Lesson 11: The Communist Manifesto, Part 3

I hold weekly meetings for interested parties here in Hendersonville, NC. This is a synopsis from our 11th meeting.

Synopsis of Week 11 Meeting:

We continue The Communist Manifesto.

1. Quoting the next paragraph in our study: “We see, therefore, how the modern bourgeoisie is itself the product of a long course of development, of a series of revolutions in the modes of production and of exchange.”

How misleading! The bourgeoisie (itself a misnomer) is and has always been a reflection of the means and mores of the “masses.” Unless the people are entirely enslaved, there is a marketplace, and this marketplace is enumerated by “the 99%” – that is, by those of average means. Therefore, capitalism, and the fabric of society around it, is entirely at the mercy of “proletariat” and their tastes.

The fact that religion, the family, and the social sciences (including psychology) impress certain values on the general population is no indicator that the marketplace is pre-designed any more than the color blue may be given credit for the popularity of the football New York Giants. The marketplace for the Giants is made by the same measures as any other football team: (1) location, (2) results, (3) good will.

Factually, the only economic and social arrangement in which the bourgeoisie are assured a captive audience is Marxism, wherein the state runs all commerce. Even a military dictatorship or monarchy is less interested in controlling the marketplace than the loyalty of the people. Even the harshest Islamic or papal state has offered internal free trade, within the confines of its particular religious law. The Communist Manifesto has thus described not capitalism but Marxism! In psychological terms, it is called “projection.”

Where Marx is able to hook a gullible and ignorant audience lies in the final clause. Naturally, production and exchange has evolved as health, technology, and public education have improved; but these were/are improvements due to creativity, individuality, and liberty, not statism.

2. Quoting the next paragraph in our study: “Each step in the development of the bourgeoisie was accompanied by a corresponding political advance of that class. An oppressed class under the sway of the feudal nobility, an armed and self-governing association in the medieval commune, here independent urban republic (as in Italy and Germany); there taxable “third estate” of the monarchy (as in France); afterwards, in the period of manufacturing proper, serving either the semi-feudal or the absolute monarchy as a counterpoise against the nobility, and, in fact, cornerstone of the great monarchies in general, the bourgeoisie has at last, since the establishment of Modern Industry and of the world market, conquered for itself, in the modern representative State, exclusive political sway. The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie.”

If the reader has already fallen under Marx’s lies and misdirection, this paragraph has appeal – but only to one aggrieved. Recalling at all times that the central service of Marxism is to proffer sympathy or compassion to “the grievance,” Marx’s explanation for the stability of capitalist society drills directly into those who feel powerless. Marx furthermore explains this helplessness, both in terms of reality and psychology, as stemming directly from a police state which protects evil capitalism. Marx rarely misses an opportunity to feed into the “communism vs. fascism” game (see Synopsis 10).

Even those who despise communism may be sucked into half-agreement by dint of Marx’s historical perspective. Yet, it is dialectical materialism posing as historicity. Though romantic in exposition, Marx’s sequence is flawed. In fact, each development of the “bourgeoisie” was not accompanied by some monarchal evolution, nor vice versa. Exploration of the New World, for example, did not result in any significant shift in European power structure, except perhaps in national dominance. On the other side, France’s bloody internal struggles were not met with an equivalent positive change for the wealthy; if anything, those able to escape La Guerre Parisienne moved to the relatively sedate climes of Prussia or England.

Marx’s greatest transgression here is the identification of American constitutional government as the worst of all possible worlds. The error is not a difference of opinion but deliberate deceit. Consider: “afterwards, in the period of manufacturing proper, serving either the semi-feudal or the absolute monarchy as a counterpoise against the nobility, and, in fact, cornerstone of the great monarchies in general, the bourgeoisie has at last, since the establishment of Modern Industry and of the world market, conquered for itself, in the modern representative State, exclusive political sway.” Since the American representative state was founded specifically on the Hebrew (Torah) method of government (tribal representation, leading to the chief executive Moses, actually the humble servant of the true executive, God), Marx’s aim is, for those who know his earlier works, to destroy true religion as well. Whether or not you believe that the representative form of government is a puppet of capitalist concerns (the multinational corporation, in modern vernacular), a choice has been handed to you: (1) accept Marx’s premise, which demands the dismantling of the Constitution and dismissal of Torah Law, or (2) reject the premise, acceding to the so-called fascism of capitalism and its surrounding fabric (including religion).

