The following is a manifesto that was written with the intention of introducing some newly arrived activists within the libertarian sector in the US to the core concepts of socialism and class consciousness. Consider it a handy tutorial or learning aid for individuals and organisations alike. As this is intended to be a light educational piece, some levity is to be expected to keep the reader engaged. This resource is in the public domain, and feel free to edit it with your own personal platform/goals.

Class Consciousness 101

What Socialism is, and what Capitalism is.................................................... Chapter I

Subsidisation of Risk, and Privatisation of Profits......................................... Chapter II

(Socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor)

The Means of Production and the Value of your labour................................... Chapter III

(Your workplace and your work)

The Distributed, the Centralised and the Decentralised.................................... Chapter IV

(The good, the bad, and the ugly)

Parliamentary Dictatorship and Direct Democracy.......................................... Chapter V

(Literally what it says, folks)

Ideology and Praxis.................................................................................. Chapter VI

Radicalism and Extremism......................................................................... Chapter VII

(There are two different words for a reason)

Chapter I: What Socialism is, and what Capitalism is

Let's begin with the one we've become intimately acquainted with. Namely Capitalism. If you were to ask a politician, capitalism is merely a synonym for freedom. Ask an academic, and you'll get a vague sound byte about the free market. Ask a Marxist, and they will tell you that capitalism is when the means of production are privately owned.

This is of course a reference to private property. So what is private property? Is it the infamous toothbrush that the communists are so dedicated to steal in the night? Of course not. Personal affects are just that. Personal property. Everything from your car, to your house, to your garden and your furnishings and your clothes and your food, and even the fridge that holds it. These items that comprise the immediate of your household are not private property. They might be within the bounds of private property. But the articles themselves are not.

The plot of land that your house may sit upon is private property. Private property is simply put, land. Of course, this land can represent many things. Such as factories, water sources, office buildings and all manner of things which we commonly use. Your home may very well not be your own, as it lies on top of someone else's private property.

So what about the means of production, then? That is, simply put, your workplace. Factories, farms, mills, assembly plants, quarries, foundries, deposits and who knows what else? The things, places, machines and assets we use to produce. Same goes for the service industry. Restaurants, taverns, burger joints, hangouts, watering holes, stores, shops, stalls- I'm labouring the point here. It's the place where you toil day in and day out, and get a meagre, insulting, bare wage that only covers your immediate needs of survival... if you're lucky.

This is because the means of production is privately owned. By the Bourgeoisie. [Boorj-waaaz-ee]. We call them the boorj for short. So who is the Bourgeoisie? Woody Guthrie might call them the man on the hill. The Occupy Movement calls them the 1%. Alex Jones call them the illuminati (seriously though, that's not what they are at all). Marxists call them the Bourgeoisie. Marx coined the phrase back when the middle class was a lot stronger. So the dictionary will say it's the upper middle class. Because back then those people owned the factories. These days it refers to industrialist tycoons and corporate aristocrats. Everything from Texan oil barons to... Saudi oil barons. It refers to the 1% of the world population who controls 40% of the world's wealth. The people who could end world hunger with a phone call and still have enough money left to retire in a castle in Scotland.

Capitalism is summed up as the following: Private ownership of the means of production, creates a bourgeoisie class, who distributes their products using a market structure. Thereby requiring a state to maintain class relationships and interests of private property. That blurb should make a lot of sense to you now. After all, it's not the workers and the poor who need the police. We don't have anything worth stealing.

So now that we have defined capitalism. What exactly is socialism? Socialism is the common ownership of the means of production. This part will be considerably shorter since we've covered the frame of reference.

Common, in this context, basically refers to democratic. Think about that for a moment. Who influences your life the most? Your boss or your president? The person who determines your wage, the dominant factor of your food, your shelter, your clothes, your recreation and your free time. Or the person who pardons turkeys and signs legislation? And who do you vote for?

Yeah. That's the sort of big picture questions this ideology is all about. In a common workplace, all workers would get an equal share of the profit from the company, and instead of a boss managing you, you manage yourselves. Voting on the big decisions. Just like people do when they're on the board of directors. Some would argue that this is impossible. That the company would go out of business. But profit comes after any possible expenses. It's just pure gained money. It can be given just as easily to the worker, as it can be given to the capitalist. It makes no difference. He spends it on a gazebo or caviar or something, you spend it on food, bills and loved ones. Same thing.

