Since We’re On Wilson Again, Let’s Explore His Desire To “Americanize” Marxist Ideology

OK, I really did not want to have to re-hash this because I’ve already done it several times in the past.  But, unfortunately, our education system is such that few are taught enough history to understand how to read someone like Wilson, so I will use Wilson’s words and the historic record to demonstrate that Wilson did embrace the philosophical foundation of Marxist ideology.  To fully understand Wilson, you need to read more than just one of his essays, but we can get what we need for the purpose at hand from just this one:

The Study of Administration

But before we look at Wilson’s essay on administration, we need to address a few key points you need to watch for in all of his writings.  First, there is a fundamental deception within the majority of Wilson’s arguments.  While he speaks about democracy often, Wilson does not actually support democratic rule.   For him, the idea of democracy is nothing more than an appeal to populism: a means to an end, if you will.  And the end for Wilson is a democratically elected dictatorship based on a cult of personality surrounding a popular leader.  Once elected, Wilson believes there should be very little restraint on that leader’s actions, save the will of the people.  But Wilson said it is the leader’s duty to “sense” the will of the people and follow it, but also to “lead” them into the direction they want to go.  This is all a flowery way of BSing people into accepting his argument for unrestrained dictatorial power once elected.

The next thing you need to understand is that the majority of Wilson’s work is fundamentally contradictory.  Wilson asserts that society and government are both living organisms.  For Wilson, this is a fact.  He also holds as fact that these organisms are greater than the sum of their part.  Finally, Wilson embraces Darwinism; he believes that society and government “evolve.”  However, at the same time he is holding these things up as uncontested truth, he argues that they can be managed, directed, and that this can be done through “scientific administration.”  In other words, bureaucracies staffed by technocrats who are appointed for life should be in a position of ultimate control over the shaping and governing of society.  And therein lies the contradiction in Wilson’s work.  According to Darwin, organisms evolve through natural selection, which is happens through a random process.  But is man steps in and tries to consciously direct that evolution, it destroys the process of natural selection and, thus, ceases to be “evolution.”  This amounts to nothing more than the tyranny of the species (not to mention a subverting of the natural order of things).  It belies the Wilson’s conceit, and it smacks of Hegelian/Marxist theory through-and-through (anyone who understands Hegel’s dialectic principle understands that it is an insane idea based on the assertion that man kind will “evolve” to escape the universal and fixed law that every action has a reaction — which is why I have ever asserted that ANYONE who embraces ANYTHING based on Hegel’s dialectic is literally insane).

Now, with that behind us, let’s look at Wilson’s essay:

The Study of Administration

Let’s start with the fact that Wilson has no concern for what government should do, he only looks for what it can do:

It is the object of administrative study to discover, first, what government can properly and successfully do, and, secondly, how it can do these proper things with the utmost possible efficiency and at the least possible cost either of money or of energy.

Well, if you are a socialist or Communist, there is nothing government can’t do.  Eventually, as history has borne out, this will apply to the Progressive, as well.  It is embodied in their mantra that everything is political.  This is all tied together by the Frankfurt School of Germany and the cancerous ideas they brought with them when they moved to the United States.

Next, Wilson starts to address the founders of Marxist ideology – by name – but without calling their contribution to political thought by its name (i.e. Marxism):

That political philosophy took this direction was of course no accident, no chance preference or perverse whim of political philosophers. The philosophy of any time is, as Hegel says, “nothing but the spirit of that time expressed in abstract thought”; and political philosophy, like philosophy of every other kind, has only held up the mirror to contemporary affairs.

Now, setting aside the fact that this is a false assertion (many philosophers openly stated they were in search of universal understanding of man and nature, our founders among them), Wilson continues to indirectly name the influence of Marxism in Europe:

One does not have to look back of the last century for the beginnings of the present complexities of trade and perplexities of commercial speculation, nor for the portentous birth of national debts.

When Blackstone lamented that corporations had no bodies to be kicked and no souls to be damned, he was anticipating the proper time for such regrets by full a century. The perennial discords between master and workmen which now so often disturb industrial society began before the Black Death and the Statute of Laborers; but never before our own day did they assume such ominous proportions as they wear now.

Anyone who is familiar with Marxism will see Marxist influence in Wilson’s acceptance conceptualization of this view of history. [As an aside, for those who follow my argument against the corporate structure, THIS is where it first took root – with the words of Blackstone.  And I found it here, in my research into the Progressive movement.  Though they are wrong about how to address the problem, they are not wrong about the problem, itself.  And to undermine Blackstone is to undermine the entire American experiment.]

