Lesson 7: The German Ideology, Part 2

I hold weekly meetings for interested parties here in Hendersonville, NC. This is a synopsis from our seventh meeting.

Synopsis of Week 7 Meeting:

1. Human beings are defined by their activity in production.

2. Production for survival is the basic means of attributing this definition. Therefore, if one survives by means of farming, one is a farmer.

3. The interrelationships of men in society establish these things further.

4. The intertwining of societal relationships (for example, between farmer and fertilizer manufacturer) defines the strength of production in that society.

5. The relationship of nations one to another is predicated on the relative strength of their productive efforts, so that a resourceful and working nation like the United States commands respect from a nation less in those qualities (for example, Guyana).

6. The division of labor within a nation (or society) is defined by resources and population.

7. When a population grows, the division of labor within a nation (or society) causes the bonds of interdependency to grow weaker. For example, if a family unit farms, its strength is dependent on available other resources and divisions of labor. The fewer, the more interdependent is the family on itself.

8. Although it might appear that Marx is brilliant, he is only stating the obvious (at least from this 21^st-century perch). But even here Marx has made several errors. First, his assumptions, even his first assumption, is based on generalization. If you have followed our synopses, you may recognize that he has already settled his end goal, that is, his Synthesis. Now is for him the time to set up Thesis and Antithesis. Here, Marx has assumed that individuals and even societies are static in their attitudes. Perhaps his experiences in post-Napoleonic Europe shaped him to believe in this stoicism. Regardless, it is important to understand that Marx’s view of individuals and societies as (basically) sheep fits to his concept that individuals and societies can be molded to ideology. This is not far removed from his offering that religious ideologies which have manifested even in his cherished Hegelian philosophy (both for the Old Hegelians and New) may be eradicated with little more than a whimper.

Note also that families (or, more properly, family members) are to Marx merely cogs in a scheme. The only difference to Marx is whether individuals should be a “slave” (his word, not mine) to the productive capacities and goals of the family or to some “greater good.”

9. Marx postulates next that the tribal division of labor, with “latent slavery” in family units, moves to the next level of society, that of communal ownership through the strength of the State. In this case, Marx is referring to conquest over peoples who in his conception (reality, if you like) are enslaved. Then, following some accommodation for equalization at some or various levels, the ownership of property remains in the hands of established power while those formerly (or still) enslaved work for their meager existence.

While we may agree that certain members of the community are given less than an equal share (even a “fair share” if you are so philosophically inclined), there is nevertheless a need to confront Marx on the idea that subversion of one class for the elevation of another is moral, conducive to success, or both. For this is the fabric of collectivism, that there are Victims, Oppressors, and a Savior. For Marx, the Victim is obviously the “enslaved” proletariat, and the Oppressor is the ensconced power. In irony, it should be noted that if the enslaved become the power then the power (if any should survive) become the enslaved. Whether or not Marx considered that far ahead is not debatable, for his stated goal after the “revolution” is the “dictatorship of the proletariat,” thereby objectifying the turnabout.

10. Marx looks upon private property as the ill-gotten gains of conquest through war and economic devices. His principle is always that personal property which must be protected is immoral (if indeed Marx can be said to have espoused morality). Communal property is all. Those who believe in personal property rights are by his definition mis-educated, either by bourgeoisie ownership or bourgeoisie education in ownership. Marxism is therefore always in conflict with the natural rights of man, as especially upheld by the American Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution.

Those who have been so mis-educated are destined either for death in the revolution (a consequence, Marx believes, of their inability to relinquish that which is not rightfully theirs) or else reeducation after the successful revolution. If the latter fails, then elimination is called for as a compassion to the greater good (and those killed would not anyway “appreciate” the Marxist “new normal”).

The error in this is, again, Marx’s static view of the machinations of individuals and history. He does not contemplate or consider that property which has been won by conquest (for example, land taken from Indian tribes) can at no far-flung time be accurately or adequately wrested from those who took control by force and returned to their “rightful” owners. Marx must invent an ideology of inheritance whereby the descendants of those who did wrong may serve penance and gather forgiveness from the descendants of those who were wronged. This ideology is not unknown to you. It is the spirit of “white guilt” and “reparations” where it concerns black slavery in America. It is Van Jones crying “Give them the wealth! Give them the respect!” where it concerns the Native American Indian.