What's also very vital to understand is the value of your labour. It's far more valuable than your wage. In a common workplace, your salary could easily double. Perhaps even triple. They make every effort to undercut you whilst still making sure you go back to work. There is a large margin of income that they garnish from you at the end of every shift.

Common arguments against socialism:

“Socialism makes everyone equally poor!”

Socialism is about the common means of production. Common means of production is about eliminating the singular private owner of the company. The singular private owner of the company takes the majority of the profits from your labour. Providing only more profits to share among the workers. Anyone who makes this argument assumes that workers are too dumb to work out that basic equation.

“Equal pay removes incentive to work!”

If you receive an equal share of the profits, then that means that your work directly influences your salary. The harder you work, the more profits your company makes, the more income you receive. When was the last time your boss gave you a raise for extra effort?

“Socialism is totalitarian by nature!”

When everyone is free to work, and receive a living wage, there are fewer social discrepancies that create crime. That reduces the need for authority. It doesn't increase it. It is also worth noting that examples of the contrary, such as Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong believed in the ideals of socialism, but never enacted it into policy. They had state owned means of production. We're not talking about that. We're talking about common means of production. There is no state involved in such a matter.

“Socialism is no different from communism!”

They got us there. Socialism is the process of turning the means of production into commonly owned assets of the people. Communism is simply the word for when you've completed that task in an entire society. Making class and state redundant memories of the past. Whether you're a communist or not is simply a matter of whether you believe the latter will come true. Makes no difference to your immediate goal of putting democracy into your workplace and your economy.

In essence, socialism was the first time that the economics was formulated in such a way as to represent the interests of the common people. Whether working or poor. Until the French Revolution and the Marxist uprisings in the 1800's, the Bourgeoisie received an exclusive right to have their interests represented. What makes the French Revolution so significant in this regard is due to how the uprisings triggered a divide.

As the workers, the revolutionaries, the artisans, the intellectuals and the common people sat in the left wing of the parliamentary building during the negotiations and proceedings. While the aristocrats, the clergy, the monarchs and the wealthy sat in the right wing of the parliamentary building. What gave the people the leverage to be let inside that building as represented members of politics began with their revolutionary incitement against the bourgeoisie. Marches, strikes, protests, agitation, rioting and even outright rebellion became the lifeblood of democracy. The more we assert ourselves and challenge our rulers, the further we can move away from our oppression.

Chapter II: Subsidisation of Risk, and Privatisation of Profits

The bourgeoisie live in a very different society from us. As irony would have it, they live in a socialist society. Where all is given to them by the people. While the poor and the working are trapped in the dysfunction of capitalism. This is known as the subsidisation of risk, and the privatisation of profits.

Capitalists will gladly boast of the many innovations of our modern society. Oft times they will demand the gratitude for their benevolence charged at unreasonable rates. Whether it is medicine or technology, or even the general standard of living. With the assumption that we won't scrutinise such audacious claims. But today we will do just that. Using their Magnum Opus; the computer.

The computer was invented by Alan Turing. At least, the modern electronic kind was. Mechanical computers have been used by astronomers dating back as early as the Moorish empire. Some would dispute that Nazi Germany beat Alan Turing to it, however, their research facility was bombed by the Allies. Prompting the end of their project. Leaving Turing as the historical inventor of the computer. Turing's story is fascinating, and sadly irrelevant to this manifesto. I do, however, encourage you to read about him. He was a remarkable man.

The computer itself is what matters. Because Alan Turing was not a captain of enterprise, nor was he an entrepreneurial private sector inventor. No. He was a state commissioned worker of the British Armed Forces. The computer was a state driven project. Handled entirely with planned public sector funding. In essence, our tax money. We, the common people, funded the computer. Not the bourgeoisie, not the investors or the bankers. But simply us. So where exactly are our computers that we paid for? Where are our shares in Microsoft and Apple Computers? How did our computers end up in the hands of the Bourgeoisie?

Research and development are the two most expensive factors to starting a business. It is the risk, of the investors. So, naturally, the Bourgeoisie forego this expense, and subsidise it to us. Meanwhile, once there is success, and the computer is up and running as a working prototype, they gladly take our product, and sell it to us. Thereby privatising the profits.

