Did Marx Get It Right?

August 11, 2011 By 53 Comments

Karl Marx predicted in Das Kapital that capitalism would destroy itself.  He believed that capitalism created two classes: the bourgeois upper classes and the proletariat lower classes.  Capitalism couldn’t help itself, Marx thought, from growing the latter.  Eventually, it would create a massive underclass that would rise up against its overlords.

There have been two theories as to why Marx was wrong.  The first theory, bought lock, stock and barrel by the academic establishment, is that capitalism prevented its destruction by buying off the underclass.  This technique was first implemented by Otto von Bismarck, who put in place state pensions, medical care, and unemployment benefits.  By the twentieth century, this idea was being promoted in America by figures such as Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson.  Even today, many businessmen and conservatives believe that paying off the poor is the way to prevent revolution.

The second theory regarding Marxism’s failure is that capitalism does not result in two classes, but in three: the rich, the laboring class, and a powerful middle class.  None of these classes are permanent. Lower classes can rise through hard work and wise investment; middle classes can become rich through the same formula. No man is chained to his station.

There are consequences to adopting either of these theories. If we accept the first theory, it is incumbent on us to raise taxes and to create government welfare schemes – in essence, to embrace redistributionism in order to prevent social upheaval. A bit of socialism inoculates us to communism.

If we accept the second theory, then the way to prevent the rise of communism is to embrace its opposite, capitalism. Individualism here represents the greatest bulwark against massive class warfare.

Pages: 1 2

Filed Under: Daily Mailer, FrontPage
About

Ben Shapiro is an attorney and writer and a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, and author of the new book “Primetime Propaganda: The True Hollywood Story of How The Left Took Over Your TV” from Broadside Books, an imprint of HarperCollins.

  • Donald

    The use of Organized Flash Mobs as a form of Terror

    Does anyone still believe these violent flash mob beatings are spontaneous? So, who is organizing them and who benefits?

    The answer is the same old villains, Marxist Revolutionaries.

    In their arsenal of terror over the last 100 years mob violence is just one of their murderous weapons.

    Flash mobs are being organized to attack BP gas stations.

    “Crowd Sourcing” as Van Jones put it in his speech during Netroots Nation 2011 in Minneapolis, Minnesota June 16-19, 2011 was a harbinger of things to come. Here is the video link http://www.netrootsnation.org/node/2004

  • Donald

    Jones' anger toward President Obama who fired him, Glen Beck and the “Tea Party” is evident.

    Is terrorizing white middle class voters using black teenagers as pawns a new echelon in the realm of disgruntled former employees.

    Was it some form of sick poetry to have kids invade a BP station over the July 4th weekend near Kilbourn Reservoir Park, Milwaukee?

    This mob then beat the hell out of some white folks who came to watch the fireworks.

    Here is a link to the “training video” on how to invade a BP station created by PowerShift2011 a few days after Van Jones was one keynote speaker, Friday, April 15, 2011, Washington DC.

    The video title says “Flashmob actions (like this one!) at a BP near you” http://www.wearepowershift.org/powershift2011

    For them in 2011, mob violence is also being used to stop revitalization of neighborhoods. Nice shops and new Condos, who doesn’t want that?

    They don’t.

    In their twisted thinking, like Cain who killed Abel, they must attack their fellow man, dehumanize him as privileged, a thing to be beaten and murdered.

    • http://www.contextflexed.com Flipside

      Boo hoo. Poor BP.

  • http://www.resonoelusono.com/NaturalBornCitizen.htm Alexander Gofen

    A few corrections.

    1) The Flash Mobs in London (and elsewhere), and all bums on welfare do not qualify for the term "proletariat" as used by Marx. Proletariat then were hard working laborers rather than the "feral kids", these good-for-nothing animals, the products of the liberast uneducation system.

    2) The entitlement mentality of the mobs did not even exist in the times of Marx.

    3) The low life classes existed in all times, yet they were kept at bay by the faith and the foundations of moral (to not covet, not steal). If occasionally those did not work – they were kept by bullets.

    4) The modern scum has no moral foundations indeed. So there is no choice but to resort to bullets.

    • Maxie

      Marx also believed that religion was a construct of the bourgeoisie to put a perpetual guilt-trip on the proletariat and thus keep them fearful and obedient. Thus Marx's atheism. Religion, and its moral ethos have been replaced by "do your own thing" postmodernism. Hence feral kids and lying, thieving politicians.

