goods
      • Develpoing Substitute Goods
      • Ending Consumerism, Artificial Scarcity, and Artificial Supply and Demand
      • Abolition of Wage Slavery and Commodity Form (In the non-Marxist sense)
      • Community Oriented Trade

• Revolutionary-Traditionalist
  • Social Conservative
  • Traditional Catholic
    • Nuclear Family
    • Clan Structure for Extended Families
    • Complimentarianism
    • Collectivism
    • Anti-Consumerism
    • Anti-Abortion
    • Anti-Prostitution
    • Catholic Social Teaching

• • Social Justice
    • Anti-Racism
    • Interculturalism
    • Anti-Imperialism
    • Anti-Colonialism
    • Anti-Neocolonialism
    • Anti-Imperialism
    • Non-secular religious toleration and non-secular religious representation.
    • Against Bourgeoisie Cultural Hegemony Within a Revolutionary-Traditionalist Framework
  • Cultural Nationalism
    • The Nations of America as One
    • Forging A Proletarian Nation

• Pan-American Civilizationalism
  • Political Integration in North America
    • Native Autonomy
  • Confederation with Latin America
  • Merger of Canada and America
    • Common Continental Military
    • Common Continental Diplomacy
    • Common Continental Trade
    • Common Continental Development

• Supranationalism
  • Alter-Globalism
    • Accelerating Global Awareness of Capitalist Exploitation
  • Non-Interventionism
    • Limited Detente With the Second World
    • Anti-Zionism
    • Dissolution of NATO
    • Western Revitalization
    • Becoming a Non-Aligned Nation

• The Proletarian Strike
• Establishing a Mass Movement
• Establishing a Temporary Vanguard
  • Rebirthing the Revolutionary Syndicalist Movement in America
    • Succeeding Connollyism
  • Forging a Myth of Rejuvenation
    • Mass Media Campaigning
      • Inspiring Christians to Action
      • Encouraging Class Consciousness
    • Organizing on the Ground Level
      • Workers' Self Defense
        • General Strike

Note:some of the books I listed are from memory and isn’t a complete collection. As it progresses it is more accurate starting with Codreanu

• - Seven Themes of Catholic Social Teaching
  • by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (Read this before getting more into politics iirc but I’ve read this more recently too)
• - Reflections on The French Revolution (parts of it iirc)
  
• Works by De Maistre (portions)
  
• For My Legionaries by Corneliu Zelea Codreanu
  
• Alexander Hamilton’s Vision of an American Monarchy
  
• Declaration of the Cahiers du Cercle Proudhon
• Against Anti-Fascism: Amadeo Bordiga’s last interview interviewed by Sergio Zavoli and Edeck Osser
  
• Rerum Novarum by Pope Leo XIII
  
• The Servaile State by Hilaire
  
• The Twenty-Six Point Pogram of the Falagne by Jose Antonio Pro de Rivera
  
• The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Frederich Engels
  
• Reflections on Violence by Georges Sorel
  
• What Is To Be Done? Vladimir Lenin
• On The Freedom of the Press by Karl Marx
  
• The New Moral World Articles 1843-1844 by Frederich Engels
  
• Comment on James Mill by Karl Marx
• Introduction to the Critique of the Philosophy of the Right by Karl Marx
• Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts by Karl Marx
• On the Jewish Question by Karl Marx
• - The Condition of the Working Class in England by Frederich Engles
• - The Capitalist Bourgeoisie by Georges Valois
• - Summa Contra Gentiles Book 1 by St.Thomas Aquinas
• War or Revolution by Georges Valois
  
• - Declarations of Principles by Henri Saint-Simon
  
• Sorel and Social Architecture speech by Georges Valois
• The Restoration of the Guild System by Arthur Penty
  
• Guild Socialism Re-stated by G.D.H. Cole
  
• The Great Heresies by Hilaire Belloc
  
• Henry St.John Letters On the Spirit of Patriotism: On the Idea of a Patriotic King: On the State of the Parties
• The Socialist Future of the Syndicates by Georges Sorel
  