As of writing this article, Bill Gates has a personal net worth of 90 billion dollars. That's enough money to feed an entire planet three times the size of ours for a whole year. That's our money. We made the investment. He simply took it. Just like the Bourgeoisie takes everything from us. Apple computers have a current net worth of 624 billion dollars. Which, again, we invested into.

The next time a wealthy person, or one of their many apologists, tells you that your demands are unreasonable, that you are merely being entitled, and demanding a handout. Remember 624 billion dollars. Next time you turn on the news and see someone loot a store during a riot. Applaud them for their gusto and sense of justice. You might think that's a tad extreme. But remember that Samsung has assets netting to a total of 529.5 billion on top of the previous 714 billion. Making the grand total stolen by the capitalists from us common people a large 1333.5 billion US dollars, and that's just three companies within one one single industry out of the many thousands.

Banks use quantitative easing to subsidise risk and privatise profits, JP Morgan Chase have assets netting to 2.424 trillion. That also includes all the foreclosed homes from families who still had to pay the tax money which bailed out the banks from the credit crunch that the banks themselves engineered, in the first place, making the collateral intended as the actual bailout pure profit. Not to mention how that net worth in turn, both derived from foreclosed homes and the tax money yourpaid them, will affect their company's common shares. Meaning that by the end of the year, it won't simply be company money. But rather instantly transferred into the private coffers of their board members and share holders as bonuses. The money intended to bail out the banks doesn't even go to the banks themselves. It goes directly to the owners of the banks. All while 2.5 million children are homeless in the US. Even though there are enough foreclosed homes to house all of them.

So, as mentioned before, by all means, applaud.

Chapter Ill: The Means of Production and the Value of your labour

We have covered what the means of production are, and what the private ownership of the aforementioned signify. In this chapter we will cover the mechanics of it all. To explain, to exactly what extent, you're being completely fleeced by the capitalists. What is a capitalist you might wonder? It's not someone who believes in capitalism, as many think. It is rather someone who can use capital to extract value from your labour. The distinction between the Bourgeoisie and the Capitalists is that the Bourgeoisie is more politically invested. They will try to extend their influence within the state as much as possible. A Capitalist is perfectly happy sitting back and letting you create free money for him so he can live in luxury while you desperately try to ward off eviction notices, no politics needed.

So how does capital steal the value of your labour? First off, value refers to, well, just that. Value. The stuff that makes commodities, currency and your labour valuable. It's measured in currency a lot of the time, but value is its own thing. It exists outside of money. You could easily measure value in gold bars, and less easily even measure it in Mars bars. Your labour is the source of value in a company, and the capitalists use capital to control the company, and by extension, your labour. So they take the majority value of the labour, and leave you with a small percentage so that you have just enough to come back the next day and create more value.

Capital is placed into private property. Since this game is rigged and most of us can't afford to do the same, we then are at the mercy of capitalists in order to survive. How is the game rigged, you might ask? Well, did your dad ever offer you a small loan of a million dollars? How much surplus do you have after expenses in your wage? Can you save up a million dollars? Perhaps it's about personal responsibility, and you simply didn't work hard enough in school. If that's the case, then why are so many degree holders flipping burgers right now? It's a rigged game. You win by a mix of privilege, and luck, and you need an astronomical amount of the latter to make up for a lack of the former.

So, capitalist invests. The factory is his. You have no factory, so you need to work at his factory. He makes the rules, and if you don't like them, then too bad. You can always go work for another capitalist who will have the exact same rules. Since the two are competing. Capitalists will gladly argue that they have a purpose, and that they make sure the factory runs well and maintains the equipment with his money. This is a lie. He uses the surplus value of your labour to do these things. Which means you're the one making sure the factory runs well and maintains the equipment with your money that he claims belongs to him. You will pay far more into his factory overtime than he ever did buying it.

If capitalism was an equal opportunity fair system. Then how would that even work? Everyone becomes a capitalist and sits on their fat behinds owning a factory? Who works? Capitalism needs to maintain class gaps in order to make sure there's always a man on the hill, with his own personal stable of chumps keeping him fat and happy. It's simple mathematics. If you press them on this matter, then they will make the most desperate retort. Simply justifying this absurd parasitic relationship in one single sentence: “They're better than you.”

