Evolutionary Socialism was Bernstein's most significant work, and it set the stage for the Democratic Socialism of today. In Evolutionary Socialism, Bernstein was principally concerned with refuting Karl Marx's predictions about the imminent and inevitable demise of capitalism. Bernstein warned that a violent proletarian revolution, as in France in 1848, produced only reactionary successes, which undermined workers' interests. Therefore, he rejected revolution and instead insisted the best strategy to be patiently building up a durable social movement working for continuous nonviolent incremental change.

The Real Report appeared under the pseudonym 'Censor' when Sanguinetti, a former member of the Situationist International, mailed his brilliant fake to 520 elite Italian industrialists, academics, journalists and politicians in 1975. Posing as a cultured Italian aristocrat and with a sweeping knowledge of history, classical literature, politics and military strategy, 'Censor' sounded like a conservative from another era, an heir to Dante and Machiavelli, counseling his executive peers in response to autonomous workers' strikes that were sweeping the country. Having been deported from France in 1971 and freshly released from jail on false weapons charges, Sanguinetti succeeded in causing a scandal while laying bare the secret machinations of the state and covert manipulation of terrorist groups by the intelligence services. Translated for the first time in English, by Len Bracken, with a translator's preface and appendix.

Twenty years ago the workers and peasants of Russia under the leadership of the Bolshevik Party overthrew the rule of the landlords and capitalists. When the yoke of the bourgeoisie had been cast off, the capitalists and their henchmen, the Socialist-Revolutionaries and the Mensheviks, asserted that the end of the world had come, that without the bourgeoisie the workers would be unable to start the factories going and run the country, that the people would be doomed to hunger and barbarism until the bourgeois order was restored. The capitalists together with the Mensheviks and the Socialist-Revolutionaries raised Whiteguard rebellions within the country and for three years, with the direct participation of the armies of fourteen countries, they waged a counter-revolutionary war against the workers arid peasants. They did not achieve their aim. The workers and peasants of the Soviet Union, in stubborn struggle, defended their liberty and the gains of the Great October Socialist Revolution, and repelled all enemy attacks. The proletarians of the capitalist countries aided the workers and peasants of the Soviet Union in their fight against counter-revolution. In the land of the Soviets the building of socialism proceeded on an extensive scale. Twenty years ago our country was wretched and poor. The peasant went hungry; he scratched the soil with a wooden plough. Now he has become prosperous; tractors and harvester combines do the heavy work for him. Hundreds of thousands of poor folk roamed the highways looking for work; now, under socialism, there are no unemployed in our country. Thousands of new enterprises have been constructed; new railways, canals and big electric power stations have been built. Machines which previously were imported from abroad are now manufactured in the Soviet Union. Our country has become independent of capitalist countries. National oppression has been replaced by the free development of the cultural forces of each people. The Soviet people regard the future calmly and without apprehension. The Stalin Constitution of the U.S.S.R. guarantees the right to work, to rest and leisure, to education, to maintenance in old age and in case of sickness or loss of capacity to work. Life has become better, life has become more joyous. The mighty Red Army, which is of the flesh and blood of the working people of the U.S.S.R., defends the borders of the Soviet Union. What can capitalism show by comparison? Crises, idle factories, millions of unemployed, impoverishment of the workers and peasants, fascist violence that deprives the working people of every liberty, arming at a furious pace, predatory imperialist wars, a decline of culture and a decrease in the number of students, continued and intensified national and colonial oppression, gnawing fear for the future, general discontent and embitterment against the existing order on the part of the working people. The past twenty years have clearly demonstrated all the advantages of the new social order over the old, of socialism over capitalism.

""Film in the Battle of Ideas"" is a book written by John Howard Lawson, a screenwriter and member of the Hollywood Ten who was blacklisted during the McCarthy era. The book explores the role of film in shaping public opinion and political ideology, particularly in the United States during the 1930s and 1940s. Lawson argues that film is a powerful tool for propaganda and that Hollywood has the ability to shape public opinion and influence political discourse. He examines the ways in which films have been used to promote various political ideologies, including fascism, communism, and capitalism, and argues that filmmakers have a responsibility to use their medium for the greater good. The book also delves into the political and cultural climate of Hollywood during the time period, including the effects of the Hays Code and the Red Scare. Overall, ""Film in the Battle of Ideas"" is an insightful and thought-provoking analysis of the intersection between film and politics.This scarce antiquarian book is a facsimile reprint of the old original and may contain some imperfections such as library marks and notations. Because we believe this work is culturally important, we have made it available as part of our commitment for protecting, preserving, and promoting the world's literature in affordable, high quality, modern editions, that are true to their original work.