And, finally, Wilson openly admits that he is pointing to, embracing and seeking to “Americanize” the work of the Marxist movement in Europe:

But where has this science grown up? Surely not on this side the sea. Not much impartial scientific method is to be discerned in our administrative practices. The poisonous atmosphere of city government, the crooked secrets of state administration, the confusion, sinecurism, and corruption ever and again discovered in the bureaux at Washington forbid us to believe that any clear conceptions of what constitutes good administration are as yet very widely current in the United States. No; American writers have hitherto taken no very important part in the advancement of this science. It has found its doctors in Europe. It is not of our making; it is a foreign science, speaking very little of the language of English or American principle. It employs only foreign tongues; it utters none but what are to our minds alien ideas. Its aims, its examples, its conditions, are almost exclusively grounded in the histories of foreign races, in the precedents of foreign systems, in the lessons of foreign revolutions. It has been developed by French and German professors, and is consequently in all parts adapted to the needs of a compact state, and made to fit highly centralized forms of government; whereas, to answer our purposes, it must be adapted, not to a simple and compact, but to a complex and multiform state, and made to fit highly decentralized forms of government. If we would employ it, we must Americanize it, and that not formally, in language merely, but radically, in thought, principle, and aim as well. It must learn our constitutions by heart; must get the bureaucratic fever out of its veins; must inhale much free American air.

Here is where our schools intentionally fail us.  Who are these French and German professors who were developing this new social and political science in Europe at the time Wilson was writing?  They were Marxists.  How do we know?  Because the Fabian Society’s own Secretary admits in his own memoirs on the founding of the Fabian Movement that – before they solidified in the 1920’s, the only socialist movements of any import before then were all Marxist in nature, and that they dwelt on the Continent and not yet in England.  And, when understood in the context of the time, this is an open admission that Wilson was looking to “Americanize” the Marxist thinking of his time.  From here, one needs to go read this:

What is Progress?

History, when known in depth and properly understood, ties everything together for us.  But when you do not know it, or you only know jingoistic slogans connected to major historic events, then you cannot see the connections and, thus, are susceptible to whatever story is given to you to take the place of what really happened.

And as for those who say that the things Wilson wanted to do are irrelevant: here is why they are as relevant now as the founders were to his time — and still are today:

A “modern” Progressive is just a “modern” Marxist — pure and simple.


21 thoughts on “Since We’re On Wilson Again, Let’s Explore His Desire To “Americanize” Marxist Ideology

    • Kells,

      There are certain things that repeat over and over again in Wilson’s writings, so, yes, I am aware of it. I have read every piece in the link I posted on Augger’s thread — every one. Try it sometime. Texas can attest to how much fun it is 😉

    • One more thing:

      The point here is to place yourself in the time Wilson is writing. He is reacting to Marxist-driven ideology as the Fabian-driven notion of socialism — the socialism of most of modern Europe and what we know today as socialism — that had yet to be developed. This is admitted by the first secretary of the Fabian movement. He was with the movement from the beginnings until it was about 20 years old, and he points out that — at this time — Marxism ruled the socialist movement. So this is not in dispute, and if firmly establishes that the socialism Wilson refers to is Marxist in origin. Whether Zalo or Greg like it or accept it or not, this is historic fact. And it vindicates everything I have been saying — all the more so when one realizes that Wilson wrote under the assumption that his reader was already aware of everything I just explained.

      • In a sense. But he also points out people in his “circle” or some such elitist B.S. that alludes to him feeling a bit intellectually superior than the average Joe. His style of writing, and the clues given therein, hint at this. Just the way I felt after reading him…..

        • Kells,

          You sense that Wilson thought himself superior because he did. It’s no more complicated than that. Most people who think they can devise a new destiny for man, or plan the perfect society have a god complex. Wilson is no different.

  1. Scientific research is looking at evidence and coming to a conclusion. What Joe has done, is created or followed Beck’s conclusion that Woodrow Wilson is a Marxist, and then search for evidence to support it. When there is much evidence to the contrary, such as Wilson imprisoning socialist leader Eugene Debs.

    • We’ve already discredited your plagiaristic statement in not one, but two other threads … Karl. Maybe you should read them.

        • Unfortunately Karl, it is not my place to continually have to state the obvious. As I have referenced previously, your post reads at least in reference to Eugene Debs as almost verbatim to a previous statement made by Melfamy here on the RNL … among any of the other some 185,000 Google hits received if one searches “Wilson imprisoning socialist leader Eugene Debs” (your direct quote) where one would find those exact words, in order, on at least 5 of those hits.

          However, you are pushing semantics because you already knew this.

          Would you care to discuss the factual merits of Wilson’s push against Debs, or would you rather hold to the notion that it was simply because Debs was a “socialist”? Choose carefully Karl. You might suffer an intellectual beating should we continue.

          Personally, I would cede the point prior to embarrassment.

          • Wilson imprisoned Debs. That is a fact and that is what I said. I did not say he was imprisoned for being a socialist. Saying Wilson is a socialist or Marxist, is saying a lie. What did he do that was so socialist?

            • Karl,

              No, you implied — intentionally — that Wilson couldn’t be a Marxist because he jailed a socialist.

              If you want to know what he did that was so socialist, start reading Wilson’s essays. We’ve been kind enough to post the links, can’t you take the time to read them?

              • Karl is a blooming buffoon. Hey Karl … Reagan jailed republicans, and just what did that make Reagan?

