Lesson 12: The Communist Manifesto, Part 4

I hold weekly meetings for interested parties here in Hendersonville, NC. This is a synopsis from our 12th meeting.

Synopsis of Week 12 Meeting:

Continuing The Communist Manifesto.

1. To this point, The Communist Manifesto has revealed itself to be lies and generalizations posing as historical accuracy and pointed conclusion. Founded on such weakness, one should expect Marx’s so-called masterpiece to fold upon itself. For rational and self-sufficient members of society, it does. Unfortunately, the remainder, those irrational and dependent, often cluster closer, seeking some inherent truth which must, simply must, have inspired such “idealists” as Lenin and Mao. Helplessness causes them to counter-intuitively seek rescue from those whose goal is to enslave. This eternal irony would not be so dangerous but that the Marxist is at all hours engaged to create and keep as many dependent as possible; and at present (in 2011) the ratio of helpless to able is climbed over 50:50.

2. The next several paragraphs of the Manifesto describes the “bourgeoisie” in various negative lights:

(a) Those who constantly revolutionize technology. For the Marxist (or at least for his doctrine), this perpetual change in “instruments of production” is a leading cause of societal chaos, and deliberately so. Naturally, we in the digital age have the luxury to look back over history to see that both the cause and effect which Marx propounds are products of his linear medieval vision, as well as a type of death wish. That is, Marx was no wizard of industry nor a prophet of anything but destruction.

In order to take seriously his conclusions, one must necessarily find oneself in dire economic or social straits. The aberration in Marx’s logic which tempts such a malcontent comes by way of grand mal seizure, a pun to indicate that grand theft is the solution Marxism demands. Proletariat (by which I mean Marxist working class) control of the means of production no doubt would put a stop to the carousel of ill motion which the aggrieved feel, but also would simultaneously so decimate the routines of men, machines, and offices that the result must be civil war (revolution). Such chaos suits the Marxist, philosophically (social upheaval is permissible against capitalism) as well as strategically (all insurrection springs forth beneficial shoots, whether anarchic or communist). In the end, however, there will still be fascism. As Roger Daltrey sang, “Meet the new boss – same as the old boss.”

(b) Usurpers, colonizers, and despoilers. In our present circumstance, such capitalists are marked men. Those who would dare to adulate the Old World explorers, the land barons, the rail and utility builders, the early industrialists, the free-market economists, and so forth are ridiculed and rejected. Every form of enterprise which benefits not the “victims” of society is labeled an “oppressor” enterprise. The “Savior” is naturally Marx. Oddly, we at times find ourselves agreeing with Marx that exploration, colonization and expansion were products of their times, anachronisms which have outlived their usefulness, and dangerous if attempted today. This, however, feeds directly to the civil-war mentality of the Marxist, who works tirelessly to convince the white race that it has prospered on the backs of the colored peoples.

The Marxist is not only organizing grievances which are white vs. colored but also white vs. white, an intramural civil war. We know this struggle in its milder form - “political correctness,” a.k.a. white peer pressure, that is, behavioral conditioning through shaming. It is coercion masked as morality, therefore giving political correctness a veneer of acceptability in its ability to mimic moral nudges.

The key elements to political correctness are “compassion” and “tolerance,” catch-alls to allow irresponsible behavior. Thus, if a person of color acts with callousness and savagery, there is no outrage (by this, the liberal/communist shows his actual racism); but if a white-race person shows the least hostility, it is not only clobberin’ time but also a branding of the entire white race. This is the “gift” given by the Marxist to the “victim” – that to atone for sins past (which may or may not apply! – Hegel in action), the “oppressor” is held at bay.

(c) Globalists. Marxist criticism extends to capitalism’s propensity to trade in remote areas. This detraction, with many fans, is based on anti-colonialist mentality, related to that white-guilt political correctness. In a twist, The Communist Manifesto makes a case against one-world-government when it harangues, “And as in material, so also in intellectual production. The intellectual creations of individual nations become common property. National one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness become more and more impossible, and from the numerous national and local literatures, there arises a world literature.” Nevertheless, this describes communism more than capitalism. Such inversions don’t matter to the Marxist, for the Hegelian dialectic (so vital to deciphering Marxist messaging) is not meant to reason, only convince by any means necessary.

(d) Nation-builders. “The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilization. The cheap prices of commodities are the heavy artillery with which it batters down all Chinese walls, with which it forces the barbarians’ intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate. It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilization into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world after its own image.” Before we bestow upon Marx an honorific for prophecy, let us understand that he is describing not capitalism but crony capitalism, that is, a very ancient type of fascism in which government and business work hand-in-hand to corner markets. We therefore must not give in to the common conclusion that corporatism is evil, but rather that corporatism, while primal, is without power to cause any submission unless accompanied by a corrupt nationalist army. And though the United States has been guilty of such collusion, it does not dismiss the more ferocious collectivist who, without the conscience of a Torah or a Constitution, ravenously swallows the resources of sovereign nations. Marx draws in many sympathizers and dupes by this type of discordant syllogism.