Ivan T. Berend is Distinguished Professor at the University of California Los Angeles, Director of the European Studies Program. He was one of the masterminds of regime change in Hungary. He made a career in Hungary as a university professor, Rector of the University of Economics (1973–79), and President of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences (1985–90). He was President of the International Committee of Historical Sciences (1995–2000), and Vice-President of the International Economic History Association (1986–1994). His research interests are the complex economic, social, ideological, and cultural history of Central and Eastern Europe in the 19th–20th century; economic modernization; problems of European backwardness; transition from state socialism to capitalism. He published and 26 books and more than 120 studies. Before he became a professor at UCLA, Ivan Berend had survived five regime changes and two revolutions in Hungary, had been in prison and German concentration camp in 1944–45. His memoir offers an interesting case study, a subjective addition to the "objective" historical works on Central and Eastern European state socialism. It describes the hard choices of intellectuals in a dictatorial state: 1. remain in isolation, concentrate on scholarly works, and exclude politics in your personal life; 2. be in opposition, criticize and unveil the regime, accept discrimination and exclusion; 3. remain within the establishment and work for reforming the country using legal possibilities to criticize the regime and to achieve changes from within. Berend’s book raises basic historical questions and debates, compares East European and American higher education systems, and presents an eyewitness’ insights on life in the United States.

Earlier this year, 2012, I published a book with Ishi Press entitled, Ron Paul for President in 2012: Yes to Ron Paul and Liberty. That book title has been overtaken by the press of events. I write, now, on August 31, 2012, and Mitt Romney has just been chosen as the standard bearer for the GOP in the upcoming November election. I persist in believing that had the Republican Party played fair, to say nothing of the mainstream media, Dr. Paul might have had a real chance to beat Governor Romney for that nomination. If Paul had won the GOP nomination, I still maintain that the Congressman from Texas would have easily overwhelmed President Barack Obama in the fall vote. Recent head to head surveys between the two resulted in a dead heat. My thought is that when the Obama voters realize that Paul stands with them on peace, on legalization of drugs, on opposition to bail outs to those to the fat cat crony capitalists who are “too big to fail,” on the closure of Guantanamo, on personal liberties, there would not have been much of a contest between the two of them. But this is not to be. So, I am coming out with another book, exactly like the previous one, except for this preface to what might be considered the second edition of that publication, and also except for the change in title. This new book is now entitled: Yes to Ron Paul and Liberty. Did Ron Paul fail in his presidential bid? When the Republican primaries began, these were the candidates: Michele Bachman, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, John Huntsman, Gary Johnson, Ron Paul, Tim Pawlenty, Rick Perry, Buddy Roemer, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum. Guess who, after a long grueling contest, were the last two standing? Despite the fact that Ron Paul was the last one to leave the race, obviously, yes, he “failed.” He received more votes from Democrats and Independents than any other person in the primary race, and more financial contributions from members of our armed forces, but Dr. Ron Paul will still not be on the November ballot. So why publish this “new” book? Because our beloved rEVOLution goes on. Ron Paul will continue to expose millions of Americans, and billions of people all around the world, to the evils of imperialistic war-mongering, to the mischief of the Federal Reserve System, to the benefits of true free market capitalism. He will again and again make the case in favor of Austrian economics, the gold standard and private property rights. He will demonstrate, again and again and yet again, the evils of the National Defense Authorization Ac, of murdering American citizens without a trial, of water boarding, of indefinite detention. He will defend whistle blowers such as Bradley Manning and Julian Assange. He will make the case that the war on drugs is no more justified, nor pragmatic, than alcohol prohibition. He will make the case that American troops in 900 foreign military bases in some 140 different countries does not at all constitute “defense”; that had any other country done anything like this, we would all see it for the imperialism that it really is. He will convince people that the best course of action is to “legalize freedom.”

Albert Goldman (1897 - 1960) was an American Trotskyist and lawyer to the labor movement. Born Albert Verblen in Chicago, he studied at Medhill High School and then the University of Cincinnati. He also studied to be a rabbi at the Hebrew Union College. In 1919, working as a tailor, he joined the Industrial Workers of the World, then the newly formed Communist Party of America the following year. Goldman went on to study at the Northwestern University Law School, graduating in 1925, and by 1926 was working for the Communist International Labor Defense. A visit to the Soviet Union made him critical of the party, and he was expelled in 1933 for Trotskyism. He then worked primarily for the Trotskyist movement, representing the Minneapolis Teamsters strikers in 1934, and Trotsky during the Dewey Commission. In 1939, he moved to New York City and worked full time for the Socialist Workers Party (SWP). In 1941, Goldman merely acted as defense counsel for the SWP members accused of violating the Smith Act, but was jailed for sixteen months alongside them. While in prison, Goldman worked with Felix Morrow to develop criticisms of the SWP and Fourth International leaderships. They claimed that predictions of a revolutionary wave after World War II had been proved incorrect, and that Stalinism, far from being destroyed (as Trotsky had predicted) had been strengthened. They also became critical of the party's organizational structures. The pair were only able to convince a small minority of the party of their positions, although this included key figures including Jean Van Heijenoort and James T. Farrell. In 1945, Goldman and Morrow proposed that the SWP should reunite with Max Shachtman's Workers Party, which had split from the SWP in 1940. Negotiations were taken up, but soon faltered, and Goldman left to join the Workers Party in 1946. Within the Workers Party, Goldman and Farrell worked closely. In 1948, they developed criticisms of its policies, claiming that the party should support the Marshall Plan and also Norman Thomas' presidential candidacy. Having come to believe that only capitalism could defeat Stalinism, they left, to join the Socialist Party of America.