Leaps and Bounds: The Plot Against Civilization pp. 299-302

We are treated to some long quotes by Lenin, the good one, the one that didn’t beat his wife and kid. The thing about Lenin is that he represents exactly the type of person that people like Webster hated: he was smart, educated, non-religious, anti-Capitalist, and Jewish (ethincally). He’s also quite the character in history. Lenin is the force of the Bolshevik revolution and an idealist willing to execute his position at nearly any cost. It’s hard to argue against Lenin aside from just disagreeing as well. He’s an idealist and moreso a true believer. So what, if anything is Webster going to do with him? Well, she’s going to just use his speeches to prove her point, what’s her point? That Bolshevism then is not Synidcalism, it is state Socialism, it is Marxism, it is Communism, in a word it is Babouvisme.”

She’s arguing against something no one is saying. She quotes a twenty-line position of Lenin from one of his writings and then thinks that she’s breaking new ground by telling us that the Communist Revolution in Russia is Communist.

Then she pulls the pile-on tactic linking all of these things to cap it off with a Babeuf reference. Babeuf remember him? Babeuf was a French Proto-Communist, so again…she’s just telling us that Communist Revolution in Russia was about Communism. The fact that a French writer had Communist ideas in the 18^th century is not new and the reason I bring it up is because it’s a lot like a Flat Earther trying to explain that people who believe in a round Earth also believe in Gravity but think that it’s some kind of ‘gotcha’ moment.

To further her position, she cites a very long selection from Bucharin and then contrasts that with a single line from Babeuf that she references from herself. This is a bullshit move and she cannot be ignorant of that. Bucharin just lists out what State Socialism will have to do to operate effectively, but it’s a lot of detail and then she has Babeuf merely say, things have to be numbered and calculated. Yeah, it’s a similar idea, but she does it this way because she knows that no one is going to read the long quote. They’ll just accept it as a similarity and then move on—which, again, yes. The ideas between Babeuf and the Communists are similar. Literally no one is disputing this aside from some very minor differences.

Honestly though, what’s so bad about Russian Communism? Luckily for us Webster has the Russian Code of Labour Laws from 1920. It states that all Russian citizens between 16 and 50 will have compulsory labor at eight hours a day! Imagine being forced to work eight hours a day until you are 50.

Webster points out a flaw in Bucharin’s plan. Bucharin argued that eventually there would be no need for currency and that eventually the Socialist State would resort to a barter system. We are told that the plan was to take wage-slavery and just turn it into slavery. A clever turn of phrase for Webster; however, this was not goal. Bucharin’s position was that currency is what made the working class into wage-slaves and this is a mistake. It’s the difference between money being the root of all evil and the love of money being the root of all evil. Currency, as the Soviets figured out, does something more than create class distinctions, it also shows the economic activity of the people. You can’t just barter beets for bread, if no one wants the former and everyone wants the latter. Currency permits a society to determine how goods and services are being used and how they are in demand. She’s right to point out the flaw but she’s wrong in what the problem is. Further, how is the plight of the worker in this system worse than that of the system in which she lives? She tries to frame the abolition of currency like robbery. While misguided as the move was there was still a plan to provide the workers with goods and services. In Webster’s system, there is no provision for those without currency.

The plans echoed by the Bolsheviks, she traces back to Weishaupt and the Illuminati with very little evidence telling us that they are “those of Illuminsim, and that the plan now at work in Russia has been handed down through the secret societies to the present day.” Right, sure, but it’s not a secret and it never was because she’s charted it every time. No one was concealing a plan; there were public speeches and documents.

While she makes a leap here, her farthest jump, is in dealing with women. She claims that Lenin in “Communism and the Family” argues the “indissoluble marriage’ is to give place to ‘the free and honest union of men and women whore lovers and comrades.’” She goes from this sentence to asking “Does this imply then the ‘community of women?” No, it does not. Lenin was moving against the life-long arranged marriage to one in which both parties were willing participants. There was no dissolution of marriage, just a change in how it would operate. Plato wanted a dissolution of marriage in the Republic, this isn’t that.

It gets worse as Webster then moves to a claiming that this will lead to the dreaded “free love” where people can love each other whenever they want, but it will remove “all protection from women.” What protection do they have that is being taken away? This is early 20^th century Tsarist Russia men barely have rights; the women surely don’t. Free love is always objectionable to these people, and I think it’s because without forced love/marriage they would never be able to achieve it. Webster ends with her final and most drastic leap, “Communism would simply replaced voluntary prostitution by forcible rape.”

I have zero clue where she is pulling this from. Voluntary prostitution isn’t something anyone has mentioned or that she’s even brought up. I’m entirely mystified where the rape comes in as well. She’s invented this out of nothing and is now pretending that its part of the plan of the Bolsheviks in an attempt to scare us into thinking that no longer enforcing marriage is a bad thing.