• Anarchism and Syndicalism by Edouard Berth
  
• Easy Eassys by Peter Maurin
• Ordered by Love: An Introduction to John Duns Scotus by Thomas M. Ward
  
• National Guilds An Inquiry Into the Wage System And The Way Out by Samuel George Hobson
• /Seventy Days In Russia: What I Saw by Angel Pestaña
  
• / Women’s Movement In Spain by Angel Pestaña
  
• / Trade-union and political movement in Spain by Angel Pestaña
  
• What Is Property By Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
  
• General Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
  
• The Illusions of Progress by Georges Sorel
  
• The Post-Right Explainer by ebeggin
  
• Communization For People In A Hurry by D.Z Rowan
  
• Communisation by Gillles Dauvé
  
• Newspapers and the Workers by Antonio Gramsci
  
• Men or Machines by Antonio Gramsci
  
• The Revolution Against ‘Capital’ by Antonio Gramsci
  
• One Year of History by Antonio Gramsci
  
• Red Ink Gramsci
  
• The Price of History by Antonio Gramsci
  
• Workers Democracy by Antonio Gramsci
  
• The Conquest of the State by Antonio Gramsci
  
• Workers and Peasants (August 2, 1919) by Antonio Gramsci
• The Development of the Revolution by Antonio Gramsci
  
• Chronicles of the new order by Antonio Gramsci
  
• To the section commissars of the FIAT-Brevetti workshops by Antonio Gramsci
  
• Unions and Councils by Antonio Gramsci
  
• Unions and the dictatorship by Antonio Gramsci
  
• Revolutionaries and Elections by Antonio Gramsci
  
• The problem of power by Antonio Gramsci
  
• The events of December 2-3 (1919) by Antonio Gramsci
  
• Workers and Peasants (November 3, 1920) by Antonio Gramsci
  
• Split or Disorder by Antonio Gramsci
  
• The ape people by Antonio Gramsci
  
• War is war by Antonio Gramsci
  
• The Turin factory council movement by Antonio Gramsci
  
• The Communists and Elections by Antonio Gramsci
  
• Men of Flesh and Blood by Antonio Gramsci
  
• The Arditi de Popolo by Antonio Gramsci
  
• The Two Fascism by Antonio Gramsci
  
• The grimace of Gwynplaine by Antonio Gramsci
  
• The Agrarian Struggle in Italy by Antonio Gramsci
  
• The tactic of failure by Antonio Gramsci
  
• The parties and the masses by Antonio Gramsci
  
• The Genoa Conference of Italy (April 19, 1922)
• Lessons by Antonio Gramsci
• The Vatican by Antonio Gramsci
  
• Neither Fascism nor Liberalism: Sovietism! by Antonio Gramsci
  
• Introduction to the First Course of the Party School
  
• Gramsci’s Speech to the Italin Parliament (16 May 1925) ^[27]
  
• Maximilianism and Extremism by Antonio Gramsci
  
• Sterile and Negative Criticism by Antonio Gramsci
  
• On the Operations of the Central Committee of the Party by Antonio Gramsci
  
• Letter to Palmiro Togliatti by Antonio Gramsci
  
• Gramsci’s Arrest: Letter by Tania Schucht
• Letter to Tania Schucht by Antonio Gramsci
• The Constitution of the Free State of Fiume by Gabriel D’Annuzio and Alceste De Ambris
  
• The Republic by Plato
  
• The Doctrine of Fascism (1932) by Benito Mussolini
  
• The Decomposition of Marxism by Georges Sorel
  
• Introduction to Marx’s Class Struggle in France by Frederick Engels
  
• The Class Struggles in France, 1848-1850 by Karl Marx
  
• Clara Zetkin’s Interview with Vladimir Lenin on the Women’s Question
  
• The Ideological Program of the ASLG
  
• Anselm of Canterbury: The Major Works (Oxford World’s Classic)
• Scivias (Know the Ways of the Lord) by St.Hildegard of Bingen
• Liber Vitae Meritorum (Book of Life’s Merits) by St.Hildegard of Bingen
  