Regarding, however, whether cheap goods cause entire cultures to buckle, this is again good emotional messaging, meant to elicit compassion for victims, hatred for oppressors. Where can we turn for salvation?

(e) Communists! Perhaps the oddest accusation from Marx is that “the bourgeoisie keeps more and more doing away with the scattered state of the population, of the means of production, and of property. It has agglomerated population, centralized the means of production, and has concentrated property in a few hands. The necessary consequence of this was political centralization. Independent, or but loosely connected provinces, with separate interests, laws, governments, and systems of taxation, became lumped together into one nation, with one government, one code of laws, one national class-interest, one frontier, and one customs-tariff.” Of course, this is Marxist projection, and in reality one step beyond the pale. One might argue as Whittaker Chambers, “Gentlemen, you don’t understand. The working class are Democrats, the middle class are Republicans, and the upper class are communists.” The indication is that whether one is an industrial tycoon or a member of the communist Politburo, there is no difference. That is, the higher echelons tend to all behave in similar manner – elitist. Is it true? Are the fiercest capitalists truly communists at heart? This is the pointed accusation.

Let us imagine Chambers, and therefore Marx, to be correct. Why not instead say that communists are truly capitalist fascists? Given history, this is more accurate, for there has never been a true stateless utopia called communism, but every socialist experiment has become a bastardization of free-market capitalism.

But if Chambers was wrong (lying), there are at the highest levels both men of liberty (capitalists) and men of slavery (communists). Only by the canniest dialectical materialism is it possible to subvert the spread of prosperity as the cancer of nations; and likewise claim the leveling of all talent and ambition as a gift to mankind. One should marvel at Marx’s ability to subjugate the language by any necessary means. Clinically, it is a work of art; in practice, it’s evil. The psychological and emotional twists and turns, objectification, projection, and general manipulation indicate a sociopath.

Thus, we come to an impasse, which itself is broken down by understanding simply that two wrongs don’t make a right. Supposing that capitalism is at heart evil, the solution is not a different evil (Marxism). Likewise, if the means of production ought not be controlled by the bourgeoisie, there is no good reason to assume the proletariat can do any better job of it. To say otherwise is at best sentimentalism, at worst hypocrisy. Thus, for Marxism to be neither dangerously naïve nor intentionally evil, we must assume that its true goal is not to control the means of production but to destroy it. Marxism is therefore a return to barbarism.

But supposing that capitalism is at heart not evil, only not fully developed (or too intertwined with government), Marxism is unnecessary and furthermore unable to assist.

4. Marx casually and obliquely mentions that the United States could have been an exception to the bourgeois rule but it allowed itself to be swallowed by the corporate interests. In actuality, the reverse is true. The corporation, kept to a minimum of regulation, has been one of the greatest benefactors of man, the free market permitting morally only that which is acceptable.

Some might argue that when the market is blind to corporate immorality, consumers are not really making free choices. This argument is based upon several premises of actuality but not of potentiality. That is, if one permits Marxism to provide “savior” solutions in the future tense (“what might be”), so should capitalism have that opportunity. Nevertheless, the double standard is in effect when the Marxist claims, “Capitalism had its chance.” But... has it?

By the same token, if the proletariat may be moved by Marx to change the system to a stateless utopia, why is it impossible that the working class may not by their pocketbook, their vote, and/or their feet choose the extent to which capitalism may burgeon? The answer is, naturally, that Marxism is not a true or fair ideology, only a strategy by which to institute enslavement. In this respect, Marxism is false advertising, an evil often cited by the Marxist as a characteristic of exploitative capitalism!

America is great because America continues to be free. Those who think otherwise are already lost, having no options or doors. It is up to those who have the correct mindset to educate those who do not. The alternative is frightening.

5. After this, Marx begins his thesis in earnest. There is great imagery that capitalism is “like the sorcerer who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells.” These are visions of apocalypse, all over-exaggerated and very dramatic; scenarios which capitalism by itself is said to have caused. At no time does Marx blame the proletariat for any consequence nor hold them responsible for anything but the occasional uprising against “overproduction,” a circumstance ostensibly caused by ignorant capitalists. One should think from Marx’s thin and one-dimensional plotline that capitalism is a foaming monster which ravages the countryside, intentionally possessing the souls of the ambitious, who thereafter have no choice but to exploit the tender and good-natured. These things are obviously not true, but it is the messaging which sweeps men away.

For if the negative aspects of capitalism (for example, competitive casualties) can be linked to some deficiency of the soul (see On the Jewish Question), it is infinitely easier to bring a greater mass of the population into belief that some remedy also exists. The religious will here recognize some key elements of spiritual language, but the non-religious will also sense that their desperation (alienation) has been addressed. It is classic Hegel, a clash of two disparate standpoints which produce a Synthesis. With Marx, however, the Synthesis is predetermined.

