Lesson 8: The German Ideology, Part 3+

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

Synopsis of Week 8 Meeting:

Concluding our study of Marx’s The German Ideology.

(1) Wikipedia writes:

“To illustrate this theoretical framework, Marx draws on his formulation of base and superstructure. Historical development is the reflection of changes in the economic and material relations of the base. When the base changes, a revolutionary class becomes the new ruling class that forms the superstructure. During revolution, the revolutionary class makes certain that its ideas appeal to humanity in general so that after a successful revolution these ideas appear natural and universal. These ideas, which the superstructural elements of society propagate, then become the governing ideology of the historical period. Furthermore, the governing ideology mystifies the economic relations of society and therefore places the proletariat in a state of false consciousness that serves to reproduce the working class.”

The “base” is the economic infrastructure, which essentially is defined by resources and labor. Resources are used to manufacture goods, build homes and other structures, and for trade. Labor is the available manpower from durable population.

The “superstructure” is the political and/or ideological framework. Currently, the United States enjoys a capitalist ideology which has been the driving force in transforming the world from primarily agrarian to the technological and health marvel it is today (I suggest you read The 5000 Year Leap by Skousen). The political extrapolations have reduced to Republican (representative rule), Democrat (“people power”), Libertarian (individual rule, close to anarchy, via morality), with other parties/powers being either negative against predominant American principles (for example, Communist Party) or else derivative denominationally (for example, Green Party).

Marxism teaches that control over the base and superstructure comes by some combination of hard force, that is, fascism (police state, military dictatorship) and/or soft coercion, that is, manipulation (control over the media, education, social workers, psychology, etc). According to this teaching, both the proletariat (worker class) and the bourgeoisie (ownership class) are “alienated” from all things, including the society, each other, and the self. Naturally, all such dialogue is one-sided, as the Marxist use of Hegelian dialectic demands. That is, only capitalism, never Marxism, is accused of these means and ends.

As noted last week, Marx in The German Ideology goes to great lengths to complicate the historical view of societal economic development. He includes such generalizations and assumptions as the “latent slavery” of the family, the distended slavery of tribal compartmentalization, and static attitudes within medieval feudal society which exclude obvious differences in worldwide cultures and religions as well as distinctions between various individuals and smaller conclaves which eventually have made some major impact (for example, Quakers).

Marx’s deceit would be rather bland and disposable were it not for his zealous followers, who are blind not only to their master’s errors but also to the actual history of socialism and attempted communism. One of the worst offenses (as noted in Synopsis #1) is to say that “we’ve not truly ever seen communism.” This “timeout” mentality (only available to Marxists, mind you) would have us believe that those dictatorships and slaughters which grew out of so-called democratic revolutions (French, Russian, Chinese, Cuban, and so on) were not collectivist, not Marxist, not communist, or else not failures. As such, Marxists are not idealists but viciously dangerous blind ideologues.

Marxist “revolution” is a change in superstructure which removes capitalism in its every form, from political to economic to ideological and even to the individual level. For if any person should be permitted to spread the idea of capitalism ever again, it is well-understood that the dreaded “selfish motivation” would unveil Marxism as no more than the “hard force/soft control” monstrosity it is. As concrete evidence, let us observe that in every place where Marxism has been implemented it is the freedom of the press and the freedom of assembly which must first be forbidden and expunged. Those who would publish any different idea from Marxism, whether in print or in congregation, must be held down to the ground and removed from sight. In contrast, the capitalist society has at least the principles of free press and free assembly embedding in its governmental contract, the constitution (whether or not you believe such things are in fact maximally flexed).

Marxism uses the revolution to push its agenda, that is, societal and economic change through a “scientific” synthesis of countervailing forces. According to the Marxist, the force known as capitalism (read: Jew, American, business owner, banker) makes primary the security of private property. Therefore, the Marxist, uncaring for that fabric, has the advantage in any anti-capitalist revolutionary conflict, whether that be an argument, fistfight, protest march, or insurrection. This is again Marx’s “static attitude” philosophy at work, and it is both blind and wrong. First, fear or inaction is not per se the reaction of the capitalist but only of the human being who desires no more than peaceful enjoyment of natural rights (including life, liberty, and personal property, the pursuit of happiness) and an expectation of their protection through government agencies (police, military) paid by taxes, sweat, and patriotism. No different thought process should be expected from the entrenched Marxist. Second, Marx neglects to account for those more fearsome capitalist counter-revolutionary forces, among them independent agents, individual militarists, constitutional defenders, family protectors, and those who comprehend between slavery and liberty.