                Nothing more than he was … a Republican who jailed some Republicans. Is that simple enough for you to understand? (note: and McPherson and Lil Gregory wonder why I post in simpleton terms)

                As Joe said, Woodrow Wilson gives us … in his own words … he’s fondness for socialism, and his distain for the fact that he’d never be able to see his desires to fruition whilst in this nation; much like someone else we’ve all come to know.

                Now you can believe your lying eyes, but that’s up to you pal. This is a history as told by the man who lived it, and it is nothing something you can re-write.

                Side bar: Joe, remember what I wrote about Progressives not taking ownership of their own history?

                • Augger,

                  I am well aware of it. They can’t. If they are forced to face the truth of their own history, their lies are revealed. No less than Saul Alinsky warned them against getting caught i a trap of having to face their own rules/history.

                  It is as I say: the darkness cannot survive the light, but the light can survive the darkness.

    • Karl,

      As usual, you are exhibiting the 180 degree rule. Not that it will help you, but it will help others. To the best of my knowledge, Beck has NEVER called Wilson a Marxist. That is my assertion. Nor did Beck go over the many Wilson essays. All Beck did was urge me to read what Wilson wrote. Once I did that, I found what was already there, and because I know more history than you do, I found the obvious meanings. From there, I just had to have the courage to admit it, accept it and try to tell others about it.

      As for this:

      When there is much evidence to the contrary, such as Wilson imprisoning socialist leader Eugene Debs.

      History explains this one without me having to even look that hard: people with a socialist mentality tend to eat their own. This is the primary reason Fascists and Communists hate each other. It’s no different than the rift between different denominations within religion.

      Now, about your explanation of science. It is funny that you say what you do. Are you aware that the EVIDENCE countermands Darwin’s theories of evolution? The only way to cling to them is to do exactly what you suggest I’m doing with Wilson: force things to fit your per-conceived assumptions. This is actually important because much of Marx’s work was derived from Darwin’s work. It is the whole basis for the SOCIALIST assertion that society is an evolving organism and that it’s evolution can be directed. So, now that you have admitted you are practicing confirmation bias in the very foundations of your ideology, will you also admit that this is why your ideas will NEVER work? If not to us, at least admit it to yourself.

      • Do you deny evolution? Marx’s work is derived from economics and a materialist conception of history.

        • Karl,

          Evolution as the average person understands it? Yes, I deny it because the evidence does NOT support it — not as Darwin posited it. Now, if you have a problem with that, then your problem is NOT with me but with the evidence — which will then mean you are NOT on the side of “science” as you described science. SO be careful, you are walking in a minefield of YOUR making. 🙂

          As for Marx, he DOES refer to Darwin’s work in his writings. How do you NOT know— OH! That’s right, you don’t read the original documents, you rely on what others tell you they say. I’m sorry, my bad.

          For the rest of you, Marx was trying to apply Darwin’s work to politics. Hence the BS about “political science.” In reality, Poli-sci, PR, advertising, sociology: they most deal with the understanding of how people react in mass and the intentional manipulation of the public through what is learned. But this can hardly be called a “science” because it does not and cannot account for those individuals that these “sciences” consider rogues (i.e. MLK, Gandhi, the student in Tienanmen Square and even Jesus)

            • Are you aware that Marx wrote more than just Das Kapital and the Communist Manifesto?

              Dear Sir:
              I thank you for the honour which you have done me by sending me your great work on Capital; & I heartily wish that I was more worthy to receive it, by understanding more of the deep and important subject of political Economy. Though our studies have been so different, I believe that we both earnestly desire the extension of Knowledge, & that this is in the long run sure to add to the happiness of Mankind.
              I remain, Dear Sir
              Yours faithfully,
              Charles Darwin

              Letter from Charles Darwin to Karl Marx
              October, 1873

              You see, Karl, at this point in history, these men were all working off of each other. They drew inspiration from the work each other was doing. And while Hegel saw history as coming in leaps where Darwin saw it as happening in gradual stages, the common thread is evolution, and the appeal is that it was supposedly based on “science.” So it is more incredulous to believe Marx WOULDN’T have seen an ally in Darwin’
              s work than it is to believe Marx cared nothing for it.

              • A thank you letter is not proof of collaboration. It is a naturalist thanking a political economist for sending him a free book. A scientist congratulating another scientist and hoping for scientific knowledge to advance and better mankind. I’m pretty sure, if Mises was alive in that era and sent Darwin a copy, Darwin would have sent back a similar thank you letter. You are engaging in un-scientific research, some right-winger somewhere told you that Darwin and Marx were collaborating. Instead of looking at the evidence, you look for evidence to prove this and all you can dredge up is a thank you letter. Plus, the common idea of society changing. An old idea that Plato and many philosophers had. Even Jefferson said that changes happen in governments and society as times goes one, saying sometimes a certain tree needs to be revived, with a certain liquid from a certain group.

  2. Pingback: PIECES OF THE PUZZLE: Explaining those ‘Gaffs’ | The Oil in Your Lamp

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.