"But you say that money is made by the strong at the expense of the weak? What strength do you mean? It is not the strength of guns or muscles. Wealth is the product of man's capacity to think. Then is money made by the man who invents a motor at the expense of those who did not invent it? Is money made by the intelligent at the expense of the fools? By the able at the expense of the incompetent? By the ambitious at the expense of the lazy? Money is made—before it can be looted or mooched—made by the effort of every honest man, each to the extent of his ability. An honest man is one who knows that he can't consume more than he has produced."

– Ayn Rand, Non-Contradiction, page 410-411

"I think that gay marriage is something that should be between a man and a woman."

- Arnold Schwarzenegger, personal fortune of 300 million USD.

So there we have it. This whole system of free money for the rich at the expense of your labour is a mere matter of how bank statements are really just IQ tests in the end. Not to mention that Ayn Rand's quote only makes sense if you premise the world on this notion that once someone makes a new invention, that invention is used to back the value of fiat currency. As the government then proceeds to print out this money to said inventor. Which would be a form of market socialism. In capitalism, that invention just means they manufacture it using your labour, and take your surplus value, at your expense. It's an impressive racket.

Chapter IV: The Distributed, the Centralised and the Decentralised

Now, let's talk governments. This is mainly a critique from the libertarian left's point of view. So if you're new to this, you might ask “Well, we don't have one of those, do we?” Which is partially true. In one sense of the word it's certainly true. Because people equate the word government to refer to a state. We certainly don't want a state. But at the same time, there are human needs that the state fulfils. We need a substitute for that. After all, a government doesn't have to tell you what to do. It can also simply help co-ordinate and organise large scale efforts based on free association. So what does that mean? It means that if you have no interest in participating, and would rather manage yourself without being part of a community. Then that's fine. States don't allow this. They will then proceed to call you an illegal immigrant, and accuse you of trespassing and stealing their valuable statehood. Which is just racist nonsense, obviously.

So we've abolished the state, but we would still like to have a community. What we need is a new model of organisation that's based on free association, and doesn't require any monopolisation of violence.

There are three forms of governments. Centralised governments are a top-down government in which one core institute governs all. This requires a monopolisation of violence. In the form of police and military. When you challenge the decree of this system, then they will respond with threats. After that, comes violence. Just ask the good people at Standing Rock, and you'll understand.

This, however, is merely the government of the public sector. The private sector has its own government in capitalism. Something which they will outright deny, but you've seen it for yourself. Namely, the decentralised government. In which several independent rulers tell their own institutes what to do. This is your boss, in other words. Who will, instead of using physical violence, enforce his decrees with economic violence. Starvation, homelessness, neglect, untreated medical problems, and so on. Are the weapons in his arsenal.

So what does a libertarian socialist government look like? Well, it uses the distributed system. In which there is no authority. But rather free association and direct democracy, and the only “governing” involves large scale logistics and co-ordination with nearby institutes and communities. It's just a mode of organisation.

There can also be a component of self-defence in a libertarian socialist government. People keeping one another safe. Usually in the form of a militia. This becomes a very marginal thing, however. Due to how in a society with a distributed system, and socialist economics, people live very balanced and well adjusted lives where their needs are met. Which greatly reduces the need to commit violence. Whether out of survival, or out of psychological discrepancies. After all, if you have food and shelter taken care of, why would you bother stealing? Life's good, after all. The militia would mostly be focused on dealing with more natural problems. Such as fires, floods and snow storms. Things were some survival training and emergency management can come in handy.

But suppose there's a psychopath afoot? Someone who is just violent for no other reason than delusion? How do we deal with them? Well, first there's self-defence. But violence should only be used if it is absolutely necessary. If a person is indeed taken into custody, and poses a danger to others. Then it might require rehabilitative incarceration. This is very different from criminal justice. Criminal justice is about deterrents, labour and social engineering.

Here's how criminal justice works:

A human being does not have his or her needs met. Either their psychological, or physical needs. They commit a crime. Could be murder, burglary, shoplifting, rape*, anything. So they are taken to court, and then sent to prison. Prison is a big building in which a human being does not have their needs met. Surrounded by other people who do not have their needs met. This results in even more violence and criminal behaviour. As these groups then proceed to organise into gangs. Once released, the convict is forever labelled as just that, a convict. Which means no legal employment. Forcing them to rely on their gang contacts in prison. Which is easy to do since they have absolutely nothing to lose, and have spent the last few years being acclimated to an environment of intense violence. It's basically a boot camp for gang members and career criminals.