The choice is false. It breeds from biased, even bigoted, standpoints. First, it is anti-Semitic, as we have in earlier Synopses proven. Nevertheless, the damage is done. Even if one rejects Marx’s premise, the seed of doubt has been planted. As grievances are harvested and warehoused, the Marxist is able to leverage these stored resentments as proof that capitalism, and therefore Judaism (that is Torah), is the main cause of societal and economic casualty. Second, it is anti-Christian. For as On the Jewish Question bluntly posited, when a Christian is a capitalist, that Christian is a Jew. Those with no animosity towards the Jew see this as benign, but those who hold hatred and/or old superstitious fears against Jews may be blinded and/or lead ferocious pogroms. Thus, we see again in 2011 the rumblings of anti-Jew rhetoric and symbols where social upheaval or economic crumbling is worse. The Christian is therefore forced to choose sides. The Marxist’s job is to separate Christian from Christian by creating the paradigm of “social justice” (for white peoples) and “replacement theology” (for non-whites). Simply, Marxism seeks to make “compassion” the central plank of Christianity when in fact it is Torah (the rule of law) which Christ has made sacred (Matthew 5:19, Matthew 23:3, Luke 18:18-20, et al). Humility to one who is greater, not compassion for fellow man, is the motivator for serving God. If not, all we have is humanism, that is, atheism, that is, communism.

Why Torah (commonly known as the Pentateuch, that is, the first five books of the Bible)? If one believes in the Ten Commandments, there is no doubt about it - they are the central core of Torah. Therefore, if Marxism is to succeed, it must destroy that core.

The third bigotry is nationalism. Marx exposes that immigrants often take more menial work until they are assimilated. In America, the path to such nationalism is often smooth, but in Europe that road has been notoriously difficult and sometimes impossible. Related bigotries (race and gender) have obvious concurrence. Marxism seeks to exploit these grievances through great power blocs of those “left behind.”

Marx ends the paragraph with this choice phrase: “The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie.” In other words, the President of the United States is a stooge for big business. How powerfully this impacts any particular person is naturally staked to how far back the social or economic ladder an individual may be when this bombast is heard. Marxism, however, does not rely on winning votes, only planting seeds which sprout “when the time is right,” i.e. at the revolution.

The Occupy movement of 2011 was apparently a call to action for such seedlings. Yet, the Marxist was unpleasantly surprised to find little support within most communities, even during tough economic and social times, and even with radical Leftists in government cheering. Why? Marx miscalculated; and therefore the Marxist, being a purist, also miscalculates. They have failed to recognize that America is special. There is a "magical" (actually, God-imbued) nature to the air and water of the United States which causes even those with most virulent ideology to take pause. However, don’t be lulled into a stupor – this aura, though so very resilient, is not indestructible; and liberty must occasionally be watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Marx’s riskiest gambit is therefore somewhat nullified by the opportunities of liberty afforded through those most ancient documents – Torah, the Magna Carta, the Constitution. In America, rugged individualism over meager collectivism is for most still the default choice. In the main, Americans would rather go without and be free than to be fed and enslaved. The goal of the Marxist is to break this resolve.

3. Quoting the next paragraph in our study: “The bourgeoisie, historically, has played a most revolutionary part.”

Marx is basically saying, “The capitalists did it to themselves.” First, this is a gleeful shirking of personal responsibility, ignoring all of the social advances man ever achieved through moral rebellion (Pilgrims, Huguenots, Abolitionists, et al).

Second, it is passive-aggressive behavior, blaming others for the misfortune one has. Even those in torturous circumstances have found faith in God to be a stronger weapon than collective rage.

The irony is, if “the capitalists did it to themselves,” what did they do? If you don’t know, I suggest at this point you read The 5000 Year Leap by Skousen.

4. Quoting the next paragraph in our study: “The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his “natural superiors”, and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous “cash payment”. It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervour, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom — Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.”

Read this out loud and dramatically. Notice the following: (1) how emotional it is, (2) how florid it is, (3) how hypocritical it is. While we know that Marxism appeals to emotion and imagery (whereas capitalism entreats to the mind and to actuality), it is truly mesmerizing to witness the religiosity with which it inflames. Captured is no less the essence of a John Wesley or Billy Graham. The adjectives are more important to the invective than are the verbs. Despite his rejection of such occupations, one should think Marx a poet or philosopher. Nevertheless, it is the malevolent and auspicious devaluation of language itself which must appall most.

