“…That’s a peculiar title.”
“Instructor, can you tell us what it’s about?”
“You’ll understand once you read it. These are books you’ll be taking with you anyway.”
Capital, The Doctrine of Fascism, The Anarchist.
As you might guess from the titles, they’re all magical texts filled with nothing but subversive and impure content.
‘I nearly died editing this crap.’
Since there were no proper Korean translations, I had to memorize the original versions and translate them into the language of this world.
I had to cut out or revise the parts that mentioned countries on Earth,change metaphors and technical descriptions to fit the times, and so on.
It was ridiculously hard.
Especially Capital.
Marx, that bastard—if he’s not the original demonic communist, I don’t know who is.
His writing is insanely complicated.
Run-on sentences were the norm, and the philosophical expressions were endless.
It was a real pain rewriting it in a way even kids could understand.
That alone must’ve taken two weeks.
“Still, since you’re probably curious, let me introduce them a bit… First, Capital is for students who care about the common people.
It’s helpful for those interested in the lives and conditions of the classes that make up the majority of the nation.”
To summarize the finished content—Capital is more or less what most people already know.
But I adjusted it to better fit the realities of this world and cranked up the intensity of the claims a bit.
“The value of all goods consists of use-value and exchange-value. Exchange-value refers to the average amount of labor required for production.”
“Capitalists pay wages to workers, but workers produce value far beyond that—what’s known as surplus value.
Surplus value is exploited and accumulated by the capitalist, and in this process, the workers grow increasingly impoverished, while capital becomes more centralized and concentrated.”
It highlighted the fundamental structure and flaws of the capitalist system.
It helped explain why the lower classes live in poverty and misery.
“Production is privatized by the workers’ collective labor,but ownership tends to be privatized by a handful of capitalists.
While workers cannot escape poverty, the few rich individuals only grow wealthier.
This is an inevitable phenomenon under capitalism.”
“As production expands, supply continues to grow.
As technology advances and labor becomes more intensive, efficiency and scale increase even further.
But capitalists, in their efforts to outdo competitors and dominate the market, exploit workers—which in turn causes supply to outpace demand.”
“When the internal contradictions of this system reach their peak, class conflict inevitably intensifies into struggle.
If the working class triumphs in that struggle, capitalism will collapse,and society will transition to the next, more advanced system—socialism.”
It laid out the future that would unfold if these problems weren’t addressed, the consequences to come, and the ending that would follow.
Even if the system that had ruled humanity for centuries fell, there would still be a next stage.
And that stage might even be better than the present.
Of course, that didn’t happen on Earth.
Capitalism chose to recognize and improve upon its own contradictions and flaws.
As a result, ideas like Keynesianism and modified capitalism emerged to ease social inequality.
But here?
“They don’t even have a solid grasp of what capitalism is yet, do they?”
These students only know how to differentiate capitalism from socialism because I taught them.
Mercantilism and agrarianism had been the dominant primitive systems until now, but now, starting with Hispania, modern capitalism was beginning to grow.
But what about the outside world?
They don’t even have the concept of economics yet.
They’re just scrambling to copy the distorted version of The Wealth of Nations I planted.
“There’s absolutely no way they’ll improve quickly.”
Even without a steam engine, division of labor had been introduced, and labor exploitation was becoming widespread.
They even used population theory as an excuse to justify disdain and exploitation of the weak (which I deliberately intended).
Technology was advancing, but society’s awareness and academic understanding were far behind.
There were also many factors intentionally preventing them from catching up.
At the very least, it’ll take ten years before they even begin to recognize the problems and try to fix them.
Now is the perfect time for a socialist revolution.
In a situation like this, Capital is practically the Heavenly Demon Divine Art.
Even if the other side has logic and reasoning to refute it, this theory works.
Without it?
There’s no point in even talking.
The only way to stop it would be brute force—and even that might not work effectively.
“On the other hand, the Doctrine of Fascism is great for students who like unity and solidarity. It’s for those who’d rather see the nation come together as one than be torn apart and fight amongst themselves.”
Fascism, by contrast, stands on the opposite end from socialism.
They share some similarities in terms of capital management and economic operation, but everything else is fundamentally different.
If socialism pursues equality and democracy, fascism glorifies totalitarian control.
If socialism values international cooperation, fascism sees conquest and war as noble.
It didn’t always work like that in practice, but ideologically, that’s how it was.
“In short, they’re incompatible.”
But in a different sense, polar opposites are also equal forces.
It means fascism has its own appeal, capable of captivating people with a dark, bitter flavor distinct from the “red flavor” ideology.
Italy and Nazi Germany are prime examples of that.