      • trickyblain

        Maxie, politicians though the ages, very religious ages, have shot, stabbed, beheaded, lied to, stole from, and done all sorts of terrible things to one another. Check out the history of the Holy Roman Empire. Ancient China and India. And of course, the Arab world. Rulers didn't last very long. Likewise, buring and looting carried out by angry mobs is nothing new at all — Jeruselum shortly after the time of Christ; the Whiskey Rebellion after the American Revolution. The most deadly riot in world history (30,000 dead) was carried out at the heart of the Holy Roman Empire: Constantinople, hardly a culture lacking in religion. Politicians and the poor behaving badly is a constant through history. And it hasn't, per capitia, gotten any worse or better since antiquity.

        • Maxie

          "And it hasn't, per capitia, gotten any worse or better since antiquity."

          That doesn't speak well for the concept of equalizing the distribution of wealth among the populations. It seems to me that wealth disparities were much worse the farther back in history you go. Slaves, serfs, subjugated popoulations, etc. Things should have progressed not remained unchanged "since antiquity".
          Obama himself has pledged to "spread the wealth". Evidently not a promising idea as his sinking popularity indicates. Man does not live by bread alone.

          • trickyblain

            "It seems to me that wealth disparities were much worse the farther back in history you go. Slaves, serfs, subjugated popoulations, etc. "

            Compare the standards of living disparites. A king in the dark ages caught the same diseases as everyone else. He also had little choice in terms of food, drink and entertainment. He lived in a dank, cold stone building. As a middle class worker, I have an infinitely better standard of living than the richest folks up until the 1850s.

          • Maxie

            Whatever your king's standard of living it was far better than that of the serfs who worked his land. The same diseases? No different today. Rich and poor alike get cancer.

        • aspacia

          trickless, you forgot that in the West, when corrupt politicians are caught they are jailed, just look at what happened to Blaggo (sp)

          Gofen is correct, the rioters are not what Marx called proletariat, they are a waste of oxygen, treasure and blood. Feral scavengers at best.

          During early industrialization, Marx, Dickens, Engels, et al saw human greed at its worst. Workers, many of whom were children died or were maimed in the factories. Most laborers did not earn enough to live, and many in the West were forced to purchase their supplies from the overpriced company store. The West did rectify many of these tragedies, albeit it was carried too far with everyone expecting an unearned handout.

          Shapiro is correct in much of his analysis.

          • Maxie

            " Most laborers did not earn enough to live, and many in the West were forced to purchase their supplies from the overpriced company store."

            This is suggestive of todays 'minimum wage' argument. How much should it be? Enough to 'survive' on? 'Thrive' on? Or how about an amount calculated to be the average income of all wage earners in the country?
            Who decides and on what basis?

            .

          • aspacia

            True-but I am talking about skilled labor, not a teen burger flipper. Skilled machinists, secretaries, et al.

            Should a skilled laborer make more than minimum wage? I would argue yes.

            Also, workers deserve a safe working place, and many workers, including children, died in nasty working conditions. Thankfully, this has changed, and business fought this all the way.

            The problem is that many such as the EPA and other environmentalists have gone overboard and are destroying jobs and good farmland with their idiocy.

  • Fred Dawes

    One word..YES!

  • welldoneson

    This goes a long way towards explaining why the hard left are so at one with Islamists.

  • 4Liberty

    1-Create social programs to demoralize and increase dependence. 2-Flood society with radical immigrants to take jobs forcing citizens to become idle and dependent. 3-Wipe out a couple of generations of patriots and instigate unrest through community organizers. 4-Allow new underclass to create chaos and anarchy allowing the leading elite to change all the rules. 5-Revolution complete. 6-Kill political enemies and restructure workforce. 7-Control every aspect of human civilization and behavior to insure services for the ruling elite. 8-Euthanize those no longer able to contribute, the handicapped, the trouble-makers, etc… 9-Strengthen police/military to separate ruling class from working class. 10-Continue to kill political enemies. 11-Ration services and food as leverage for desired behavior. Welcome to UTOPIA!

    • guest

      12-keep in mind that the first eleven points were written by a raving lunatic.

