Lesson 14: The Communist Manifesto, Chapter 2: Part 1

I hold weekly anti-communist meetings for interested parties here in Hendersonville, NC.

Synopsis of Week 14:

I will be completing The Communist Manifesto this week, but I'll be delivering it into smaller bites over the next several days.

Chapter 2: Proletarians and Communists

This is structured as Marx's quote followed by my remarks.

(a) “The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties.” Marx does not offer communism as a “party” but as a “movement.” At the fundamental level, there is no opposition between “The Communist Party” and, say, “The Green Party.”

(b) “They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole.” Having coordinated communism as the “good guy” of proletariat movements, that is, having articulated “Marx’s Eleventh Commandment” – “Thou shalt not be separate from any working-class political party” – Marx now offers a Twelfth, “Thou shalt not deviate from proletariat goals and priorities.” In truth, the communist is the most helpful and compassionate person when it comes to working-class grievances. Whether or not these are sincere emotions, it provides the communist a willing partner, the aggrieved Victim. And as we know, when someone is sympathetic to a particular plight, we call that person “friend.” This is a difficult bond to break, especially when the alternative is realism and responsibility. Therefore, though the capitalist view of economics is correct, it clangs loudly against the brass door of communist hand-holding.

Nevertheless, Marx’s assertion is a power move. For after having befriended the Victim of the Oppressor, the communist prods and nudges his “friend” to more and more inflamed situations, such as general strikes and violent protests, eventually to social revolution. If we ask why this is possible, we must be willing to accept two truths: (1) many people are ill-informed and ill-educated, making them prime targets for the communist “exploitation” spiel, and (2) the capitalist is ill-equipped to respond to the communist, except in purely partisan manner. Therefore, our education is meant to prepare the anti-communist for the future, one likely to be filled with verbal (as well as physical) clashes. We should not fear such confrontation.

(c) “They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement.” The Marxist indeed lives up to this, not providing any new “principles.” Nevertheless, the collectivist is actively shaping proletarian movements from within, by emotion and imagery, and by perverting the views of the other side.

(d) “The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only: 1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality. 2. In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.” This simply distinguishes that in each country, or at each stage of economic development, the working-class struggle has a different flavor. It’s an obvious observation but there is an element of subversion within, which is that the recognition of these differences actually does empower the communist to approach the proletariat interests from an more elitist “I know better than you what’s going on” attitude.

This Marx concedes in the next paragraph: “The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.” There is no doubt that Marx intends the communists to be the intellectual guide for the more vague proletarian goals. For example, the Occupy people have no cohesive message (nor even a frame of reference for subculture etiquette), yet the Marxist is able to connect even these random dots to produce a picture which says that “squatting” is a relevant goal; this evolves a mere gathering of disparate losers into a grand congregation of natural rights “philosophers.” Of course, a willing media propagates such a false image of the Occupy movement but, since many news outlets are Left-leaning, such things were preordained anyway (the ultimate proof of this is the crowning of Occupy as “Person of the Year” by Time Magazine, but the omission of the Tea Party from any such honor, or even much acknowledgment).

(e) “The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.” An assumption which draws in many aggrieved. The irony is that the same greed imputed to the rich is expected from the poor. In order to achieve the proper passion for “overthrow,” Marx stirs up envy and hatred.

(f) “The theoretical conclusions of the Communists are in no way based on ideas or principles that have been invented, or discovered, by this or that would-be universal reformer. They merely express, in general terms, actual relations springing from an existing class struggle, from a historical movement going on under our very eyes.” The self-effacing nature of the statement is attractive to the powerless, who seek not another false leader. Marx empowers the powerless. But of course we know this is a lie – Marxism is absolute power.

(g) “The abolition of existing property relations is not at all a distinctive feature of communism. All property relations in the past have continually been subject to historical change consequent upon the change in historical conditions.” In one fell swoop, Marx disassociates himself from the chanting of the crowd who espouse his rhetoric. It is the worst passive-aggressive move of all time, blaming the mob for violence which he himself whips up. He is a troublemaker, causing havoc and slipping away. That the proletariat cannot see this duplicity is worrisome, as it is the main leverage the anti-communist has against Marx. If one says to the working-class revolutionary, “But Marx makes you to take the blame for what he said,” the common response is, “I think for myself, and Marx only mirrors my personal thoughts which I had before I read his work.” How does one fight this? Only by saying, “Then you are also responsible for over 100 million deaths,” the explanation for this statement being, “If you are a like mind to Marx, then you are the same as Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and many other tyrants and murderers.” After this, I think there is no hope for your audience.

