" A spectre is haunting Europe " — (the Communist Manifesto).

Instances of abuse or exploitation by man of man have been on all accounts numerous ; there have been 'caste' systems written into the laws of some states, there have been many ways or sorts of abuse. All this had been reduced by Karl Marx to his 'proletariat' vs. 'bourgeoisie' terms ; unfortunately, his propositions contained not any less truth in them than fallacies.

No such a class as 'proletariat' had ever existed before the term had been coined. There had only rarely been found such an exact 'proletariat' as defined by K. Marx.*
    In the end, one is presently stuck with a badly-stated 'system', which might have originally something to do with what I have here termed 'ascent from below versus suppression from above'. But nobody's threatening anybody with a spectre has anything genuinly scientific in it ; the threat, however, was (and is) present, enticing some people to some (usually misplaced) revenge — and occasioning fear in some others who, under threat, will naturally oppose the source of their apprehensions. (These were not irrational fears ; if you were not of the 'proletariat', the reader, you were meant to be destroyed. That had in reality happened in many too many instances, of mass-murder, organised famine, etc.).

    * Note that those 'philosophers' had been eventually forced to struggle with their own definitions ; at some point Lumpenproletariat had to be invented, to account for some phenomena which could not fit under 'proletariat'. In the Bolshevik Russia (after 1917) there had been some serious problems with the 'kulak' — which meant any peasant who was not quite landless, who for that reason had been eventually deemed to belong as 'class-enemy'.

All this 'socialism' has in the meanwhile evolved into a sort of cult. The (demonstrably) fallacious Manifest has been reprinted year in year out ; some university professor somewhere wrote, "this new and exciting edition", of this Manifest, but a few years ago.

New, and exciting, mind you, an edition (in the USA) of old economic fallacies which, on an attempt exactly to apply them in post-1917 Russia brought ruin so rapidly that scarcely a comparison with any other such event could be found. This was usually blamed by the Reds on the counter-revolution (which would have been sometimes a factor). However, those claims were belied by an overt reversal, by Lenin etc., in the form of the New Economic Policy so-called, from the strict application of the marxian "economics" which had proved simply impossible.

Now some university professor somewhere in the USA speaks about new and exciting editions of some old errors. Is that not detrimental to the well-being of the people ? Some can be confused, mistake speeches about "progress" for progress, ideas of justice for just propositions, fallacies for economics, etc.

    Anybody not blind or illiterate had better noticed this, more so in the context of the entire history of the 20th-century communist "no conspiracy". Of the infiltration of the USA and any of the western democracies (so-called) ; and what this might portend for the future if unnoticed I would not now speak, HAVE YOU BEEN BLIND, the American people, etc.

On Timeless Truths versus Some Old Fallacies

Do you really need to "change the system" ?

There is no such thing really as a capitalist system aside from some lending/borrowing practices. To object against any possible abuses of such practices needs not changing everything that is found in the countries which have been often and inexactly called 'capitalist'.

The only system can be considered in some particular country as a system is its constitution, these can vary, and vary markedly among the several countries in the world.

The lumping of any and all countries where similar banking practices can be found into one category ('capitalist') looks a sort of inverted logic. The several constitutions do not usually spell out certain particulars, the lattitude might allow abuses but would the abuses be objected against rather than some generality which, on comparison of the differing constitutions, does nowhere exist.

To try to replace a non-existent 'system' (again, there is no one system among the constitutional states) with something else does not exactly aim at anything in particular ; this could reinforce some old habits or non-optimum customs, etc.

Had the proposed replacement ever existed as something doable ? It looks like it has been proposed to replace one non-existent 'system' with another non-existent 'system' ; for the Communist 'system', insofar as it is a system at all, is only a system for destruction of the other 'system' — the actally existing problems only being lost the sight of in such circumstances.

On Suppression from Above assisted by Suppression from Below

WHO places forgeries in the libraries, the reader ?

Now : whatever somebody's political views, 'ideology', opinion, any party who would resort to planting forgeries among other people place themselves by default on some 100% wrong side.

It seems that fabricated materials, false data, distorted history, are more frequently linked with the history of the 20th century Communism than with any other subject-matter. I do not give this as a fact ; read and compare, the reader.

Any honest believer (I suspect there may be some few such) has his personal Cause thus compromised by some criminals.

On Ascent from Below assisted by Wisdom from Above

This, it seems, was more or less the idea of Confucius, enlighten and elevate the individual, one by one, by some set or sets of (written) rules — This principle may have been re-discovered over and over again, by sundry authors.

On Ascent from Below assisted by Descent from Above

The Buddha, the Nazarene, ; whatever may have been in parts mythical can yield quite an amount of the practical. An individual who had attained higher understanding voluntarily descends among others in order to help them in their own lives.

On Ascent from Below Assisted by Wisdom on a Level

Socrates, Epicurus, Wyclif, etc. : any good teachers who ever lived.

What can be uniformly found among the poor, the miserables ones ? Want of knowledge.

What can be uniformly found among any suppresive/oppresive organisations ? Denying knowledge, to any interested ones.

Such parties can be any, the purposes can be any, the organized education in a state can be a very mixed blessing as soon as the contents of the knowledge given in the schools be manipulated with.

The Humanity's Potential for Wealth Unlimited

Apparently, one colossal blunder has been : the Have-nots have not because the Haves have. This might be sometimes the case (as when somebody had stolen my wallet ; nor to deny instances of actual exploitation by man of man). However often such might be the case, it seems probable that this cannot be the actual mechanism in operation, because a logical fallacy looms large over the universe of discourse.

Sometimes it looks as though the Wealth of Nations was to be a unit — which can only be divided into lesser quantities than the whole.

From such a reasoning it would inevitably follow that, indeed, 'the Haves have because the Have-nots have not'. However, even if the Wealth of Nations could be considered as one certain quantity, this would only be true of some certain (short) time, and this kind of quantity can grow (or wane for that matter) depending solely on what is being done with it in the course of the various transactions (by or between individuals, nations, etc).

What use considering the Wealth of Nations as a unit ? this seems to have been an underlying unconscious assumption with many writers.

Is there limit to the potential wealth on the planet ? Any statement of any putative limit would be entirely arbitrary ; how could you prove that there is any such limit ?

That such a statement as the totality of the wealth on the planet might represent a very vague idea (of some quantity but very inexact) would, again, rather argue against any possible 'limit', or any need to any stated 'limit'.

An assumption of any such 'limit', whether conscious or (what seems the norm) unconscious may be a quite common fallacy with the writers on such subjects. (Any such assumption would be entirely unnecessary, hence could only lead to error, whether great or small).

WPT