• Liber Divinorum Operum (The Book of Divine Works) by St.Hidelgard of Bingen
  
• House of Hospitality (Summarization) by Dorthy Day
  

Daniel De Leon Works Daniel De Leon Internet Archieve

• James Connolly Works James Connolly Internet Archive

• The World of Labor by G.D.H Cole
  
• Towards The Human Community by Jaques Camatte
  
• The Dreyfusian Revolution (1908) by Georges Eugene Sorel
  
• Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R by Joesph Stalin
  
• The Society of Spectacle by Guy Debord
  
• Labor In The Commonwealth by G.D.H Cole
  
• Old Worlds For New by A.J. Penty
  
• The Meaning of Industrial Freedom by G.D.H Cole and W. Mellor
  
• The Consolation of Philosophy By St. Anicius Manlius Severinus Boethius
  
• A Merry Jest by St.Thomas More
  
• Utopia by St.Thomas
  
• The Biography of Georges Sorel, by Augustino Lanzillo (With An Autobiographical Letter)
  
• Application for the Suard Pension by Pierre Joseph Proudhon
  
• The Celebration of Sunday by Pierre Joseph Proudhon
  
• Explanations Presented to the Public Minister on the Right of Property by Pierre Joseph Proudhon
  
• My Testament: or, Society of Avengers by Pierre Joseph Proudhon
  
• System of Economical Contradictions: or,
The Philosophy of Poverty by Pierre Joseph Proudhon
  
• The Malthusians, the Representatives of the People by Pierre Joseph Proudhon
  
• Toast to the Revolution by Pierre Joseph Proudhon
  
• The Nature and Destination of Government by Pierre Joesph Proudhon
  
• The Coming Era of Mutualism by Pierre Joseph Proudhon
  
• In Connection with Louis Blanc: The Present Use and Future Possibility of the State by Pierre Joseph Proudhon
  
• Mutual Banking by William Batchelder Greene
  
• Hiding in Plain Sight An excerpt from Mutualism on building economic power for the mutualist ecosystem by Sara Horowitz
  
• Selction of Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci edited and translated by Quentin Hoare and Geoffrey Nowell Smith
  
• / Report Submitted to the Confederal Committee of the CNT by Angel Pestaña
  
• Manifesto of the Thirty by Angel Pestaña and others
  
• Basic Principles of Marxism-Leninism: A Primer by by Jose Maria Sison
  
• Marxism-Leninism-Maoism Basic Course by the Communist Party of India (Maoist)
  
• Activist Study by by ARAK
  
• Anarchism and the Workers’ Unions by Fernand Pelloutier
  
• Art and Revolt (speech) by Fernand Pelloutier
  
• / History of the Bourses du Travail by Fernand Pelloutier
  
• Syndicalism in the United States by William Z. Foster
  
• The Completed Works of St.John of the Cross Vol. 1
  
• Transforming Union: A Living Flame of Love by St.John of the Cross
  
• A Spiritual Canticle of the Soul and the Bridegroom of Christ by St.John of the Cross
  
• The First New Science by Giambattista Vico
  
• The New Science by Giambattista Vico
  
• The Balkan Wars by Amadeo Bordiga
  
• In the Red Light of Sacrifice Karl Libknecht…Rosa Luxemburg by Amadeo Bordiga
  
• The System of Communist Representation by Amadeo Bordiga
  
• Is this the Time to form “Soviets?” by Amadeo Bordiga
  
• Letters to the IIIrd International by Amadeo Bordiga
  
• Towards the Establishment of Worker’s Councils in Italy by Amadeo Bordiga
  
• Theses of the Abstentionist Communist Faction of the Socialist Party by Amadeo

Bordiga

• Seize Power of Seize the Factory? by Amadeo Bordiga
  
• Party and Class by Amadeo Bordiga
• Party and Class Action
  
• The Labor Movement: The Meeting of the Nation Council of the Italian C.G.L at Verona ( December 2 1921) by Amadeo Bordiga
  