*Rape is usually the product of social constructs. This is not a justification. But rather an explanation as to how it can be easily prevented to a large extent by removing social constructs. In layman's terms, being an asshole is a learned behaviour. Usually derived from the enforcement social privilege over others. You can't be a rapist without an inherent sense of entitlement. A by-product from the Bourgeoisie morals intended to justify exploitation.

So rehabilitative incarceration works a bit differently. There, the loss of freedom is entirely for the intention of protection. There is no “punishment” involved in this. Their needs would be met as much as possible. As to acclimate them to a more peaceful and balanced environment. Which is exactly what the outside world is. As once they are let out, they're given the means to survive. This means they have things to lose, and are accustomed to a peaceful and balanced environment. Creating a boot camp for ordinary and well adjusted people.

But this would only happen during very rare circumstances due to how most social constructs that create dangerous behaviour are non existent.

Some might wonder how this is at all justified in anarchism. But anarchism is simply the praxis of examining all authority, and remove the authority that cannot justify itself. To care for an unstable person who may be a danger to him or herself, and others, is no less justified than keeping a child from running out in traffic. There can be no punishment involved in doing this, however, as that would be completely unjustified. It could only be done to the extent as to assure a safe and good standard of living for both parties.

Chapter V: Parliamentary Dictatorship and Direct Democracy

“Ugh, what's the point of voting? Both parties are the same in the end.”

“Those politicians are all a bunch of liars.”

“The moment they get elected they never keep any promises.”

Every day, people say things like these, and they're absolutely right. Vladimir Lenin (that's right, I can quote him without agreeing with everything he's ever believed), described our model of representative democracy as a “parliamentary dictatorship.” This might sound hyperbolic, but it makes a lot of sense when you examine exactly how this system works. We do, for a fact, vote for someone to dictate policy. Someone who after each term clearly holds no obligation to their voters. Someone who, say, talks a lot about closing Guantánamo Bay, and then never does so. Someone who might say he's going to end one of the two wars going on, and then starts a third one with Yemen that nobody on the news talks about. Someone who might talk about building a wall, and then thankfully never does so because that would be a waste of time and resources which would ultimately embarrass every self respecting US citizen on the planet.

(They do it in other countries too, by the way. I'm not being a sneering European. I just know my audience.)

Let's consider exactly why those three thoughts on the top of this page are so commonly recited. It's because every political party are required by the forces of capital, much in the same way you are, to serve the interests of the Bourgeoisie. The Democrats and Republicans need to enact the exact same core policies to appease their donors, corporate benefactors and lobbyists. If they don't, then when the next election comes around, those donors, corporate benefactors and lobbyists will have found another party that will. This is one of the reasons that Bernie Sanders was sabotaged. He simply doesn't fully serve the interests of the Bourgeoisie, and Bernie Sanders isn't even that far on the left. He's a fairly tame left leaning centrist. But that mere margin of popular interests made him undesirable.

So how exactly was he sabotaged? There was no large scale plot between all the rich people. Hilary did a bit of scheming on their behalf. But the fact is that he changed the entire atmosphere of the inner democratic party. A lot of career politicians felt worried that he would be unappealing to investors. Namely large donors, lobbyists and corporate benefactors. So they all basically got together and picked the person who wasn't. There's absolutely no planning needed. It's all conditioned by the forces of capital. What some would call the invisible hand of the free market.

It really says a great deal about one's ignorance on economics when one begins to ascribe the metaphysical to something so simple as social conditioning. “In god we trust”, folks. Brings a whole new meaning to the concept of trust funds.

So what is the anarchist counterpart? It's very simple. Direct democracy. A very self descriptive phrase. Much like with socialism, it is about replacing the needless authoritarian middle man with democratic process. The president and the boss dictate the policies, perhaps sometimes with marginal opposition from other dictators. But fact still remains that we have no interference in policymaking aside from the indirect appointment of a dictator which then proceeds to serve the interests of the Bourgeoisie and completely ignore us.

So in direct democracy society is usually partitioned into smaller communities. Usually around a couple of dozen people, perhaps a larger amount in industrial societies. Who can freely propose and vote on policy. This allows a divergence in democracy, and gives the individual more influence. Because a single person could easily reach out to their friends and neighbours and discuss the issues of the day with them. Finding a compromises that suits everyone within the community.

