Lesson 14: The Communist Manifesto, Chapter 3

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

Synopsis of Week 14, Part 5

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

Chapter 3: Socialist and Communist Literature

1. Marx develops a critique for various forms of past socialism. He divides these into three main categories: Reactionary Socialism, Conservative or Bourgeois Socialism, and Critical-Utopian Socialism and Communism.

2. Reactionary Socialism is divided into Feudal, Petty-Bourgeois, and German (“True”).

3. Reactionary Socialism

Marx begins with his own struggles (see past Synopses for his history to this point), claiming that in France and England, due to political intrigue and other dynamics, “a literary battle alone remained possible.” Marx derides the bourgeoisie as blind to their coming fate: “through total incapacity to comprehend the march of modern history.” The key is not so much that the bourgeoisie “creates a proletariat as that it creates a revolutionary proletariat.”

It is quite interesting that Marx never mentions the American Constitution, a document which gives great consideration to the revolutionary proletariat insofar as it recognizes “we the people” as having various inalienable natural rights, and even providing a method by which the Constitution may peaceably be amended, even overturned (should such time come). By failing to acknowledge this marvelous invention, Marx lives in a static world of medieval middle-European mindset. It might be argued that Marx was only a product of his environment, but this argument is irrelevant against the fact that he had opportunity to choose famous and utile republicanism rather than mob rule and regression. Since we know he was no ignoramus, Marx was a deliberate radical.

Marx continues his diatribe by calling for the infiltration and perversion of religion, specifically vulnerable Christianity (“Nothing is easier than to give Christian asceticism a Socialist tinge”).

4. Petty-Bourgeois Socialism

This section rehashes the medieval argument, slipping between labeling various factions as Victim or Oppressor. The merchant is, according to Marx, exploitative but also exploited as time marches on. Much is made of alliances between this petty bourgeoisie and the proletariat.

Marx believes this type of Socialism “laid bare the hypocritical apologies of economists.” Even so, Marx provides no real evidence, only generalities which may apply just as much, if not more so, to communist productive methods. If we view our modern Federal Reserve as a Keynesian (communist) money machine, it is socialist, not capitalist, economics which must be blamed for engendering the booms and busts of the 20^th and 21^st century. True capitalism is limited by actual (strong) currency, but communist-funded (Keynesian) capitalism is the foundation for unfettered economic disaster. In truth, the current global economic crisis is the logical destination for communist high finance. Without credit procured by compassion and egalitarianism, the economies of nations would progress more slowly but more realistically. But this was overturned by invoking the “right” of the proletariat to his own home and to middle-class credit. Once this floodgate was opened, those with no means were permitted to purchase resources and build things with imaginary money. No one can blame human beings for having such desires, but their fulfillment for the working class came mainly via threat of lawsuit, even of violence (that is, at the point of the sword). Thus, it is communism which has brought the world to the brink. Furthermore, like Marx, today’s communist blames capitalism for the excess, omitting almost entirely the behemoth and interventionist central government as responsible.

Marx claims the evidence “incontrovertible” that technology, invention, and accumulation of wealth causes overproduction and therefore crises. Nothing is further from the truth. Overproduction is due to loose credit, not strong currency. When credit is widely available, consumers may purchase more than they can afford, yea, more than they can actually use. This gluttony, while not against Torah principles, is nevertheless harmful. For when credit is extended to buy, buy, buy, factories naturally expand their capacity, and labor is increased for the term. When the credit mysteriously disappears (a consequence of arbitrary central governance decisions), factories are forced to trim down or close. The booms and busts have therefore little to do with greedy bourgeoisie, but are almost exclusively the fault of “big government” interventionism.

Marx speaks plainly about “the crying inequalities in the distribution of wealth.” The language used is itself rife with poetic nonsense, as if guilt makes a decent ruler of economics. Marx follows with the usual litany of sorrows which capitalism supposedly has caused.

