Lesson 14: The Communist Manifesto, Chapter 2: Part 3

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

Synopsis of Week 14, Part 2

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 (second installment)

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

(a) “The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.” It’s a threat. Capitalism must be destroyed, and the structure of the (“bourgeois”) family is, according to Marx, necessary and natural collateral damage. Supposing Marx is thinking straight (a stretch), why ought the benefits of capitalistic society (e.g., technology, hygiene and health) be abandoned if capitalism itself goes belly up? The answer is, only by determined education of later generations to hate that which supposedly deconstructed society. It is a post-apocalyptic view, teeming with not only bare communal living but also mandatory fascist enforcement. Marx’s vision, however, ignores or negates human nature, which is the key flaw. On the other hand, Torah, and especially the Ten Commandments, addresses and commends human nature, facilitating free will and liberty to the breadth of true human interaction.

(b) “Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.” Typical Marxist grievance organizing. The gigantic pool of complaint which is adolescence contains all the seeds of dissent and revolution, not to mention necessary energy, the Marxist seeks and requires to be victorious.

(c) “But, you say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social. And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention direct or indirect, of society, by means of schools, &c.? The Communists have not invented the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class.” An interesting passive-aggressive ploy, blaming the wrongs of bourgeois society for the reactionary wrongs of Marxism. There is no righteousness which may here be imputed; for if the education of capitalist society is destructive, the cure must be reflectively constructive. In this respect, Marx offers nothing but empty promises to the naïve disgruntled. And to that end, Marx admits that indoctrination shall continue under Marxism, therefore creating a life-or-death struggle between capitalism and communism. That he sees capitalism as the root cause of misery is not a moral argument for wresting away the steering wheel. If you don’t like the way we’re driving, get your own car! Or, “Who made you boss?” Effectively, Marx is a fascist, not an egalitarian.

(d) “The bourgeois clap-trap about the family and education, about the hallowed co-relation of parents and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all the family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labour.” There is little to say here. The static and overly obtuse attitudes of Marx make it impossible to discuss him rationally. There is passive-aggressiveness, blaming the bourgeois for the circumstances of the proletariat, when in fact every society is by the consent of the people. This may sound strange, but only when the citizenry succumbs to fear and/or greed may there be the fascist state which Marx describes. If not, Marx gives no credit to the common man for intelligence or fortitude. Naturally, this is exactly so. Marx is a master racist and views the proletariat as merely useful tools towards an endgame of complete Marxist power. If this were not so, Marx would espouse the idea of proletarian politics, that is, republicanism. In the modern age, the collectivist continues to treat the working class as boobs who require to be led towards “intellectualist” ideology (that is, liberalism). Conversely, the true conservative provides each individual sovereignty with attendant risk.

That Marx invokes the family is quite hypocritical, for he tugs on the same heartstrings which he accuses the capitalist as manipulating.

(e) “But you Communists would introduce community of women, screams the bourgeoisie in chorus. The bourgeois sees his wife a mere instrument of production. He hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited in common, and, naturally, can come to no other conclusion that the lot of being common to all will likewise fall to the women.” Not content to whip up the youth, Marx explains to women their plight. The hot buttons pressed are effective, though obviously over-generalized. Marx is a true marketing specialist, not desiring everyone to agree but satisfied to hook the critical mass necessary to make the proposed change. Brilliantly twisted! Nevertheless, he obviously must do more than merely sympathize with grievances; he must supply the solution (Savior element).

(f) He has not even a suspicion that the real point aimed at is to do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production.” Men, apparently, are the problem. Only the “enlightened” man (the communist) is able to know just how foul he is, and able to refrain from exploitation of both woman and child. Notice this fits Marxist doctrine (Victim-Oppressor-Savior) perfectly. It separates the family, and gladly so! It ends capitalism by planting early the seeds of rebellion. Thus, “feminism” and “children’s rights” are essential societal triggers for Marxist control, for they emasculate patriarchal control, beginning anarchic behavior which may be corralled by those who “feel their pain.”