The Communist Manifesto continues much like a Tolkein novel, that “the weapons with which the bourgeoisie felled feudalism to the ground are now turned against the bourgeoisie itself.” With everything Marxist, the moral high ground is never forsaken, though it comes by way of fantasy. The proletariat are as mighty rebels, even Orcs: “But not only has the bourgeoisie forged the weapons that bring death to itself; it has also called into existence the men who are to wield those weapons — the modern working class — the proletarians.” It is a story of comeuppance, of deserved destruction. At no time are the proletariat deemed to be immoral; they are products of capitalism, righteous in their anger. The proletariat are nameless, faceless characters – caricatures, if you will – whose only role in Marx’s play are as spoilers: “These laborers, who must sell themselves piecemeal, are a commodity, like every other article of commerce, and are consequently exposed to all the vicissitudes of competition, to all the fluctuations of the market.” As with everything Marxian, there is high drama and overindulgence in generalizations which in real time eventually have caused and will continue to cause the communist to fail. There is no happiness in proletariat-land, and every vestige of merriment is but an escape from the cruel masters of the steel forge (so to speak): “Owing to the extensive use of machinery, and to the division of labour, the work of the proletarians has lost all individual character, and, consequently, all charm for the workman. He becomes an appendage of the machine, and it is only the most simple, most monotonous, and most easily acquired knack, that is required of him. Hence, the cost of production of a workman is restricted, almost entirely, to the means of subsistence that he requires for maintenance, and for the propagation of his race” Very depressing stuff.

Marx also attempts to delineate his future endeavors in economics: “But the price of a commodity, and therefore also of labour, is equal to its cost of production. In proportion, therefore, as the repulsiveness of the work increases, the wage decreases. Nay more, in proportion as the use of machinery and division of labour increases, in the same proportion the burden of toil also increases, whether by prolongation of the working hours, by the increase of the work exacted in a given time or by increased speed of machinery, etc.” It’s sheer idiocy, based upon the fantastical notions of those who work hard but seem to get nowhere. The fault, according to Marx, lies not in one’s own lap but in some mysterious energy which manipulates men into the grey sameness of capitalism. Marx panders, and to the lowest common denominator.

Capitalism is seen as a demon which corrupts the work ethic : “Modern Industry has converted the little workshop of the patriarchal master into the great factory of the industrial capitalist.” Marx is a filmmaker, striking the chord of human alienation, as might the great director Jean Renoir: “Masses of labourers, crowded into the factory, are organised like soldiers. As privates of the industrial army they are placed under the command of a perfect hierarchy of officers and sergeants. Not only are they slaves of the bourgeois class, and of the bourgeois State; they are daily and hourly enslaved by the machine, by the overlooker, and, above all, by the individual bourgeois manufacturer himself.” It’s like a scene out of the classic silent Metropolis, proving there is more screenwriting in Marx than scholarship.

Another skillful use of confusion that Marx expounds is the diffusion of the male and female, neither recognizable nor valuable under capitalism: “The less the skill and exertion of strength implied in manual labour, in other words, the more modern industry becomes developed, the more is the labour of men superseded by that of women. Differences of age and sex have no longer any distinctive social validity for the working class. All are instruments of labour, more or less expensive to use, according to their age and sex.” While capitalism has had its era of such exploitation, it also has allowed itself to evolve and to be evolved, through both marketplace and government. Today, capitalism is for the most part over-regulated; while in socialist countries the government gives itself free rein to dispense or not dispense license to profit. Put another way, much of the business world is already socialist in nature due to government interference.

The exploitative atrocity to which Marx alludes is no longer permitted in the more civilized nations. It might be argued that the atrocity has been “exported” to the lands of low wages and forced hours, but this is again by permission of colluding governments and thoughtless consumerism, not by a monster which cannot be resisted. Marx’s solution, the revolution, does nothing to address this gap in understanding (likely by design), and therefore we see only a more extortionist and/or violent level of this atrocity in those countries which have overthrown (and/or never taken on) the capitalist model.

Nevertheless, due to lack of vigilance, the acceptance of the Marxian set design is widespread. Whereas The Communist Manifesto ought to be viewed as pap, and The Federalist Papers as demanding, the opposite is true. Liberty is seen as uncaring chaos while socialism is viewed as compassionate order. Marx has succeeded in harnessing the seething hatreds and jealousies of those with no motivation and perverted education, those who believe that morality is relative but compassion is compulsory. As long as Marxism exists, we will experience these individuals who have traded their free will for a pipedream, and who thereupon stand ready to break the commandments of God (coveting, stealing, even murder) in exchange for a bit of self-worth they never earned. In sadness I tell you, some of these are friends and family.