In the end, Marx rejects this type of Socialism as an anachronism and regressive, and says it, “ended in a miserable fit of the blues.”

5. German or “True” Socialism

In an effort to support various immoral positions, Marx begins by boring us with an equalization between French radicalism and German philosophy. One of the great “successes” for German philosophy was that, according to Marx, “The German literati reversed this process with the profane French literature.” Mainly, Marx mocks the “too intellectual” German who brought French radicalism (read: mob violence) to a more cultural plateau: “The French Socialist and Communist literature was thus completely emasculated.” Marx intones that the German philosophers had in fact transmuted virile radicalism to effeminate philosophy, “representing, not true requirements, but the requirements of Truth; not the interests of the proletariat, but the interests of Human Nature, of Man in general.”

Marx shifts gears to inform that the cognitive dissonance of the Germans then changed to be “against representative government, against bourgeois competition, bourgeois freedom of the press, bourgeois legislation, bourgeois liberty and equality, and of preaching to the masses.” Some details of then-contemporary German radicalism follow, with much flowery but negative pontification: “The robe of speculative cobwebs, embroidered with flowers of rhetoric, steeped in the dew of sickly sentiment, this transcendental robe in which the German Socialists wrapped their sorry ‘eternal truths’, all skin and bone, served to wonderfully increase the sale of their goods amongst such a public.”

Finally, Marx makes the distinction between German Socialism (nationalistic, that is, Nazi) and Marxism: “It went to the extreme length of directly opposing the ‘brutally destructive’ tendency of Communism, and of proclaiming its supreme and impartial contempt of all class struggles. With very few exceptions, all the so-called Socialist and Communist publications that now (1847) circulate in Germany belong to the domain of this foul and enervating literature.”

6. Conservative or Bourgeois Socialism

What is as old or older than communism? Why, the rich bleeding heart liberal (note that Marx calls them “Conservatives” to reflect their unchanging nature) who may be found, as Marx says, “redressing social grievances in order to secure the continued existence of bourgeois society.” Imagine Roseanne Barr advocating guillotines for those rich who cannot be “reeducated” and you get the idea. Marx tells us this sector is comprised of “economists, philanthropists, humanitarians, improvers of the condition of the working class, organisers of charity, members of societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals (helloooo!), temperance fanatics (prohibitionists), hole-and-corner reformers of every imaginable kind.” In effect, Marx is offering his thanks to all these for making life easier for the persecuted communist. These are in reality the enemy of the true patriot.

Marx rightly notes that Conservative Socialists “want all the advantages of modern social conditions without the struggles and dangers necessarily resulting therefrom. They desire the existing state of society, minus its revolutionary and disintegrating elements. They wish for a bourgeoisie without a proletariat.” Marx describes several maladies of the middle-class and the rich. First, that civilized living requires no exploitation of other humans. This is a dangerous mindset, for it is close to communistic. It eventually ends in a guilt complex that propels these soft-hearted to “atone” by supporting radical views and causes. Sometimes this is known as “white guilt.” Second, that “soft socialism” may be acquired at no cost. This is a consequence of accepting progressivism, that is, slow immersion into communism. It ends when merry-go-round Ponzi schemes crash.

Marx also identifies a second type of Conservative Socialist, whose goal is not so much social as economic engineering. These are called by Marx “reformers,” who only seek to improve the lot of the working class without smashing the system. Falling into this category may be any person at all, from the entrepreneur to the systems analyst to the do-gooder; and therefore this catch-all net, while an interesting diversion, is much too general to be of any use. For his part, Marx notes one branch of this tribe to include those who “lessen the cost, and simplify the administrative work, of bourgeois government.” This supplies the reason that “limited government capitalists” fall under the Marxist’s wrath. It is not austerity to which the communist objects (they are, after all, advocates of non-technological society) but the continuation of a system which demands austerity after excess. The Marxist is therefore also a prohibitionist, seeking to prohibit the alcohol of prosperity in order to avoid the inevitable credit crunch hangover.