(g) “For the rest, nothing is more ridiculous than the virtuous indignation of our bourgeois at the community of women which, they pretend, is to be openly and officially established by the Communists. The Communists have no need to introduce community of women; it has existed almost from time immemorial.” The fail-safe. Should feminism succeed, the communist is free from any culpability which may arise from such equalization. Should it fail, it can be blamed upon the capitalist patriarchal society which has plotted against both woman and communist. In so establishing this link, an alliance is formed. Therefore, whether or not feminism desires Marxism’s assistance, they are stuck. In a way, Marxism stalks feminism, not allowing it the independence to live as it will. For some recent evidence, notice that the strong conservative woman, certainly a product of some feminist social engineering (for better or worse), is vilified for not toeing the “party line,” that is, for opposing collectivist liberalism, that is, Marxism. There is no inclusiveness unless one is part of the master race, and therefore conservative women are attacked as “trash” and worse. It is a type of bullying, enlightening and highlighting that Marxism has not in its sights the better interests of women.

(h) “Our bourgeois, not content with having wives and daughters of their proletarians at their disposal, not to speak of common prostitutes, take the greatest pleasure in seducing each other’s wives.” Religion is attacked, and capitalism is displayed as most hypocritical. Examined properly, the atheist communist has no standing to judge such things. Beyond this fundamental block, it should be obvious that the decadence which Marx describes is a lie by which mobs are inflamed (Marx vicariously and perhaps jealously reliving the French Revolution). But even if Marx has pinpointed some immorality, it is the purpose of the law to rein that in. Marx’s view of the law is of course that it is fascist and protects the bourgeois. So it is difficult to see how, short of controlling human nature, Marx can achieve the purity for which he ostensibly pines. Or... one can simply invoke the Ten Commandments (but this involves free will, not a component of Marx's utopia).

(i) “Bourgeois marriage is, in reality, a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalized community of women. For the rest, it is self-evident that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of the community of women springing from that system, i.e., of prostitution both public and private.” Did you know that Marx hoped for free love? Open marriages? The decadence of the monarchy replaced with that of the communist. Assuming this has any appeal to any person, who gets to decide which women are part of the “openly legalized community of women”? What if one prefers monogamy? Too bad.

(j) “The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality. The working men have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got. Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word.” In the same manner Marx attempts to destroy the family, the man-woman relationship, and the bond between man and God, now nationalism is decried. This is necessary to remove patriotism, the love of country, one of the emotions which keep men from uprising against their government. Marx’s overall aim is to uncouple the working class from all their loyalties, in fact creating a sense of hopelessness. And without hope, no human can survive. The desperation of the soul instigated by Marxism is by Marx called the “alienation” of capitalism. In other words, Marxism doesn’t cause this emotional collapse, it only points out the real world which thereafter manifests as suicidal or homicidal behavior. In film terms, Marx says, “Take the blue pill” and the “matrix” will be unveiled.

(k) “National differences and antagonism between peoples are daily more and more vanishing, owing to the development of the bourgeoisie, to freedom of commerce, to the world market, to uniformity in the mode of production and in the conditions of life corresponding thereto.” The Marxist doctrine is that nationalism is anyway an illusion. The only brotherhood is that of the working man (the labor union). Despite the perceived camaraderie therein, it is but another way of delineating master racism, in this case, the superiority of working-class over capitalist status. Deeper still, it divides the Jews (both ethnically and, as pointed out in On The Jewish Question, capitalistically) from the non-Jews, an ancient evil revived by Marx for his more satanic deeds.

When Hitler adopted the communist thought process and tactics, his master racism came back to nationalism (National Socialism, or Nazism), opposing Marx. This explains the ideological antagonism between Hitler and Stalin.

(l) “The supremacy of the proletariat will cause them to vanish still faster. United action, of the leading civilised countries at least, is one of the first conditions for the emancipation of the proletariat.” Marx describes the general strike, the nation-paralyzing action to force labor “rights.”

(m) “In proportion as the exploitation of one individual by another will also be put an end to, the exploitation of one nation by another will also be put an end to. In proportion as the antagonism between classes within the nation vanishes, the hostility of one nation to another will come to an end.” Finally, world peace is promised by the false messiah, Karl Marx. Just as soon as labor can achieve the goals of puppet-master Marx, the ocean levels will begin to subside. Sound familiar?

Whether or not Marx believed his own hype, the concept has appeal to a great many people. Thus, the grievance which may be stated as “war anxiety” is utilized to organize a mass of useful idiots and wealthy dupes into a “peace movement.” I will not say that anti-war protestation is only Marxist, for that would be disrespecting the true emotions of many; only do I say that the peace protester is often directed by event (community) organizers to stand in locales which do nothing but “show the man” that a great crowd may be summoned together, a shaking fist meant to instill fear into the political system. In later incarnation, such assemblage can be turned into riot under the guise of “civil disobedience.” The Hegelian dialectic marches on.