  • davarino

    Check out this speech by Mayor Michael Nutter
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dv1bI7SdtzM

  • StephenD

    It seems to me and I stand to be corrected but I think there is an element to this not getting the scrutiny it deserves. That is the fact that our youth ("These kids today"), in Western Democracies, are taught to think more of themselves than they ought. This focus on self-esteem makes them ripe for a Tyrant when things are not going their way. They become "Useful Idiots" promoting Anarchy, many not even realizing they are being used. Of course, the Communists are behind the unrest but what makes the participants so willing is that they believe they should not have to go through any hard times, that their worth more than that. Hence we hear quotes like "We're going to show the police we can do what we want." A few choice slogans thrown in and picked up by these "large mouth bass" so easily baited and then you hear "It's the rich peoples fault" or "Its the governments fault." Continued…

    • http://www.resonoelusono.com/NaturalBornCitizen.htm Alexander Gofen

      A thought like "I didn't pay attention in school" – is impossible in the rotten minds of those feral kids.

      1) They are corrupted by the "self-esteem" of grotesque proportion cultivated by the undeducational system of liberasts.

      2) They exemplify the OBJECTIVITY of existence of the low life class: the class which REPELS any attempt to teach them. Before the welfare state, the low life class was uneducated partially because of the lack of resources. Now we see that they are uneducated because of the misery of their own human condition.

  • StephenD

    We don't hear them ever say "I didn't pay attention in school” or “I spent my time getting high” or even “I am not willing to take a low wage entry level position to EARN my way into a better one.”
    I sincerely believe our problem is as St. Paul explained to the oppressed believers in Rome, “For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly….”

    • Chezwick_mac

      Great comments Stephen…you may be onto something. Our culture of 'validation without accomplishment' is both perverse and counter-productive. It temporarily sates the emotions, but does nothing to foster the actual growth of the individual.

      • Jim_C

        I don't know…this kind of talk is just fogeyism. Youth have always been a little callow and self-centered–they're young!

        These are also the kids doing our fighting for us.

        These are also kinder kids, in general, than kids were when I was growing up.

        They are able to–because they have to–sift through enormous amounts of information we never had to.

        And at any rate, it's never our own kids we're talking about, right? Always "someone elses."

        The kids are all right.

        • Babs

          I believe it's sentiments just as yours that have fostered the "youth have always been a little callow and self-centered? I'm curious to know how old you are. KINDER kids than when you were growing up? What is happening is that kids nowadays are growing up with NO morals and the "think what you FEEL is right" attitude is causing the problems that we are now reaping. Oh and there is no longer class "envy" but class "hate" towards anyone who does better than themselves.

          • Jim_C

            Fogeyism.

            If life was always better at some halcyon point in the past, you're just a fogey. "Sentiments like mine?" Seeing the good in people instead of throwing up my hands and griping?

            Church attendance is way up. Kids have "no morals?" Go to any school; you see kids of all races playing together. That was not the case when I was growing up (I'm 40). These are the kids who volunteered for active duty after 9/11. I don't know where you live, but my town is full of kids who do volunteer work and help out the schools and churches. Yeah, they play video games too, some drink, have sex. Guess what? They were doing those last two when my parents were kids.

            The world changes. It has changed more in the last 30 years than it changed in the previous 130 years. But human nature stays the same.

          • Chezwick_mac

            Jim,

            Certainly there are remarkable young men and women today who are every bit as courageous and grounded as any generation before them. But this doesn't negate the prevailing culture of entitlement and empowerment-by-victimization that is crippling many young people in Western societies, particularly ethnic minorities. This is what lies at the root of their hair-trigger propensity to engage in rioting and looting.

            Since this culture is essentially a liberal one, it's no surprise that someone like yourself perceives it to be normative and therefore nonproblematic.

          • Jim_C

            I'm not saying there aren't problems, and you know that. Conservatives, constantly looking back to some better time past, seem to accept this "as-is," ignoring both their own generations foibles and the things that were good and bad in those days. Was everyone a straight-A student back then? No…but perhaps there were decent blue collar jobs for you. Were people more wholesome? Maybe…but women had fewer options. There were not 150 distractions aiming for your attention (and pocketbook). You went outside and played baseball because that's all there was to do. Are kids more coddled now? I think so, too. But I see them as far more sophisticated than my generation. We have to remember how much information these kids have access to. It's easy to overlook just how big a point that is, and just throw up our hands because we're no longer farm kids .