The goal of Marxism is to vanquish the Bourgeois Socialist, to make it only “a mere figure of speech,” for the idea that the bourgeois may exist “for the benefit of the working class” is an insult to the Marxist. As such, there is much pride tied up in communist revolution. To be fair, it’s not difficult to understand how one downtrodden might turn up his nose against the rich man’s handout; in some manner, this is noble that the poor man should strive to his best level by his own efforts. But this is as far as we can travel with Marx, for he is not espousing finding one’s niche in capitalistic society. Rather, he seizes upon great common grievance, the central mast for communism, in order to foment, overturn, and control.

7. Critical-Utopian Socialism and Communism

Marx immediately makes an interesting point, one which works against him, that the first proletariat uprisings failed in large part “owing to the then undeveloped state of the proletariat, as well as to the absence of the economic conditions for its emancipation, conditions that had yet to be produced, and could be produced by the impending bourgeois epoch alone.” A thunderbolt! Marx admits that the proletariat may only emancipate himself on the back of capitalist success, for there is no release from poverty by any organization of poverty! Someone must invent the inventions, roust the resources, organize the factory, and deliver the goods – but Marx’s contention is that such things occur for no purpose other than to deliver the poor into communal prosperity! This is Hegel’s historical materialism, pressing that such turnabout of events is inevitable (whether by natural or supernatural means).

According to Marx, human nature which seeks to build is therefore “ordained” to be undone by its own ambition. If this seems like familiar territory, understand that Marx has perverted the Bible. Whenever in the scriptures man becomes too arrogant, God intervenes with appropriate comeuppance (Garden of Eden, Tower of Babel, conquest of Israel by various empires, destruction of the Temples). Nevertheless, the sin of man is not his capitalistic nature. As we’ve previously examined, Torah, the only Law of God, enshrines private property under “Thou Shalt Not Steal” and “Thou Shalt Not Covet.” The sin is instead the inability to refrain from conceiving and carrying out assault upon another man’s private property. When Paul in the New Testament asserts that a Christian should obey all authority, this is a plea based on the recognition of police power necessary to protect private property. That police power is at times abused is ultimately not to be blamed on Judaism (see On the Jewish Question) or the capitalist system.

Clearly, the communist does not wish to merely put an end to abuse of police power but also to uproot religion, prohibit entrepreneurial activity, control all means of production, and enslave every person for the “common good.”

Following, Marx acknowledges the “crudest forms” of communism, that is, “universal asceticism and social leveling.” He doesn’t blame early revolutionaries for their failure to achieve communist goals, for they had no historical basis by which to compare results. Nor is Marx necessarily aggrieved that the first radicals went to “search after a new social science, after new social laws.” This reformism was at least a mandatory failure for future communists to avoid. Marx does, however, criticize their appeal to the ruling class for assistance to transition from capitalism to communism, even while noting their idealism, that they wanted “to improve the condition of every member of society, even that of the most favoured.” In any case, Marx sees them as foolish dreamers: “they wish to attain their ends by peaceful means, necessarily doomed to failure, and by the force of example, to pave the way for the new social Gospel,” though “they are full of the most valuable materials for the enlightenment of the working class.”

Among the “fine” elements Marx discovered in those ancient manuscripts were “the abolition of the distinction between town and country, of the family, of the carrying on of industries for the account of private individuals, and of the wage system, the proclamation of social harmony, the conversion of the function of the state into a more superintendence of production.” Marx rightly points out that these proto-communists failed in their earnest endeavors because they were “Utopian,” specifically, proponents of sub-culture communism within capitalism. This Marx detests, for “they are compelled to appeal to the feelings and purses of the bourgeois,” continuing in their fantasy of “the miraculous effects of their social science,” proselytizing “the new Gospel” while still opposing working-class politics, and this basically to avoid the great societal conflict which Marx beckons.