But it is a lie, and on two levels. First, reparative payments for the purpose of absolving ancestral guilt for reestablishing some type of cosmic order is not a recognized form of Judeo-Christian belief. It is not in Torah. Torah commands only those who sinned to receive punishment. The idea of visiting the guilt of sin for seven generations thereafter is not an extrapolation of earthly payment but only for God to mete out, at His pleasure. Even the Yom Kippur goat, which collectively pays for the annual sin of Israel, does not carry with it any necessity for heirs to return property called “stolen.” Neither did Jesus say that to be free from the guilt of sin one must repair the property rights of those long gone. That he mentioned to the rich man “perfection” might be attained by selling his possessions and giving to the poor did not jeopardize the rich man’s “eternal life,” for Jesus established by his response the attainment of that goal by keeping the commandments. Therefore, it is puzzling that Jews and Christians alike should conform to an idea of “collective salvation” which is truly Marxist in that it not only relinquishes earthly possessions (more Buddhist than anything) but also places a burden on the congregation to promote a true “dictatorship of the proletariat” by activism for such Victims. I do not doubt a congregation’s sincerity towards bringing to bear a “better world” but can they not see that those who utilize historical guilt to establish a collective society are the same Marxists who tried and failed to unveil utopia in Russia, Cuba, and elsewhere?

Second, the notion of “adequacy” must be examined. For if private property is at heart the apple which tempts mankind, why ought we to agree that its transfer from one class to another, even with some inherent trigger for equalization of wealth, should bring any more than heartache to those who never were ensnared (that is, the poor)? Furthermore, if private property (individualistic capitalism) is the provocateur of all society’s ills, is it not that Marx is a hypocrite, prescribing for the “deprived” class the same poison which he would steal from the ruling class? Certainly, the Marxist view that seizing private property and transmuting it to communal property is the end-game, but the dialectical materialism which they employ permits them to act as if they (1) are doing private property owners (the privileged class) a favor, and (2) will actually allow redistributed property to remain in the hands of the proletariat. Not only has that (to my knowledge) never happened, but it is the height of credulity to think that those unfortunate to whom something was given would peaceably assent to its further seizure.

10. Speaking on feudal society, wherein he attempts to nationalize the idea of slaves and property owners, Marx does not err as much as he does lie. His generalizations concerning feudal life, the interchangeability of the serf/lord and journeyman/apprentice relationships, and the continuance of monarchy are appalling in that he fails to recognize such society was not so much ordered by strength than as by ignorance.

Greece and Rome both fell due to corruption and irreligion, not property rights. Regarding the Roman Empire, it was a republic for 500 years before a declared empire, but even the empire itself lasted for some 500 years in its entirety, and another 1000 years in the East (the Holy Roman Empire) after the barbarians toppled the West. How is it therefore that a combined 2000 years of Roman history can be casually described as mere exploitation of weak peoples? It cannot. If Marx were the great historian he claimed to be, the only conclusion we may draw is that he intentionally misled in order to reach his desired destination. Otherwise, he is a charlatan.

The truth of European Middle Ages history (to which The German Ideology has been applied) is that the continent was lost to the barbarians (including Attila the Hun) by a combination of Roman over-extension, over-taxation, and multiculturalism, finally overrun by single-minded, tightly-woven, and very nationalistic forces. For a current analogy, imagine America destroyed by Islamic fascism. Would the United States and Western civilization be conquered due to immorality in holding unwarranted private property (as a Jeremiah Wright might preach) or would they not rather fall victim to internal immorality, including but not limited to the decimation of the family unit, the disposal of unwanted children through abortion and abandonment, class envy rather than work ethic, and so forth?

11. In advocating for the destruction of capitalism and the ownership of private property, Marx is therefore in favor of a return to barbarism. For his solution to corruption is revolution, and his answer to immorality is more immorality.

His foundational accusation is the exploitation of peoples. But this is nonsense. Capitalistic forces, while deriving their fruits from the labor of others, nevertheless improve the quality of life for every class and in every aspect, from health to housing to transportation and communication and entertainment. No culture has ever been as richly endowed with luxuries and goodies as has the Western way of life. This is not to excuse the excesses of individuals who use their treasure as weapons for power (read: crony capitalists and fascists), but there is no evidence that the structure itself is the problem. Therefore, the Marxist cry for revolution is not only a cop-out from personal responsibility (in the freest society ever to arise) but also a regression back to the “latent slavery” of tribal living.

Amusingly, this brings to image the mindless Occupy Wall Street people who, in the name of avoiding “slavery” to capitalistic forces, reduce themselves to voluntary drones by echoing "the guy with the megaphone" (or bullhorn). Do they not understand that they’ve traded one slavery for another? It's the same when those who have decided to unshackle themselves from the “slavery” of division of labor in capitalist society shackle themselves instead to the slavery of division of labor in their sub-society (whatever that may be). However, they soon find that without, for example, a cohesive chef contingent, a security force against rape or robbery, and a cogent communications network, they are at the mercy of not only their own incompetence but also open to the inherent barbarism of those who are not a part of capitalist society per se (that is, the homeless, the con men, the Marxist elements, the anarchists).

12. In retrospect, and if we were charitable to remove evil as the motivator, Marx’s idealism might be blamed on his inexperience. However, at this juncture, some 150 years after his proposition, we have seen enough carnage, and it is only due to an education system which refuses to offer the truth of Marxism that we must be subjected still to its infliction.