  • FBastiat

    "Right"? Marx wasn't even COHERENT!
    http://www.abcdunlimited.com/ideas/leftism.html

    • aspacia

      Actually, Marx was bourgeois, and quite coherent, albeit he did not understand human nature and expectation of reward for hard work.

  • tagalog

    From a Marxist perspective, there is a good reason why neither of the theories offered holds water: the riots going on today are not riots of class-conscious laborers revolting against the excesses of capitalism; it is not the bought-off underclass revolting for some overriding economic reason, and it is not a function of rising expectations. What it is, is a spasm of the lumpenproletariat taking advantage of indecision and lack of will by the leadership to pilfer and steal, and burn and loot for the purpose of enjoying a brief respite from the tawdry lives they usually lead.

    The rioters are not people who have lost their options to seize a better life; they are people who have seized upon what they perceived as the main chance in their lives, the life on welfare, and who are now taking advantage of a chance to obtain what they can't afford through looting and get some relief from the boredom of idleness.

    Marx believed that the lumpenproletariat's horizons are limited to immediate gratification, and that's exactly what's going on today. People who have no interest in overcoming the system that trickles sustenance to them are grabbing what they can in order to gratify short-term desires and to have a diversion from their ordinarily dreary lives.

  • tagalog

    If this were a revolutionary insurrection of some kind, it would have a political odor about it. These riots don't manifest that; what they do have is an aroma of contempt for current personal circumstances and a desire to look for trouble and diversion. If it were revolutionary, there would be action against the police and government on some organized basis, not just looters fighting the cops trying to stop them.

    That female looter who was heard on tape shouting "We're getting our taxes back!" as she looted someone's shop or house is not shouting a revolutionary slogan; she probably hasn't paid any taxes other than VAT taxes or sales taxes in the last decade. What she's shouting is "F**k you, I'm getting mine and hurray for me!" Hardly revolutionary.

    There's a reason why the looters are taking clothes, TVs and electrical items rather than bread and groceries. It's that they want what's fashionable (or what they can readily sell for dope or booze), not what what they need.

    • Maxie

      The attitude among much of the twenty-somethings is that "it's all about me". They've been pumped full of bogus "self-esteem" in the schools and far too many have never worked or earned anything on their own. Deprivation of any kind is seen by these kids as a personal insult.

  • theleastthreat

    All Marx devised was a state run monopoly prone to attract the worst leaders of all. The one person who is most willing to look after your interests is you. You will spend 24 hours a day looking out for your welfare if that's what it takes. Who else is willing to go that far for you?

  • BS77

    Read Ann COulter's new book , Demonic, for an incredibly well researched work on the MOB mentality .

  • Jim_C

    "Marxism?" These are just yobs who saw an opportunity to get away with being yobs.

    Marx was very perceptive about a number of things, the most important of which is that the history of human conflict is material and economic–not spiritual ("My god vs your god"). One side wants what the other side has.

    But Marx's greatest error is in thinking there is no such thing as human nature–that human nature is changeable, mold-able. And capitalism, despite its amorality and excesses, accepts and fits in well with human nature. Property is simply fundamental to dignity.

    • aspacia

      Yes, my thinking runs across these same lines. Anytime a physician who is bright and works hard, but has no spouse or children receives less than a trash collector with a spouse and two children the system will fail. Why work hard and excel if not rewarded? Humans do not tend to behave this way.

  • trickyblain

    The two theories are not opposite, not mutually exclusive. One can help the other. This was demonstrated by FDR's policies — which were somewhat socialistic and, at the same time, promoted an unprecedented middle class.

    The hardcore communists were gaining traction early during the Depression. So, a bit of socialism did indeed "innoculate" capitalism against collectivism.

  • mrbean

    God I hate people that spout regurgitated worn out class based bromides about captalism rather than putting the effort forward to understand concepts in depth. Marx advocates Statism, which as a whole does not recognize any essential characteristic of human nature as the fundamental tool of survival for all of mankind; however, it does hold that it is one’s duty to sacrifice oneself to the collective whenever the collective “requires” a sacrifice. Therefore, according to statism, man is essentially his brother’s keeper, meaning that every man has a moral duty to serve every other man. This is based on the moral philosophy of altruism in which, as Rand defined, “The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue, and value” Unlike laissez-faire capitalism, statism holds that self-sacrifice, not rationality and rationale self interest , is the highest virtue that man can achieve.

