Lesson 9: The Communist Manifesto, Part 1

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

Synopsis of Week 9 Meeting:

We begin The Communist Manifesto.

1. The preface from Engels is rife with historical analysis, briefly from the period prior (which we have ravenously studied), extensively thereafter until 1888 (when Engels set his thoughts to paper). Of particular note is the insistence to distinguish between Socialism and Communism, the former labeled a “middle class movement,” the latter a “working class movement.” The distinction is self-conscious but it is also expedient, for not only had Communism been in retreat until perhaps 1874, but also a decision had at some point been made to abandon any hope that the middle class might “see the light” regarding capital and profit (that is, as pure exploitation and, worse, as evil). Therefore, Communism is necessarily to be viewed from this point forward as exclusively the struggle of the working class. Communism would not subsume the middle class; it would destroy it “for its own good.”

The preface also notes that Marx/Engels and Darwin had unknowingly been working towards some common goal. Whether or not these were in communication with each other is a moot point; the greater truth is that the 20^th century would see such a conflagration, with horrible consequences.

Engels furthermore makes the Hegelian argument – that a Synthesis does not depend much on linear or rigid guidelines, but instead on ever-changing tactics to suit particular environments and times. In other words, communism espouses social and economic guerrilla, even terrorist, warfare. By such stratagem, no structure is safe from Marxist (communist) subversion.

Finally, Engels dictates that the Manifesto is “a historical document which we no longer have any right to alter.” Besides the contradiction apparent in such a statement, it is instructive to observe also the method to the madness. For Engels is not knowingly lying as much as he is knowingly utilizing Hegelian dialectic. Revolution is only a means to an end. The idea that the Manifesto is only a document from history belies that at any time the communist may retrieve whatever method achieves its goal.

2. The preamble to Chapter 1 is no more than a declaration, and for the communist a quite open announcement. This I think is more related to objectification of a movement than for any semblance of order.

3. From the very start, we encounter error and manipulation. Chapter 1, entitled “Bourgeois and Proletarians,” is already a misdirection, not only for the class warfare inherent but also for its limitation in defining the movement of money, the production of goods, and the value of labor. In his entirely static view of economics, Marx sees technology as only a tool to further enslave those he presumes enslaved (we accept that Marx believes his own ideology). Thus, “capitalists,” “owners of the means of social production” (families, schools, religion, etc), and “employers of wage labor” are viewed as Oppressors; and those who sell “their labor power in order to live” as Victims.

The “genius” of Marx is in this limitation. However, the same may be said for Joe Montana as a quarterback. Simply that a man can overpower all competition at one position does not mean that the same man holds any competency whatsoever when outside the box; and therefore I would not let Joe Montana coach a football team based solely on his functional genius, nor would I allow Karl Marx to dictate terms for an entire society or economy based on his ability to identify certain behavioral irritants (envy, dishonesty, untruth) already forbidden by God’s Law.

4. The error continues, extrapolated from The German Ideology, that “the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.” As must be painfully obvious, this statement is only sensible when enclosed in the aforementioned limitation(s). It is to me disappointing that in general the human race is given over to such sweeping statements, especially when the grandeur is not matched by attendant factual basis. The most glaring deficiency in this regard has already been established in our synopses for The German Ideology. Briefly, the history which Marx encapsulates is specifically middle-European, and it excludes even from this harsh boundary many facets of human behavior and conduct which would otherwise explode his opening premise/gambit.

Amusingly, the error is addressed in footnote form (at least in my reading copy) that by “history” Marx is referring to “written history.” The joke is on us. For not only will Marx forbid the value of oral history, anecdote, and common sense, but the written history will naturally be according to the necessity of simple (doltish) communism, not complexity. In a way, Marx has given permission to those with more than an agenda to discontinue any more reading of the Manifesto. Having confessed then that the rules to this game are already rigged, and the odds tilted heavily in favor of the house, only the most foolhardy should venture forth seeking some form of social or economic truth.

All that The Communist Manifesto shall henceforth bequeath is the center of communism, that is, the grievance, and to entreat those who agree to collect and huddle under the banner of a Savior known as collectivism. Such agreement shall constitute that the entirety of human foible lay in the pursuit and/or accumulation of wealth. The Marxist is therefore in opposition to God’s Law, Torah, which states that private property is by contract sacred, trespass of such a sin, and envy the root of it all.

5. Having dispensed with reality or discretion, Marx in the next paragraph actually uses the words “oppressed” and “oppressor” to instantly infiltrate the language and inculcate the wayward. The freeman is the enemy of the slave, the lord foe of the serf, and so on. But more zealous for division is the emotional reaction that these are in “constant opposition to one another, carried on in an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight...” Certainly, no person who is in a struggle for achievement has any truck with such inflammation - and this is the point - in Marx’s world, there are no neutral beings, only friends and enemies.

