Lesson 14: The Communist Manifesto, Chapter 2: Part 4

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

Synopsis of Week 14, Part 4

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 (fourth installment)

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

(a) “The charges against Communism made from a religious, a philosophical and, generally, from an ideological standpoint, are not deserving of serious examination.” Marx is right. There’s absolutely no reason to seriously consider the accusations against an ideology that plainly states its goal and mission as replacing present societal and economic framework with an entirely new vision. Just because their unabashed aims include the confiscation and negation of private property, the reigning in and abolition of religion, the freezing of familial bonds, and the segregation of human nature (and human beings), these are not causes for concern or examination. That the history of experimentation with Marxism has resulted in tens of millions of deaths, and much more misery, is not cause to judge against it. Move along; nothing to see here.

(b) “Does it require deep intuition to comprehend that man’s ideas, views, and conception, in one word, man’s consciousness, changes with every change in the conditions of his material existence, in his social relations and in his social life?” Marx plays games. Those who don’t agree must be pseudo-intellectuals (the extermination of which is vital in Leninism). Those who agree are by Marx’s own definition sheep and shallow thinkers.

Furthermore, Marx is not even correct in his assertion that man’s consciousness must change in time or tune with changes in material living conditions or even social relations. For a man who is based in true righteousness is not deeply moved by upward or downward mobility. Naturally, when these changes are steep, adjustments must be accorded, even some shock permitted. Yet, when adapted, the grounded man does not alter his consciousness (if we define that as psyche, or motivated thinking). Only those who are loose, inexperienced, or arrogant will find themselves in such dire straits. But this suits Marx, for he seeks those with unresolved grievances, not those with a ready solution in God.

(c) “What else does the history of ideas prove, than that intellectual production changes its character in proportion as material production is changed? The ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of its ruling class.” Changing the subject, Marx nevertheless tries to link consciousness with intellectual production, and therefore material production. Inventions and copyrights are naturally intertwined with production and economic activity. But not all ideas are business ideas, and therefore Marx’s argument falls flat. It might be argued that even pure culture (for example, poetry) is defeated by the capitalistic urge to “earn a living” - but in a free society there is no compulsion for any artist to surrender his integrity; such compromises are made to satisfy customer bases. These are called niches.

If, on the other hand, the argument is that such poets ought not be fettered by thoughts of commerce, it is self-defeating; for the poet without motivation, either for or against survivalist society, has no basis for his art. Even the love sonnet is bound to the notion that some competitor has been defeated. Let us go deeper: even the spiritual is grounded in the notion of pain and pleasure, fortune and not, much of which is rooted in the dispiritedness of poverty or the effervescence of plenty.

Marx’s one and only goal is to gain control of the means of production, and this by the theorem of divide and conquer. He is in this respect even more single-minded than the capitalist towards converting the intellectual product into the material product. Thus, by his crass materialism, Marx himself cannot be considered a patron of the arts, for he is against not only bourgeois society but also “useless” philosophy. For their survival and welfare, all artists and thinkers should therefore beware and avoid any of Marx’s doctrine.

(d) “When people speak of the ideas that revolutionise society, they do but express that fact that within the old society the elements of a new one have been created, and that the dissolution of the old ideas keeps even pace with the dissolution of the old conditions of existence.” Marx excuses himself for retaining those portions of capitalist thought, deed, and arrangement which suit his purposes. This hypocrisy is played out every day by those Marxists who pledge wildly to revolution yet still imbibe in whichever product or service they happen to need to survive. It is no different in the nations which are observed to be communist, for the tyrants who rule there live as kings while their proletariat are malnourished, unheated, and mistreated.

It is also a false assurance from Marx to capitalists that communism won’t be that bad.