No leaders needed. With technology like the internet and social media, this process can become even more effectively done. No longer will the 149 million people have to bend to the pressure of the reigning 151 million. Because without the Bourgeoisie, such sweeping edicts of social rule is no longer required. You can have communities where people enjoy smoking in bars. You can have communities where they don't. You can have communities where people play loud music at night, and communities where they don't, and so on. Everyone could have a place that satisfies them without the burgeoning uniformity of statism.

This in turn can also be translated into the management of the workplace. In which each worker can propose and vote on managerial decisions and policies without a boss within their company.

Common arguments against direct democracy:

“Nothing will get done because people will always argue!”

A strange argument considering how this is literally one of the biggest problems of a parliamentary dictatorship. In which something so simple as socialised healthcare, which has been demanded by the US public since the 1970's, is still not practised. As long as you and your neighbours can agree on something within a timespan of 50 years, then you'll have an upgrade. This is also an appeal to class inferiority. Which is absolute nonsense.

“We need educated leaders! The voting majority is uneducated and can't make their own choices!”

Remember that quote I used to discredit Ayn Rand's claim that wealth makes you intelligent? California's governor. Not to mention that this is a fallacy. There is no formal education in the needs of the common people. There is, however, practical knowledge to be attained on the matter by being a common person. The idea that university educated rich people know more about your social needs than you do is laughably insulting. They're representatives. Not experts. They hire experts if they need expertise. Common people can do that too in a direct democracy. Scientists, doctors, economists and other experts can still provide advice. That won't change. Only thing that changes is that you'll be representing yourself. Instead of having a representative who actively despises you and considers you an inferior.

Chapter VI: Ideology and Praxis

Now we're going to discuss how you can build your own ideology, and the differences between an ideology and praxis. Anarchism is a praxis. Libertarian socialism is an ideology. Socialism is an economic system. You can be a socialist, and you can enact socialism, but socialism in itself is not an ideology.

An ideology is the combination of an economic system, and one or several praxes.

Example: Vanguardism is the praxis in which a socialist society establishes a state in order to maintain party interests. Vladimir Lenin was a vanguardist and a socialist. Combining these two creates Marxist-Leninism. Which is an ideology.

Similarly, there is the praxis of Anarchism. The leftist opposite to Vanguardism. In which all authority, especially the state, is challenged and dismantled if it cannot be justified. There is also the praxis of platformism. Which is the idea that, while anarchist, you still need a common ideological ground to create a grassroots movement and maintain anarchist societies. If we combine platformism with anarchism and socialism, we get Makhnovism. The ideology of Ukranian peasant revolutionary Nestor Makhno. A fierce opponent of the Soviet Union.

It's kind of like chemistry class. Economic system plus praxis, result is an ideology. You can make all kinds of ideologies. Granted, some praxes are mutually exclusive, and thus, a new praxis is born. Fascism is a good example of this. In the early 1900's, the left was a prevailing force. Democracy was a newfound thing in the west and workers were very eager to finally have a say. This did not suit the right wing at all. They needed a popular movement. Thus, fascism was born. Clever in how it put emphasis on labour politics and elevated the white and the male worker to a first class citizen. A meaningless gesture that provided absolutely no benefit to white or male workers what so ever. But rather excluded them from a new tier of mistreatments. Creating the illusion of social elevation. In truth they just lowered everyone else. But it worked in Italy, and eventually Nazism took this praxis to a whole new level with Social Darwinism.

Labour unions, intellectuals, socialists, communists and anarchists were all ruthlessly persecuted. Military violence, secret police, extermination camps, internments and nationalistic fervour replaced living salaries, unionised labour, unemployment benefits, healthcare and the common ownership of the means of production. This helped create a very favourable society for the bourgeoisie and appease the revolutionary incitement of the working classes. This is why class consciousness is vital, as to not end up in the pitfalls of fascism.