Immediately after this, Marx makes the obsequious gesture that such battles “each time ended either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.” This unseemly pedestal completely ignores the American Revolution (though Marx was well aware of it), wherein there was neither a reconstitution of society at large nor a common ruin. Instead, the Revolutionary War enshrined the same English law, based on Judeo-Christian foundation, which reigned over pre-Constitutional America. There are, of course, caveats to my own sweeping generalization, but not to any excess which neutralizes it. Conclusively, especially for the student of American history, the United States is the anomaly for which communism cannot account and which it must dismiss, even to its own internal and external destruction.

6. The Manifesto’s next paragraph makes abundantly clear that America shall be saved for a later and weaker attack. Here, Marx cites the Roman Empire to plead his case, but this is already an ineffective argument (see synopsis for The German Ideology).

7. One paragraph forward, Marx is pontificating again in generalization, probably a deliberate move to solidify emotionally where he lacks in facts and logic.

8. The next paragraph is, to me, the most important thus far. Within it reads, “Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great classes directly facing each other – bourgeoisie and proletariat.” There are two pieces to this:

(a) That the middle class is disappearing. Have you heard this before? Of course you have. In every election cycle, a politician is sure to utter it. But whether or not you agree with the statement, or the specific candidate or office-holder, it is pure Marxism.

But for the sake of the argument, let’s say Marx is correct: the middle class is disappearing. He wrote this in (circa) 1847. Has the middle class been disappearing for 164 years? If so, they are quite resilient and hardy. If not, it’s about time to retire this overused chestnut. Yet, despite the illogic, the public-at-large seems to buy such dangerous corn. Why?

Simply, Marx’s genius was in discovering an eternal and universal grievance: the wealth barrier. Thus, “the middle class is disappearing” appeals to (1) the poor who have struggled valiantly (or not) and grown to envy, (2) the middle class who are inconveniently slipping backwards, and (3) the rich who have either over-compassion for those below, or guilt for their own achievement.

Clearly, once this strong (deep and wide) grievance is established the reason for it can be attributed to the most tenuous of causes. Therefore, the Victim-Oppressor-Savior diadem, even that redistributed by evil intent, though excruciatingly and plainly sinful and venomous, works.

(b) If one replaces “bourgeoisie and proletariat” with “1% and 99%” the recognizable branding of Marxism unfolds before our eyes. The players change, the sloganeering modernizes, but the grievance is the same. Here, however, the focus is placed not on the disappearing middle but on the confrontational ends. Distinctly, without the middle class to muddy the waters of Marxism, class warfare reigns. It is only for Marxism to erase the middle class from view; then, all which follows, even violent upheaval of society’s fabric, becomes a relevant possibility.

(This is I think the reason the Left has always managed to capture the heart whereas the Right is aimed to the head. Sadly, it is the victory of emotion over facts and logic which places each person everyday in danger to lose life, liberty and property).

The counter-argument comes that capitalism is blind and blinding but Marxism is awake and eye-opening. Yet, as we’ve studied to this point, the spiritual hooks which Marx early instituted relied on blaming religion, especially Judaism, and the family for teaching and metastasizing capitalism. Thus, capitalism, as explained by Marx, is hardly revelatory, instead relying on destroying basic Law (Torah), excoriating fundamental principles (upbringing), and spreading hatred. Marxism is in no manner “natural” either, for it seeks to infect and demolish those truly natural establishments of human interaction: the family (blood), the community (economics and safety), and the church (explanation of the unknown), among others. To this end, the Marxist must seize control of education, social services, and psychology in order to remodel innate behavior.

The deeper issue is whether collectivism is itself innate. The family, community, and church are models of group thinking, depending on peer pressure and common thought. Nevertheless, it is the introduction of coercion which turns a small-L libertarian assemblage into a haven of inescapable doctrine. The happy family estate may become a horror house of mental or physical abuse; the sedate town has possibility to be ruled by despots or criminals; and the church has been in times past a hotbed of inquisition. Nevertheless, these are the exception, not the rule. The collectivist, on the other hand, normally runs his dominion with an iron fist, and true liberty is unknown.

We therefore as legitimate beings must choose not “the greater good” but individual liberty, for if we deny it to others (even under such guise as “general welfare”) we have no right to think ourselves exempt from such oppression. This is the danger for us all: That Marxism shall pronounce the collectivism of liberty “hypocritical” while at the same time using that leverage to empower its own enslavement of society and individuals (the true double standard).

Under this simplest extrapolation, it should be nearly impossible for any except the most indoctrinated or envious to accept the underlying precepts for The Communist Manifesto.