The Marxist principle that the revolution is merely an acknowledgement of an inherent hunger in society for transformation is based upon, for the most part, psychology. This includes incessant media bombardment, education of youth from an early age, and generous entitlement programs designed to bribe emotions, if not votes. According to the doctrine, once the revolution succeeds, the psychology is so firm that any dissension back to “the way it was” (capitalism) will be met with, first, fierce doctrine impervious to any contrary notion and, second, an internal secret police force guided by peer pressure and tattling.

When the dust settles, the former proletariat become the new working class who ostensibly self-govern their new society. Ironically, “self-government” is exactly that which is overthrown in favor of Marxism, the antithesis of self-government. Theoretical Marxism is thus selling a constitutional government without any of the protections inherent in a constitutional government! Marxism brainwashes to hate the very society it promises! Why? So that when (not if) in the new utopia complaints are lodged regarding unfulfilled Marxist promises, the accusers can at any time be named as enemies of the state and forthwith removed from sight.

In sum, Marxism is not scientific in the least, but merely observational and quite subjective in its conclusions. It is what it needs to be in order to manifest itself. This is the Hegelian dialectic at its “best.” Marxist revolution is therefore a fake and a fraud. Only through agitation is it made to appear that democracy approaches when in fact tyranny is brewing. For modern, action-oriented individuals, beware these things: (1) Occupy Wall Street and other such gatherings which are meant to lead to general strikes, food shortages, and eventual martial law and military rule, (2) overthrow of Middle Eastern governments which lead to the rise of Marxist organizations such as Al Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood (tyranny, not freedom), and (3) re-consolidation of the European Union as well as the strikes/demonstrations in opposition, either of which may lead to collectivist fascism.

(2) Wikipedia reads:

“Morality, religion, metaphysics, all the rest of ideology and their corresponding forms of consciousness no longer retain the semblance of independence; they have no history and no development; but men, developing their material production and their material intercourse, alter, along with their real existence, their thinking and the product of their collective thinking. This approach allows us to cease understanding history as a collection of dead facts or an imagined activity of subjects.”

In brief, Marxism teaches that all things invisible (morality, religion, metaphysics, etc) are slavery and their adherents slaves. Marx believed that each of these invisible things were individualistic, with no cohesive collective consciousness through history or material (that is, sensory) basis, and therefore useless. Men (that is, not mice) “alter” (through revolution) their thinking to respect only the collective ideology.

Marx, however, is no Nostradamus but only a reporter, blandly stating the obvious. There is no doubt that, once a societal revolution has taken root, people will congregate their thoughts to collective messaging (such as in religion, business, government). It is the way of all things that fear and greed rule the human mind. Thus, Marx’s communications are sophistry, meant only to deceive.

His true message is that communism is the savior of man from himself. You need communism. This indicates that Marx had and Marxism has a messiah complex. Not that this is unusual in the annals of human behavior, but it makes Marxism no less dangerous. Communism is not a societal evolution, not cool, not cute, not a grand experiment.

But for the sake of argument, let’s say capitalism is a terrible system. Why does that naturally lead to communism as the solution? Why is a stateless utopia the proper remedy? Marx in his “goodness” has given you the answer: that all ruling class systems are inherently corrupt (in modern parlance, suck). What he doesn’t tell you is that Marxism, despite the stated ideology, is and must lead to a ruling class. Bakunin, the anarchist, and Marx’s friend and contemporary (see Synopsis #5), said exactly this of Marx’s authoritarian socialism:

“If you took the most ardent revolutionary and vested him in absolute power, within a year he would be worse than the Tsar himself.”

Considering the source, this is perhaps the most damning and convincing of all statements against Marxism (but lest you think Bakunin worthy of your respect, read his works).

(3) Marx followed The German Ideology with The Poverty of Philosophy (1847), a response to French anarcho-socialist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon's The Philosophy of Poverty and a critique of French socialist thought in general. In the history of Marx's thought and Marxism, this work is pivotal in the distinction between the concepts of utopian socialism and what Marx and the Marxists claim as scientific socialism. For scientific socialism, the most one could say is that socialism, e.g. Marxism, has, at least historically, been a current which finds expression in various scientific disciplines such as mathematical economics and sociology. Socialism and Marxism are thus better described as theoretical frameworks for understanding and analyzing the social, economic and political world. But utopian socialism is based on ideas much more than “materialism” (that is, what can be seen and measured).

Despite the philosophy, Marx actually had very little scientific basis for this claim, for it is that his Marxist socialism would be stamped out at every turn in his life, whether in Prussia, France or elsewhere. Marx’s calculations were entirely theoretical. This did not, however, stop Marx from separating himself from what he called utopian idiocy. But, in the final analysis, Marxism is a utopian (not scientific) socialism (Leninism would prove this).

(4) Next week, we begin The Communist Manifesto. Although one might have expected our scholarship to have been initiated with this document, I assure you that your insight into it would be only superficial without our previous studies.