They hated communism so much that fascism rose to power, and it was able to maintain its system because it was popular enough to serve as a viable alternative—At least until it all collapsed in war.
“It suits people who hate change.”
Those who fear drastic systemic shifts would naturally gravitate toward it.
Especially the privileged or wealthy, who’d lose their heads in a communist revolution.
The Doctrine of Fascism is an essay that explains this ideological identity.
The author is Benito Mussolini.
In that sense—being written by the founder of the ideology—it’s similar to Capital.
“The past era belonged to feudalism and religion. But there is no reason why the coming age must be the same. We believe that the new ‘Age of the State’ will rise, freeing us from libertinism and outdated customs.”
“The fascist concept of the state encompasses everything. There is no value to humans or souls outside the state. No organization exists outside the state, and it is not the people who create the state, but the state that creates the people.”
Banana-to Marshmelloni—no, Mussolini—said it in his book.
Only a strictly controlled society and a unified people can guarantee a hopeful future.
An exclusive, totalitarian society rooted in nationalism is superior to any other system.
“Fascists do not believe in the possibility of eternal peace. Such dreams are nothing more than vain delusions. Only war can bring out the full strength of humanity, and only those who face it with courage gain nobility.”
“The state’s power is derived from the citizens who belong to it. A proper community requires citizens who are willing to sacrifice themselves, free from old conflicts and division.”
The maximum strength of a nation is achieved when all elements are managed by the government, and anything that hinders it must be eliminated.
Inferior systems like democracy and communism will never be able to withstand a fascism that is always prepared for war.
That’s the gist of its arguments.
I figure a lot of people would be tempted by this.
After all, compared to the outdated feudal system and aristocracy, it’s a significant improvement.
It’s much easier to accept than communism too.
“And finally, anarchism… would suit students who dislike control and domination. It’s for those who value individual freedom and rights above all else.”
The third book was written by me.
I compiled and remixed key anarchist texts from several thinkers.
The foundation was Proudhon’s What is Property? and Mikhail Bakunin’s God and the State.
Then I added a bit of Pyotr Kropotkin and Errico Malatesta, tweaking and reconstructing their ideas.
I made it so that reading just this one book would be enough to understand and practice anarchism.
“Because it’s hard to provide multiple books.”
Since anarchism isn’t a doctrine founded and systematized by a single person, I had to consolidate it.
To understand it properly, you’d normally need to plow through several classical works.
But students don’t have time for that, so I had no choice but to summarize and condense it for them.
Ah, and I deliberately left out the individualist branch of anarchist theory.
That branch focuses on individual sovereignty and independence, which doesn’t really help with societal change.
“Property is theft. It’s different from possessions—what individuals use and own. Property, on the other hand, is the right to profit from the labor of others. It is essentially no different from plunder.”
“Property rights are artificial institutions created by the state and law to protect the interests of the powerful. To break free from this oppression, cooperative and mutual economic practices are essential.”
So, the main points of the completed book are threefold:First, it urges resistance to state control and the collusion of politics and economics.
“God symbolizes human subjugation.
Faith is a tool used to suppress reason and freedom, exploited by those in power to control the masses.
Believing in a goddess is a noble human virtue.
But rather than follow a church manipulated by the powerful, one must forge their own path of faith.”
“Revolution must arise from voluntary solidarity among the oppressed.
Strikes and protests are exemplary models of this.
But realistically, it’s difficult for the people to initiate movements alone, so the presence of guiding intellectuals becomes vital.”
“Freedom comes not from submission, but from solidarity. Anarchist violence is a form of resistance against oppression, but the ultimate goal must be to build a free society.”
The second point is a refusal to cooperate with the established church and disobedience to the old regime.
The third and final point is the necessity of collective action for a society based on personal sovereignty.
It’ll probably lose out to socialism or fascism.
Its arguments aren’t as forceful, so it’s unlikely to become the dominant ideology.
At best, it might form anti-government movements or terrorist organizations.
Still, I didn’t mind.
Those first two ideologies would shake up the world anyway.
Anarchism just needed to show up afterward and finish breaking whatever outdated system was still left.
“Now, I’ll call your names one by one. Please come forward to receive your book. First, Hermann Meyer?”
I called each student up and gifted them the book that suited them.
Along with some parting words—wishing they’d each do their best to pursue their dreams after I was gone.
Since there weren’t that many people, the distribution was over in just a few minutes.
“Well then, I’ll be going now. Please take care. Hopefully, we’ll meet again someday.”
“Th-Thank you for everything, Instructor!”
“See you again someday!”
Whether any of them would act the way I hoped, I didn’t know.
But I’d be happy if even two or three succeeded.
*****
But at the time, I didn’t yet know—Just how big the tiny seeds I’d sown would grow.