.

Whenever the Bolshevists have attempted to nationalize the land, which in 1917 they had instructed the peasants to wrest from their landlords and divide among themselves, thousands of small holders (Kulaks, each with a few acres of land and some livestock) have been exiled or shot. During three different periods the 'comrades' in the cities were threatened with famine and experienced famine because of the antagonism of the farmers to the Bolshevist regime. Again and again the Red army was sent into the farm areas to confiscate whatever small hoards of foodstuffs could be found. By every form of resistance the workers and farmers have tried to wreck the Bolshevist economic system, yet today, despite the many years of incredibly brutal penalties, the saboteurs are so numerous in Russia that the system can be kept going only by having the agents of the government' periodically shoot a few officials, farmers, and workers as a wholesome example to the others. This is called in Russia the 'Workers Paradise'.

To a student of history and human behavior the experience of the Communists in Russia and other parts of the world is most illuminating. A small group of zealots may make a revolution; install themselves in the government; and rule the people by every force at their command; but there are certain instincts, habits and desires which they/ cannot eradicate from the mind of the worker, the most tenacious being the love of family and home, the desire to own property and to enjoy as he likes the reward of his labor. Tremendous efforts have been made by the socialists and communists and also under Fascism to convince the workers that they will receive larger rewards if they will all cooperate to produce wealth, pass it on to the State and later have 'the full product of their toil' returned to them. They may believe this at first but later when they find out how much they have been cheated they are no longer willing to support the State.

HITLER'S ECONOMIC CHAOS

After Hitler was nominated Reich Chancellor in 1933 he succeeded in a short time in eliminating all organs of the Reich and turned the republic into a formless despotism. Hitler promised full employment, financial security, and a better life on the basis of 'Socialist Plenty'. At first it looked as if Hitler's economic policies were really successful in bringing better living conditions to the German people. However, this brief period of improvement was soon replaced by economic chaos.

By 1939 the German people were hungry and food was only available with ration cards or on the black market. Everybody was beginning to feel the full fury of a German food industry gone chemical-crazy. Sugar was made out of fir-wood pulp, sausage out of beechwood pulp and the beer was a brew made of whey that had a bad odor. Yeast was made out of a chemical, and marmalade was colored to fool people into thinking it was the real thing. The same for butter, except that the coloring matter here also contained a vile and indigestible substance poisonous to the liver. Everyone's eyes were yellow. ...Canned vegetables were artificially colored. Meat was almost impossible to get and potatoes cooked in every form and variety replaced meat. The bread was pulpy and clayish and full of sand. Shoes turned into a sodden mass of cardboard after a half hour's walking and clothing was made out of paper, etc.

FAIR PROMISES

One should trick children with dice, but men with promises. -Dionysius, the elder.

It is a general popular error to suppose the loudest complainers for the public to be the most anxious for its welfare. -Edmund Burke.

Promises are an important part of the equipment of all revolutionists. They are juicy baits to attract the hungry and those who are not satisfied with conditions in general. Like the most astute politicians, the successful revolutionists have always been the loudest complainers for the public. It is a notable fact, observable in all ages, that the people who have been the most ardent supporters of the revolution have also been their chief victims.

PLEDGES NOT RELIABLE

One of the most oft-repeated lessons of history is that when a complainer for the public has captured the State, he has proceeded to outwit those who have helped him.- It has never been safe to rely upon the pledges, oaths and covenants of those who seek supreme power. These statements are not mere assertions. It is difficult if not impossible to find a single successful revolutionist who did not begin his career as a demagogue and end it as a despot. Caesar, the haughty conqueror, was an astute politician, an habitual complainer for the public and a professional democrat. He had for many years been the most ruthless antagonist of the Roman aristocrats. As the head of a great army, he could probably have subdued the country without making any promises, nevertheless he snared the masses by a program which was almost identical with the one used nearly two thousand years later by Lenin. Caesar pledged himself to the abolition of debts, the confiscation of the property of those who had worked to acquire land and possessions, the allotment of lands to the soldiers, and the provision of work and bread to the hungry and unemployed. Lenin, as we know, promised the masses work, bread, peace, land and the factories. Hitler promised work and bread, while Mussolini offered work and glory. In other words a despotic government cuts off wealth at its source. All successful Revolutionists have been adored by the populace as long as they were making promises. When these promises were not fullfilled they were then hated by the people. And yet no matter what the promises, the poor are always with us. No matter what the programs are, nor what they do, the inequalities and iniquities which afflict humanity outlast all the revolutions. Promises of perfect justice, abiding peace, complete liberty, universal equality, fraternity, work, land, and the abundant life are, however, only a part of the revolutionist's technique for acquiring power. In reality these have never been the aims of the revolution. The real aims have always been as they are now, to capture the State. With it firmly in their hands, everything may be made their own -- the corn, the cattle, the land, and the bodies and souls of the people.