Did Marx really convey to caring for “the heavenly ecstasies of religious fervour” (Marxist blasphemy!) while simultaneously pining for “philistine sentimentalism” (paganism)? Did he then actually utter that these were drowned in “icy calculation” when that description is the essence of Marxism?

As for capitalism having “resolved personal worth into exchange value,” that is the process of life which Marx himself extolled! Did he not say that the proletariat has been exploited, that is, not received a true exchange value for the personal worth of his services and character? Ah, but Marx is not interested in logic but in fanning the fires of human envy.

Note the punchline – it is “Free Trade” which is the Visigoth construct. The barbarian Marx is calling out technological progress as barbarian!

And the “one word” which is always on the lips of the Marxist – “exploitation” – is counted as not only the end (“for exploitation”) but also the means (... brutal exploitation”). That is, the aim of religion and politics is to reach exploitation by exploitation. It should be obvious that only the lowest form of human conduct – sin – could harbor such claptrap. It is not the liberty of free trade which exploits, but the intrusion of and collusion with government which sets traps for “the folks.” For when free trade is unfettered by regulation, and neither protected nor persecuted by government, the association between merchant and customer is true, according to proper weights and measures, with moral certitude through public approval or else ostracism. In short, when Torah (true, not crony, capitalism) is the basis of both business and judicial law, all honest and righteous people prosper. On the other hand, when a heavy yoke is placed upon the people by regulation or tax, whether directly or through the veil of “fair share” legislation, all such happiness suffers.

Marxism is not the cure for such ills; it is the next step in oppression. For even if we live now in a fascist police state which protects capitalist interests through brutality and other coercion, it is still better than the grey fruitlessness of eternal envy and sameness. At least under fascism there is an illusion of natural rights; under communism there is neither illusion nor right.

I am not, however, convinced that America is a fascist nation. There is of course growing concern that we have traded liberty for security, as well as suspicion that perhaps the multinational corporations and international banks have usurped American sovereignty; but one must excuse my optimism that these are not long-term but momentary trends in the overall trajectory. I believe America to be not an oppressor nation but the land of opportunity. If not, why is this nation still the primary target not only for hopeful immigrants but also for bomb-throwing Leftists?

5. Quoting the next paragraph in our study: “The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage labourers.”

At this point, the Marxist will be shaking with laughter, the capitalist left scratching his head. Only the ingénue will be convinced of anything.

That Marx invokes “the priest, the poet” as honorable occupations is antithetical humor, but to the innocent it is dewy-eyed idealism. “See?,” croons the hypnotized romanticist, “Marx cares for our institutions.” The lie, however, is evident; for how is it that religion is the tool of capitalism and yet Marx defends it? This is the Hegelian dialectic. While the rationalist attempts to unravel any practical logic, the Marxist sneaks off to plant the next linguistic landmine.

Another odd dualism is that “the man of science” is the “paid wage laborer” for capitalism, yet it is science itself which Marx utilizes to disprove the metaphysical aspects of capitalist society. Shall we now believe that the evolutionist works under the same aegis as the creationist? Or that the climatologist is in the same department as the industrialist? Again, these are but clouds of psychedelic aroma meant to entice, which only those with no experience or blinding envy will inhale.

6. Quoting the next paragraph in our study: “The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation.”

Once again, experience knows that religion is a foundational partner of the family whereas Marxism’s interest in family is particularly towards productivity. This does not exclude that certain elements of capitalist society do not target the family for self-interested motivation. For examples, (1) the government tax code encourages marriage and children by providing deductions, and (2) marriage may take the form of a financial arrangement, two incomes being more attractive than one for their buying power (which confluence indicates empowerment, not slavery).

And what has been Marx’s opinion of the family’s “sentimental veil”? Merely that the family is a form of slavery (see previous Synopses). And what is Marx’s solution? Merely to strip the child early from the mother’s grip, to educate “properly,” and to enrich the mass of uniform collectivism. Marxism is in need of productivity born from generic collectivist thinking, even breeding. For examples, we need look no further than the regimes of Lenin, Mao and Hitler. Any pretense therefore that Marx cares for the family is only Hegelian dialectic.

Next Week: It only gets worse. Try to stick with it, educate yourself, and know your enemy.

The clash Marx predicted is here, and you can’t avoid it. A worldwide struggle has now emerged, between the forces of Marxism, crony capitalism (oligarchy), radical Islam (theocratic Marxism), and several other master racists with immense power. Caught in the middle is the Constitution and Torah. The good news is, there are still more of “us” than “them.” We only need to find each other and pledge to fight for those ideals which proclaim liberty and righteousness.