  • tagalog

    Saying that Marx advocates Statism is what once was called "vulgar Marxism." Marx advocated the Classless Society.

    Statism creeps into Marxism when Marx claims that once the working class becomes class-conscious it will initiate a revolutionary overturn of capitalism. However, the spirits of profit motivation and exploitation of the worker will not be overcome by the revolution. They will have to be forced out of the life of the worker by "the dictatorship of the proletariat." Once the workers' revolution overthrows capitalism, they will bring about the communist state, whose goal is to create the social atmosphere in which the moral rot of capitalism is wrung out of society. Once that is complete, the state will "wither away" and we will enter the Classless Society, in which the true meaning of "from each according to his ability to each according to his need" will be the spiritual motivation for all economic activity.

    For Marx, capitalism and communism are merely two opposing sides of the same dialectical materialist coin, and history will end with no states, only the happy people living without borders in worldwide freedom and harmony.

    • mrbean

      from each according to his ability to each according to his need" abstracted to reality and put into practice, simply means what one man cannot or is unwilling to provide for himself shall become the forced burden of another, and to those who produce and provide will be the beasts of burden for those who cannot or are unwilling to do it for themselves.

      • tagalog

        That's as good a way as putting it as any. My way of paraphrasing it is, "when the system runs on the maxim 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs,' eveyone will eventually become needy."

  • AntiSharia

    This is right out of Dostoevsky's novel "the Devils" (which should be required reading for all people who are concerned with the problems in society today) both the left and the Islamic world have a strong Nihilistic element to them. They don't believe in anything so they want to destroy everything.

    Most movements have a battle cry. The American revolution cried "don't tread on me!" for the leftists today "it's not fair!" is their battle whine.

  • sedoanman

    "Lower classes can rise through hard work and wise investment; middle classes can become rich through the same formula."

    I disagree. The progressive tax system is designed to keep you in your place. There will be the odd exception where someone gets lucky [e.g., Bill Gates], but for the average Joe The Plumber, he's stuck in his station.

    • aspacia

      Not really, many move up to the next class through hard work. That is, I moved from skilled laborer clerical/secretarial to teacher and periodic adjunct which is considered middle-class. My parents were both considered skilled labor as well.

  • Ozzy

    Uh, Ben….
    Protesting isn't rising up,

    It's the right of the people to peacefully assemble and petition government for redress of grievances,

    apparently the founding fathers were thinking farther ahead than Marx…

  • BLJ

    Lets see…..Orgainized flash mobs vs the 82nd Airborne. I will take the later.

    These scumbags are not protesting anything. They are thugs working to destroy society. Give them a dirt nap and do the world a favor.

  • Russell

    The "class struggle" is an idea that belongs to an aristocratic age of inherited weath and privilege, not to a free-market capitalist system–crony capitalism aside–where the boundaries are not firm and the ability to produce shifts one into wealth (and the failrue drops one down into a lower economic level). Furthermore, there are many other factors at play, including increasing complexity, loss of focus, the degradation of the "elite", etc. that can easily lead to decline.

  • logdon

    Within Frankfurt school Marxism the structuralists, semiologists and cultural relativists play with meaning and perception.

    An outgrowth and bastardisation of Descarte's forest/tree question, human knowledge is construed as, as fickle as the clarity/cloudy vectoring prism of the observer. Did it happen? Only if we say it did and the raft of reality is thus holed by whatever interpretation we place upon it.

    Plonk on top of this the further confusion of all cultures being relatively equal and suddenly the concepts of right and wrong, good and bad, desirable and unwanted are thrown into question.

    Thus teaching of facts is viewed as wrong, rather our educationalists would place questioning and an unshakable self esteem which validates that questioning as of greater value to young, impressionable minds.

    In a fantasy utopian world there is merit in mixing these educational concepts within a mixed curriculum which balances these ideas with a surety of knowledge of real events. The old give a man a fish or a fishing rod maxim applies and quite honestly there's nothing wrong in promotion of critical thought.

    That, however discounts the human factor which Marxists seem to always airily, airbrush out of their idealistic equations.

    That human factor is the eternal fly in their ointment.

    Factor in the self seeking dogma ridden political idealogues who would, given half a chance exploit the deaths of their own parents, and the whole thing unravels

    This week we in Britain have seen this partisan posture in all its naked glory.