Another important praxis is feminism. You may have noticed my masculine descriptor of the capitalist. This is intentional. As gender roles is vital to maintain a favourable society for the Bourgeoisie. By enforcing gender roles, the woman becomes the caretaker of the future workers and caretakers. The man becomes the worker and the capitalist. This provides and even ratio of sustainable surplus value to extract. They see us kind of like an ant farm. Feminism is simply putting the needs of people ahead of the needs of the Bourgeoisie by eliminating gender roles. A common misconception is that feminism favours women. But this is not true. For instance, male homosexuals face bigotry due to how they are men who have sex with men, just like women do*. As such their identity is lessened by Bourgeoisie morality because of how women are lessened by bourgeois morality. The fact that its called feminism is simply to provide some credit to the people who invented the praxis. Since women getting credit for historical contributions is long overdue.

*Hang on, let me explain...

It is of course noteworthy to point out that male homosexuals do not have the sexual habits and preferences of women. That too is a gender role. They simply have an individual sexual identity that does not comply to the norms established by Bourgeoisie morality. It is simply a projection. Whatever gender you identify as, whether assigned, chosen or discovered, is completely irrelevant to your potential as a human being. Feminism is simply the praxis that allows everyone to attain this potential without being hampered by social constructs pertaining to gender.

In the end a praxis is simply a mode of societal conduct. A set of ideas or principles which guides us on a level outside of economics. A praxis will indeed influence the economy, and a lot of the authority in capitalism is derived from the economy. Through the use of praxes. It is vital to understand this relationship in order to make good analysis and extend your class consciousness. Without it, we are all very easily influenced by propaganda. Martin Luther inspired an entire continent wide revolution in Europe simply by translating the bible into German. Allowing the people themselves to let their interpretation of the bible contrast that of the church, which was the dominant institute of power in the middle ages.

Chapter VII: Radicalism and Extremism

If you listen to Bourgeoisie politics. These two words are synonyms. That's a narrative that favours their own ideology above those that contrast it. Radicalism is just a matter of that, contrast. It is when the society you're looking to establish is so distinct that it requires a radical change in core societal principles. As such, the word radical is revised in an effort to equate harmless student protesters and union organisers with the Al Qaeda. As though they two have something in common. This is of course completely fabricated. But even so, what exactly is the distinction?

Radicalism can certainly foster very extreme measures. Everything from bombings to insurgent violence. A lot of people would consider that to be extreme. Obviously. Who wouldn't? It all comes down to populism. Namely, the support of the people. What their feelings on the matter are. To take up a rifle and start shooting police officers in downtown New York is something that would frighten and discomfort the common person. It's an act of extremism. However, taking up a rifle and shooting fascists in Franco's Spain was something people applauded. Because they needed protection from these rulers.

As such, the distinction comes down to the distinction between parliamentary dictatorships and direct democracy, the distinction between capitalism and socialism, it comes down to democracy. Which in this context is called populism. Radicalism is exercising revolutionary action in a way that is demanded by the people. This can be difficult in a world so heavily influenced by mass media. As we don't know exactly what the people want at times. Black Lives Matter is a good example of a grassroots movement that is clearly popular, but might seem unpopular due to media propagation. If we are to believe the media, then the BLM is full of thugs, looters and criminals. But if we look at polls and statistics reported by Salon, BLM is more popular in its current stage, than the original Martin Luther/Malcolm X civil rights movement was in the 70's at a similar stage of development.

As such, one could say that the riots in Ferguson was a radical action. It is certainly an unpleasant ordeal, but it was an action appropriate to the direness of the situation.

Now let's look at another example in El Salvador, where Oscar Romero, an Archbishop in El Salvador begun to preach liberation theology. Sometimes known as Christian socialism. In which the values of Christ regarding kindness, forgiving and giving are translated into a common popular movement, was seen as a threat to Bourgeoisie interests in the region. So the United States, using CIA, employs a man called Roberto D'Aubuisson to create paramilitary juntas who tortured and terrorised the people of El Salvador. Roberto earned the nickname of ”Blowtorch Bob” due to his preferred method of torturing people. This is, in my judgement, an act of extremism.

So to sum up:

Radicalism:

– Motivated by democratic interests and popular movements.

– Relative to the necessity of the situation.

– Ideologically contrasting to the status quo.

– Revolutionary

Extremism:

– Motivated by interests of the powerful minority.

– Uses of torture and terrorism to repress popular movements.

– Ideologically inclined with the status quo.

– Reactionary

There, this has been an introduction into class consciousness. If I've done my job now, then you're ready to take the streets for some class warfare in whatever methods that suits your current situation.