• The Significance of the Socialist Split in Italy (October 7th 1922) by Amadeo Bordiga
  
• Speech in the Discussion of Executive Committee Report (November 11, 1922) by Amadeo Bordiga
  
• Report on Fascism by Amaedo Bordiga
  
• Meet anarcho-fascism by Dmitry Mrachnik
  
• Speech in Discussion of Organizing the Executive by Amadeo Bordiga (November 30, 1922)
  
• The Democratic Principles by Amadeo Bordiga
  
• Communist Organization and Discipline by Amadeo Bordiga
  
• The Trotsky Question by Amadeo Bordiga
  
• Interest and Principal: Arguments Drawn from the Operations of the Bank of France by Pierre Joesph Proudhon
  
• Interest and Principal: A Loan is a Service by Pierre Joesph Proudhon
  
• Interest and Principal: The Origin of Ground Rent by Pierre Joesph Proudhon
  
• Interest and Principal: The Circulation of Capital, Not Capital Itself, Gives Birth to Progress by Pierre Joseph Proudhon
  
• The Nature and Destination of Government by Pierre Joesph Proudhon
  
• Parliamentary Isolation by Pierre Joseph Proudhon
  
• What is Government? What is God? by Pierre Joseph Proudhon
  
• Dilema: Red or White by Pierre Joseph Proudhon
  
• The Philosophy of Progress by Pierre Joseph Proudhon
  
• The Extremes by Pierre Joesph Proudhon
  
• The Social Revolution Demonstrated by the Coup d’Etat of December 2, 1851 by Pierre Joseph Proudhon
  
• Unanimity: Universal Consent by Pierre Joseph Proudhon
  
• New Propositions Demonstrated in the Practice of Revolution by Joesph Pierre Proudhon
  
• Propositions: To Leave Behind Abstractions, Utopias, Systems, Doctrines, Theories and Empiricisms Of The Parties Schools And Sects by Pierre Joesph Proudhon
  
• “Questions eliminated by this organization” and “Revolutionary Practice by Pierre Joseph Proudhon
  
• Notes on “How Business Goes on in France, and Why We Will Have War” by Pierre Joseph Proudhon
  
• Relation of the State and Liberty, According to Modern Right by Pierre Joesph Proudhon
  
• The Theory of Taxation by Pierre Joesph Proudhon
  
• The Federative Principle and the Need to Reconstitute the Party of Revolution by Pierre Joseph Proudhon
  
• The Holy Family or Critique of Critical Criticism. Against Bruno Bauer and company by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels
  
• These on Feuerbach by Karl Marx
  
• The German Ideology: Volumes 1 and 2 by Karl Marx and Frederick
  
• The Poverty of Philosophy by Karl Marx
  
• The Communist League:
  • -Letter by Wilhelm Weitling to Moses Hess
    
  • -Communist Confession of faith by Frederick Engels
    
  • -Principle of Communism by Frederick Engels
    
  • -Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League March 1850 by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels
    
  • - Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League June 1850 by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels
    
• Nihilism: The Root of the Revolution of the Modern Age by Father Seraphim Rose
  
• Wage,Labour,and Capital by Karl Marx
  
• On the Question of Freed Trade by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels:
  • -Introduction by Frederick Engels
    
  • -Free Trade (speech) by Karl Marx <br<
  • -Free Trade and the Chaterists by Karl Marx
    
• On Poland by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels:
  • -Communism, Revolution, and a Free Poland by Karl Marx
    
• England’s 17th Century Revolution by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels
  
• The Peasants War in Germany by Frederick Engels
  
• Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Germany by Frederick Engels
  
• The Dialogue of Divine Providence by St.Catherine of Siena
  
• The Letters of St.Catherine of Senia
  
• Narrative of the Life of Federick Douglas, an American Slave by Frederick Douglas
  