    Three doyens of the far reaches of leftist deception have taken on board the never let a crisis go to waste maxim.

    They are Labour Deputy Leader, Harriet Harman, ex London Mayor, Ken Livingstone and his side kick, race baiter extraordinaire, Lee Jasper who in their lust for rejuvenation within the British psyche are flailing this way and that to lay blame.

    Harman's egregious attack on the Tory spending cuts are particularly revealing. Without boring with detail, her thrust aimed at the economising measures as the be all and end all source of the juvenile rampage and riot.

    Unfortunately as we see in this clip her argument is scuppered by the fact that this financial slicing has yet to be implemented. In other words we’re entering make it up as you go time and the awful thing is they feel quite justified in doing so.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LpPym_4wc8&fe…

    Watch Harmans face filled with rage at the thorough thwarting she receives from Gove (and amazingly the beeboid boxwallah Gavin Estler) and you’ll see how far down that path to perdition they’ve ventured upon.

    The entire thing is a house of cards but unfortunately up until now has dominated the narrative whether in Obamaland or the great socialist republic of the EU.

    One thing, these riots have driven a huge nail into their best laid plans and a British public appalled at day after day of news of anarchy and thieving are at last seeing, up close and personal how top driven trickle down marxism is affecting every nook and strata of our society.

  • Pathena

    The jerks burning, looting, destroying London are doing it for fun. They are not poor – the Blackberrys they are using to coordinate their actions show that – Blackberrys cost at least $500 (I don't know in pounds plus VAT) plus contracts.

  • LindaRivera

    Islam and the Left work together to destroy civilization. The riots were extremely violent and cruel.

    UK Daily Mail, 10th August 2011 The parents of a dying baby who needs an urgent transplant could not be at her bedside because of rioters.

    Thugs had threatened to fire bomb Birmingham Children's Hospital and storm the wards on Monday night.

    Brave staff formed a human shield around its doors while police ordered a total lockdown.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2024393/U…

    Innocents were savagely attacked in the riots. Police, firemen, and ambulance personnel were also attacked. This clearly had nothing whatsoever to do with poverty.

  • LindaRivera

    Who was beind the UK riots?
    http://www.seattlepi.com
    August 10, 2011
    Militants urge British rioters to topple system

    CAIRO (AP) — Militant online forums are abuzz with calls to Muslims in Britain to launch Internet campaigns in support of the British rioters and to urge them to topple the government.

    Dozens of contributors on Wednesday suggested Muslims in Britain should flood social media websites, such as Facebook and Twitter, with slogans and writings inciting the British youth to continue rioting.

    One contributor says the rioters should adopt slogans similar to those used by Arab protesters during the uprisings in the Middle East this year.

    "The people want the killer of Mark Duggan punished" is suggested — a reference to the British man whose death sparked the riots.

    Another contributor says an Internet media attack is very important and that "chaos is useful to militants in London." http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Militants-u…

  • LindaRivera

    The media and other elites used the massacre of innocents in Norway for cheap propaganda — spitting on the graves of the victims — to condemn and demonize the brave heroes who warn about the dangers of Islam. This evil tactic is now being used by UK police against anti-sharia EDL whose members went out to protect the public from violent rioters.

    Brits complained that police stood back whilst the riots took place. Instead of asking for forgiveness for not protecting the public, senior police immediately used the riots to demonize EDL who were not guilty of anything.

    It is now a political strategy of ruling elites and the media to use violent riots and massacres to condemn and demonize non-Muslims who are against unjust Islamic sharia law and warn of the dangers of Islam.

    THERE MUST BE EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL UNDER THE LAW

    Mainstream media and ruling elites don't want us to resist Islam. They want us to submit.

    UK Daily Mail: Britain's most senior police officer yesterday warned that Right-wing extremists could 'hijack' vigilante patrols protecting against looters.

    Acting Metropolitan Police Commissioner Tim Godwin singled out the English Defence League and the British National Party as two organisations who might exploit the situation. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2024707/U…

  • TexExpatriate

    Both theories are nonsense. These spoiled brat socialists are rioting because they can get away with it. Such a thing could happen in the U.S. but because of the Second Amendment a lot of these fools would be killed if it happened on a large scale.

    A theory is useful in hard and social science, but it is useless in politics. People behave and only sometimes in predictable ways.

  • aspacia

    Yes tag, too bad so may liberals have zero idea regard Marx's theory.