(e) “When the ancient world was in its last throes, the ancient religions were overcome by Christianity. When Christian ideas succumbed in the 18th century to rationalist ideas, feudal society fought its death battle with the then revolutionary bourgeoisie. The ideas of religious liberty and freedom of conscience merely gave expression to the sway of free competition within the domain of knowledge.” Wishful thinking. Marx anticipates some overwhelming victory of rationalism over religion. As we know, the contest still rages. More so, the Islamic nations are now poised to overcome both Christianity and communism. Thus, the communist’s alliance with Islamic factions. Too, due to the staying power of religion (and here, specifically Christianity), Marxism has forced its way into the church via infiltration, rotting it from the inside where it could not win by exterior siege.

(f) “‘Undoubtedly,’ it will be said, ‘religious, moral, philosophical, and juridical ideas have been modified in the course of historical development. But religion, morality, philosophy, political science, and law, constantly survived this change. There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all states of society. But Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience.’ What does this accusation reduce itself to? The history of all past society has consisted in the development of class antagonisms, antagonisms that assumed different forms at different epochs.” In other words, if you oppose communism, you are actually standing in the way of progress and, more convincingly to his acolytes, human dignity. As a stalwart, you are therefore a danger. Thus, Marxism’s justification for gulags and executions – they serve the greater good.

Regarding his hypothetical quotation, Marx narrates a common enough fear, which is the loss of personal sovereignty (not to mention private property). That he views the human body as not an individual but only a fleshly mass to be directed is obvious, which indicates his master racist affinity for enslaving both his enemies and comrades. That he adjures the human soul to be fettered by “bourgeois” thoughts such as “Freedom” and “Justice” should be enough to cause even the least intelligent among us to run away swiftly. Unfortunately, men are motivated more by pocketbook than principle, and therefore Marxism appeals to those least capable and most downcast.

(g) “But whatever form they may have taken, one fact is common to all past ages, viz., the exploitation of one part of society by the other. No wonder, then, that the social consciousness of past ages, despite all the multiplicity and variety it displays, moves within certain common forms, or general ideas, which cannot completely vanish except with the total disappearance of class antagonisms.” Marx is quite clear. While he makes a passing attempt at sympathizing with the individualist who mourns the loss of his personal sovereignty (liberty), he nonetheless returns briskly to the criticism that, after all, all such thoughts are born of social and economic class. This rhetoric is again aimed at the weak, the downtrodden, the poor. It is nearly a messianic message of salvation, except that it is an escape from low station rather than sin. In fact, it is entrance into sin (coveting, stealing, and eventually murder).

(h) “The Communist revolution is the most radical rupture with traditional property relations; no wonder that its development involved the most radical rupture with traditional ideas.” While it is true that nearly all activities are in capitalist society measured by some value (for example, “Time is money”), there is no settled science that a change to communism must be accompanied by a change in traditional ideas or values. It is only Marxist theory, in fact, philosophy; for it is postulation that the class distinctions remain if the vestiges of the former economic and societal structure remain. It is also weak logic. It presupposes that such traces are dangerous, a reactionary argument to head off at the pass any human nature which would form a rebellion against Marxism, that is, a counter-revolution. To this end, Marx is stating strategy.

(i) “But let us have done with the bourgeois objections to Communism.” Sure and begorrah.

(j) “We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy.” A mere reversal of roles, the hypocrisy and irony justified by the cause of “democracy,” which itself is a misnomer for the elitism which communism must exert. For in this scenario the rich are not become equal with the proletariat but assume an inferior and subordinate position!

But the mainspring of the watch is chosen. Despite what Marx previously pontificated, the political system will be a crucial mechanism for communist insurrection and domination.

(k) “The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.” The beginning seeds of progressivism are imparted (control will be taken “by degree”). This actually follows Hegel’s historical materialism but without God (or like being) in the equation. It is a nudged (human), not natural, evolution.

The necessity to “increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible” is just good business. If one wishes to win the revolution, mouths must be fed, bodies kept warm. Marx is only describing the efficient accommodation of his working-class army. In this regard, he is still of capitalist mind (entrepreneurial) though seeking to keep it communal and labor-minded. His dilemma is apparent; for how does he motivate to work those he freed from the bonds of work!?