(h) “The French Revolution, for example, abolished feudal property in favour of bourgeois property.” His historical basis does not nullify the horror of the French Revolution, and it does not give regal basis for any future collectivism or mob rule.

(i) “The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products, that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few.” Nonsense which intends to void the legal contract as a basis for ownership.

(j) “In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.” And now you know the truth. It is not faith which communists fight, it is rule of law. Where do we get private property? The Ten Commandments provides at least two rationales. First, “Thou shalt not steal” presupposes private ownership, and if one studies the commandment in depth, per Torah, it is clear. Second, “Thou shalt not covet” makes it a serious crime to plot the destruction or theft of private property, which devolves down to two communist thoughts: (1) “If I can’t have it, neither can you,” and (2) “I don’t want it, and therefore neither may you have it.” These vital foundational stones settle the boxing card as “Marx vs. Torah” or “Evil vs. Good.” Repeating, it is not Christian faith which the communist despises, but the Jewish commandments, which the Christian is (at least in skeletal form) compelled by God to obey.

(k) “We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing the right of personally acquiring property as the fruit of a man’s own labour, which property is alleged to be the groundwork of all personal freedom, activity and independence.” Not “alleged” but proven. The key is that Marxism must be atheism in order to deny the commandments.

(l) “Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! Do you mean the property of petty artisan and of the small peasant, a form of property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no need to abolish that; the development of industry has to a great extent already destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily. Or do you mean the modern bourgeois private property?” The argument is that there are levels of private property, and that Marx is able to say which is worthy and which is not. Supposing this were true, there is no end to it, for once the “bourgeois” property is abolished, the “artisan” is next. The ultimate goal of the Marxist is to destroy technology and economics down to such a bare-bones existence that no resistance will ever again be possible. That is, Marx is against human progress, a great irony.

(m) “But does wage-labour create any property for the labourer? Not a bit. It creates capital, i.e., that kind of property which exploits wage-labour, and which cannot increase except upon condition of begetting a new supply of wage-labour for fresh exploitation. Property, in its present form, is based on the antagonism of capital and wage labour.” Marx never anticipated the credit system, the assembly line, the personal computer, and many other human creations which make life easier, better, and more productive for... the labourer, the proletariat. Thus, free capitalists have far more variety than their communist counterparts. The counter-argument that such variety is just a distraction to corporate control is a ruse meant to focus envy back upon private property; that is, class warfare. Note, for example, the idea that high-speed Internet is a “right” – which sets those who haven’t the wherewithal to connect or afford it to have “free” access at the expense of more productive (or even “luckier”) members of society. It is a flattening of expectation, met by theft of resources through communist extortion and coercion.

(n) “Let us examine both sides of this antagonism. To be a capitalist, is to have not only a purely personal, but a social status in production. Capital is a collective product, and only by the united action of many members, nay, in the last resort, only by the united action of all members of society, can it be set in motion. Capital is therefore not only personal; it is a social power. When, therefore, capital is converted into common property, into the property of all members of society, personal property is not thereby transformed into social property. It is only the social character of the property that is changed. It loses its class character. Let us now take wage-labour. The average price of wage-labour is the minimum wage, i.e., that quantum of the means of subsistence which is absolutely requisite to keep the labourer in bare existence as a labourer. What, therefore, the wage-labourer appropriates by means of his labour, merely suffices to prolong and reproduce a bare existence. We by no means intend to abolish this personal appropriation of the products of labour, an appropriation that is made for the maintenance and reproduction of human life, and that leaves no surplus wherewith to command the labour of others. All that we want to do away with is the miserable character of this appropriation, under which the labourer lives merely to increase capital, and is allowed to live only in so far as the interest of the ruling class requires it.” The “noble” goal of the communist is that all people should live at the lowest level of subsistence. These decisions are to be made by bureaucrats, that is, “death panels.” The idea that Marxism, even generational Marxism, could quell the longings of human beings is ludicrous. Infants are selfish from the moment they are born. The commands of God which control human behavior are given out of love for our free will, not as a means of coercive fascism. Freedom isn’t free. But Marx intends that freedom to accumulate wealth is the maker of exploitation and misery. That he believes the destruction of ambition (whether genetically or environmentally) to be the solution is the most dangerous ideology ever devised, for it even allows eugenics based on probability of such ambition. Simply, it permits Jews (then others) to be destroyed as a “service” to the human race.