• The Divine Comedy by Dante Alighieri
  
• The Interior Castle or The Manison by St.Teresa of Avila
  
• The Letters of St.Teresa of Avila
  
• The Futurist Mainfesto by Filippo Marinetti
  
• / Fascist Manifesto by Filippo Marinetti and Alceste de Ambris
  
• Autonomism: cutting the ground under Marxism by Internationalist Communist Tendency
  
• The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte by Karl Marx
  
• Heroes of the Exile! Karl Marx and Frederick Engels
  
• Revolutionary Spain by Karl Marx
  
• The Critique of the Political Economy by Karl Marx
  

• The Holy Bible Douay-Rheims Version
  

Self-Goverment In Industry by G.D.H Cole
Summa Contra Gentile Book 2
Summa Contra Gentile Book 3
Five Essays on Philosophy by Mao Zedong

Feel Free to Add

• Ienffism - The Unavowable Community by Maurice Blanchot
• Ienffism - Discourse on Decadence by Ango Sakaguchi
• Existential Flourism - The Joyful Sciences by Friedrich Nietzsche
• Ordo-Traditionalism - Theory of The Partisan by Carl Schmitt

• Spartakist Socialism
  • Expand
• : Pagan Imperialism - Julius Evola

“ Democracy is succeeding in throwing minds into a state of confusion, preventing many intelligent people from seeing things as they really are, because democracy is served by apologists who are clever in the art of beclouding questions. This is due to cunning language, smooth sophistry, and a great array of scientific declamations. It is above all of democratic times that it can be said that humanity is governed by the magical power of impressive words rather than by ideas, by slogans rather than by reason, and by dogmas whose origins no one thinks of looking into rather than by doctrines

founded on observation. It is my opinion that it would be well to submit one of these charlatan dogmas (that is, the idea of progress) to an analysis conducted according to that method which alone is able to guarantee us against all deception; that is, an analysis founded on a historical investigation of the relationships among the classes. Having in this way formulated several observations (which I consider worth- while) on bourgeois ideology, I have taken the liberty to submit

them to the public. More than once, I have played truant; whenever I have found the opportunity of clarifying the origin, meaning, or value of a modern idea, I have believed myself justified in digressing on that point.”- Georges Sorel “The Illusions of Progress Preface xliv-xlv

“ The educational policies of the Third Republic have placed the

church in daily conflict with the official representatives of democracy. The church took up the cause of its teaching orders, whose interests were endangered by lay teaching. The church conducted violent campaigns in the hope of abrogating laws republicans regard as unassailable. Not a single defeat discouraged the church, and she still hopes to triumph. Clericalism thus remains an enemy of democracy, and the latter tries to usurp the faithful from the church. The republicans have been denounced as "enemies of God"; as a result, academic competition has produced a battle against beliefs. Skepticism has become an essential element of the republican program, since the public schools have been successfully defended only through the use of anti-Catholic propaganda. The church made this propaganda easy because it entrusted its defense to sacrisity-haunting petit bourgeois, who thought it a good idea to teach the people things educated Christians would find offensive if addressed to their children: the doctrine of providence has sunk to the level of the intelligence of savages, their conception of nature is that of fetishists, and the Miracle has been dishonoured by a charlatanism worthy of drug peddlers. Primary schooling has permitted placing in the hands of the people, books and newspapers that show them that the men of La Croix and Le Pélerin laugh at them. The clerical press, in its blindness, has given its adversaries an easy way of demonstrating the stupidity, bad faith, and crass ignorance of the writers who call themselves the friends of God. The popularization of scientific knowledge certainly creates serious difficulties for Christianity, which has sometimes excessively connected its theology to the medieval concept of nature. These difficulties have been made particularly acute in France in the wake of the struggle undertaken by the church to preserve its teaching orders. That part of the bourgeoisie which possesses a slightly more elevated culture is much less hostile to the church than are the people, because these bourgeois have not been called upon to equate the Gospel with Pélerin." The priests who address themselves to this group almost always take the precaution of declaring themselves adversaries of the sacristy-haunting petit bourgeois, who conduct

political campaigns among the poor classes.”- Georges Sorel “The Illusions of Progress” Chapter 1 Section 3: p.28-29