(l) Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.” Ripe with open truths, the first gleam of tyranny is sprayed. No secret is made that the workforce freed will continue to work, and at the same machinery from which they fled out into the streets to oppose. It is “unavoidable,” says Marx, that communism, having no ideas or framework of its own, must parasitically encroach into the capitalist host for its sustenance and survival. Lots of hemming and hawing in this paragraph, attempting to sidestep these harsh realities.

(m) These measures will, of course, be different in different countries. When constructing an entirely new methodology to enslave nations, it’s best to allow breathing room in the neck.

Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable:

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. No private property. No land or homes in the hands of individuals. But to whom is rent paid? And with what income?

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. Bingo! The current (2011) American income tax is communist. If you pay the maximum rate, you’ve been labeled Oppressor. If you pay nothing, congratulations on being a Victim.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance. Remove the motivation for accumulation and estate. This is nefarious, even satanic.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. A given. Those who wish to leave the country relinquish their possessions. Those who are “enemies of the state” lose their property also. Oddly, it almost makes the case that those who do not rebel get to keep private property.

5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. The Federal Reserve is a communist tool of Keynesianism. The American banking system as it stands now is comprised of communist elements in the centralization of credit (Fed Funds rate) although community banks and retail loans are still presently permitted.

6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State. The attack upon the automobile is an intrinsic element to communist control. Beyond the environmental aspect, the automobile provides people with mobility, allowing them to escape communist regions with speed and possessions. Central transportation controls that flow.

The Internet, the cell phone, and other great communications devices make it very difficult for communism to fully control the population. Of course, there are communist elements everywhere, and the Internet and telephone industry are no exception. Thus, we hear regular reports of central control and censorship, as through Google.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. First, parasitically utilize those entities built by useful members of society. Second, seize all land and turn it agricultural, debasing human technology to whichever level Marxism sees fit. Third, deny not only private property but also individual decisions concerning crops and other day-to-day activities, micro-managing inventiveness and effectiveness until productivity must be coerced by the lash. But first... the consensus (“common plan”)!

8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. This equates to slavery and slave nations, with taskmasters who naturally must have some greater inducement to crush rebellion; otherwise, they shall be pure sadists.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country. You will live where they say. You will work where they say.

Growing food will take up most everyone’s time, and only the most commonly-digestible and easily-grown produce will be permitted. Otherwise, personal choice makes it more difficult to equitably distribute cropland. Welcome to the “potato fields.”

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c. Public schools are revealed to be indoctrination camps. Note that child labor will still occur under communism, only not “in its present form.” Children will learn only those subjects necessary to be productive. You will learn what they say. You will be what they say you will be.

The question arises, however, who is elite enough to decide which education is proper? Will the success or failure of the new society rest on the decisions of a few? We need look no further than the Russian and Chinese Revolutions to see that, yes, indeed, this was the case. And how did that turn out? Mass starvation, suicides, murders. Only when these nations turned even a little to capitalist notions did their economies improve.

(n) “When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.” The cruelty and irony of a proletarian central government, one which oversees its communal chattel, and meanwhile demolishes every girder of capitalism, is justified by (1) the perceived cruelty of bourgeois society (passive-aggressive blame games), (2) the necessity of some transitional government (hypocritical escapism), and (3) the promise that the “dictatorship of the proletariat” will somehow automatically and naturally dissipate when the last of capitalist society is made to disappear. This last excuse is a long-standing gambit of the Left – assessing some intolerable measure as merely temporary, yet it remains well after its expiration or demise should come.

(o) “In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.” We’re all equal. There are no losers. It takes a village to raise a child. Insufferable slogans, mass life-destruction.

In any event, this is neither evolutionary nor progressive, but is regressive back to the stage of the aborigine. Furthermore, the purpose is not to adopt quaint or even life-affirming ethical and social culture, but only to dominate by adopting small-group fascism. Within the scattered peasant population so ordered by Marxism is little chance to break free from groupthink, and enforcement of such standards comes by brainwashing, fear, and elimination – apparently, necessary components of egalitarianism.