MARX FAVORED EXTERMINATION

Marx condemned capitalism mainly because it was, as he thought, increasingly impoverishing the masses. In his opinion this tendency was inherent in the system. Democracy was, he maintained, the political State of the most aggressive capitalists; it was one of their best tools for clamping upon the masses the chains of wage slavery. Nearly all the militants of the revolution believed Marx and refused to admit that conditions had changed since 1847 and that the nations which were making the most rapid and substantial progress in the material well-being of the workers were those in which democracy was strongest and where capitalism had been allowed the greatest liberty to create industries and to carry on commerce.

The achievements of a free economy in the democratic States in improving the standard of living among the masses were ignored by the communists and when the power of the Russian State fell into their hands they were not content with having rid the world of a Czar but immediately organized their forces to exterminate republics, democracies and capitalism wherever they existed in any part of the world.

Under the banner of the Workers' Councils, of the revolutionary fight for power and the dictatorship of the proletariat, under the banner of the Third International, workers of all countries, united.

Ending with these words, written by Trotsky, a manifesto was issued announcing that the rulers of Russia intend to carry their fight for communism into every country. And this fight is, in most aspects, a fight to change the economics of a free society. The communists were determined that no economic system should be permitted to survive which bore the image of the bourgeoisie. It may be safely said that most of the people placed in the lower income bracket - the masses * in the countries that have changed from capitalism to socialism have lived and now live in a condition which Americans would describe as utter destitution.

Lenin, Mussolini and Hitler! Magnates of revolution and masters of great nations! No wonder they have always despised the millions of industrialists and shopkeepers with their small armies of workmen, petty profits and parochial outlook. What Rockefeller or Ford ever dreamed of subjecting to his will the lives and property of all the people in a notion? Bernard Shaw expressed on every possible occasion the contempt which these potentates of revolution have for middle-class religion, middle-class morality, middle-class family life, middle-class professions and so on in many of his books. There is nothing middle-class in the modern dictators. They play only for the highest stakes and when they win they sweep into their hands the entire pot - the State, the Church, the land, the industries, the schools, the press, the banks, radio and television and the people themselves. In their view, the naughty capitalists resemble a circle of little boys playing craps for pennies, with one of their number placed in position to watch for the policeman. When the revolutionists win the policemen belong to them.

WIPE OUT MIDDLE CLASS

The middle class has to be wiped out-has to be rendered helpless!

IT IS ALSO ADVANTAGEOUS FOR A TYRANNY THAT ALL THOSE WHO ARE UNDER IT SHOULD BE OPPRESSED WITH POVERTY....AND THAT BEING EMPLOYED IN PROCURING THEIR DAILY BREAD, THEY MAY HAVE NO LEISURE TO CONSPIRE AGAINST TYRANTS --ARISTOTLE

With the ruin of the middle class came the ruin of the working class; and the support for the new brood of Caesars which then arrived upon the scene came mainly from the unemployed and from those who had become half-demented by the loss of their property and their battles with hunger and disease. In Italy Mussolini formed his legions out of this material and in Germany Hitler's Storm Troopers came from the same elements. Napoleon, Lenin and Hitler arose to power during periods of anarchy of varying degrees and all three had seen the currencies of their countries become worthless. The old upper and middle classes had become impoverished and rendered impotent in Russia, France and Germany. A new class of speculators had arisen in all three countries but they were not interested in government. They were saving themselves in so far as they could. These and other profiteers became the object of national hatred and it is never difficult to arouse the populace to strike down those whom it believes lobe responsible for a rapidly rising cost of living. Let me repeat: seditions and revolutions are against things, not for things. The people were against those who had led them to war. They were against those who took away their property by inflation, devaluation, default, or confiscation. And this is true -- now, today, in 1972. If the people do not learn this simple lesson in economics instead of believing those who talk about 'Socialist Plenty1 they will share the same fate as the people did in countries before them.

The sovereign power in a capitalist system rests in the hands of the consumers and the sovereign power in a democracy lies in the hands of the voters. These tremendous levers would enable the people, if they were properly employed, to make this world a paradise. Ignorantly or improperly employed, they can make this world the poor thing it is. If the consumers want drugs there will be traders who will find ways to get them. If the voters want criminals to run their government, plenty will be found to undertake the task. The consumers will decide whether we are to have a government administered by honest and competent servants of the people or one administered by bands of looting politicians. In a democracy the people can have what they want. In a despotism^ communist or totalitarian, the fate of the people is in the hands of the State. In a true democracy the fate of both politicians and capitalists is in the hands of the people. Therefore, I would caution those who advocate 'Power to the People' to be sure of their direction. In the words of Cicero:

I KNOW FROM WHOM I FLEE WITHOUT KNOWING TO WHOM I FLEE.