”Progressives are actually more conservative than most conservatives not in preserving tradition and culture but rather persevering the staus-quo and it’s ways. That’s why I say a well read traditionalist today is infact a revolutionary because they opppse the modernist and post-modernist slogans fed to them by the defenders of the status-quo.”- Me

“Liberal democracy is nothing but a lie. It claims to be for freedom of thought but in reality it hates everything that opposes it and will use any tactic it seems fit to preserve the status quo instead of real honest debate.”- Me

”Hegelianism has done nothing but damage Western civilization. Its ideas are ultimately passive towards the status quo and it ends up being a tool used by the staus quo to keep its control. ”-Me

“As a Socialist I am prepared to do all one man can do to achieve for our motherland her rightful heritage – independence; but if you ask me to abate one jot or tittle of the claims of social justice, in order to conciliate the privileged classes, then I must decline.”- James Connolly, “Socialism and Nationalism”

“A truly free South and in turn America will only happen under socialism because it will be free from the oppression of capitalism. There is no other way to make a free South and in turn America without it.”- Me, Idea is inspired by James Connlly’s idea of creating a truly free Ireland free from the United Kingdom in “Socialism and Nationalism.”

“Promiscuity in sexual matters is bourgeois. It is a sign of degeneration. The proletariat is a rising class. It does not need an intoxicant to stupefy or stimulate it, neither the intoxicant of sexual laxity or of alcohol. It should and will not forget the vileness, the filth and the barbarity of capitalism.”- Vladimir Lenin

“This was the spirit of the men grouped around The Irish Felon, its editor alone excepted. Students of Socialism will recognize that many who are earnest workers for Socialism to-day would, like Devin Reilly, have ‘abhorred’ the crude Communism of 1848. The fact that he insisted upon the unqualified right of the working class to work out its own salvation, by force of arms if necessary, is what entitles Devin Reilly to a high place of honour in the estimation of the militant proletariat of Ireland.”- James Connolly, “Labor In Irish History Chapter XIV”

We must never forget that American is multiple nations gathered together in a grand union otherwise we forget the true character of America. These nations bounded together to form something grander and we must take this example to move forward with something even grander than our forefathers proposed. Together we march as one in this grander goal and said grander goal is socialism! E Pluribus Unum!— Me

The tryant’s state subjects us all, but cries ‘Democracy.’- Lyric from an English Cavalier song called “It’s A Mad World My Masters”

“Red is the color of justice and sovereignty. And since all men love and seek the red, is not red the symbol of human fraternity?… Deny the red flag, dye the purple, but that is to eliminate the social question, the right to work. Every time that the people, defeated by suffering, has wanted to express, outside of that juridical legality that murders it, its wishes and complaints, it has marched under a red banner. The red flag, it is true, has still not made the tour of the world, like its fortunate rival, the tricolor. Justice has spoken very well; Mr. de Lamartine has not gone farther than the camp of Mars. It is so terrible, Justice, that one could not hide it too much. Poor red flag! Everyone abandons you! Well! I embrace you. I clutch you to my breast. Cheers to fraternity! The red flag is the sign of a revolution that will be the last. The red flag! It is the shroud of Christ, the federal standard of the human race.”- Pierre Joseph Proudhon, “Dilemma:Red or White”

“I am not a monarchist for reactionary or rose tented reasons. I see that it fits like a glove with an organic type of government which can only be achieved with syndicalism. Then to reflect this monarch will be broken free from the inorganic bourgeois chains to go hand in hand with organic government. Then monarchy is of and for the people not simply above them because the monarch is no different than the citizens. Then monarch is only distinguished as upper in family as a parental partner and this the organic relationship of governance.” The reason is the smallest unit of governance is the family so naturally a parent leads a household and thus the monarchy is the head of multiple households which together is the nation.”- Me