Lesson 15: The Communist Manifesto, Chapter 4

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

Synopsis of Week 15

This completes The Communist Manifesto.

Chapter 4: Position of the Communists in Relation to the Various Existing Opposition Parties

(a) “Section II has made clear the relations of the Communists to the existing working-class parties, such as the Chartists in England and the Agrarian Reformers in America.”

It is critical to understand that Marx views not only the history of the world but also its future in terms of “working man.” Breaking it down further, the key element is not “man” but “work.” The hammer and sickle, well-known symbol for communism, executes this to art. Their ideology is based upon common labor for common good. Even so, the core, which is the lack of private property or any type of wealth accumulation, perpetuates an apathetic workforce; for without proper motivation, that is, self-interest, all labor is slavery. It is only by a constant intervention into childhood and university education, and into the social sciences (psychology, etc), the “playgrounds of the mind,” that communism may become acceptable in any way. Naturally, this is the charge against capitalism, but there is a difference.

Capitalism (call it “individualism” or “self-interest” if you like) is natural. From the womb, the child of any animal (and we categorize man as “animal” only to differentiate from “vegetable” and “mineral”) is interested only in self-fulfillment. The young buck competes with others of his kind for the right to mate. The head of the pride stakes out territory against invaders. There is a constant reminder in nature that accumulation is healthy and normal. Even “collectivist” insects, such as ants and bees, though working towards a common goal, are “nationalist” and territorial.

Communism, on the other hand, is unnatural, whether in its “pure” form (that is, its “on paper” framework) or in its common derivation, the totalitarian fascist slave state. For there is neither animal which exists together stateless (small-c communism) nor in brutal tyranny (big-C communism), except, in the latter state, man.

Communism and fascism are both unnatural, man-made societies. Man was created with free will. Man was kept from communism by God’s hand destroying the Tower of Babel, an act which created the language barrier. The chosen people of God were set free from slavery, then provided with commandments which, among other things, provided rules for those who were to be enslaved, either through spoils of war or financial hardship. These rules prove that the enlightened man, and therefore God, acknowledges the natural state of man, freedom.

It might be argued that the commandments of God are stifling to human freedom, keeping down various forms of self-expression. This is especially used against laws which seem to have nothing in common with a Golden Rule, that is, “If I’m not hurting anyone, why is it a sin?” In other words, the commandments are accused of being fascistic, even Communistic fascistic, that is, of hive mentality. The argument is strong. Nevertheless, there are several flaws to it. First, the commandments work upon extremely well-defined boundaries of jurisprudence, including (1) a court of high esteem, (2) the necessity for two or three witnesses, and (3) capital punishment for those who give false witness in court (judges not excluded from this command). A properly-run judicial system, not the exclusion of trial and punishment, is a prerequisite for a free society. So, it is not remotely proven that laws create a fascist or Communist state, only their potential, but the laws of God preclude this immediately.

Second, there is mercy. The commandments (with some exceptions) only have power in the courtroom. Christ was a proponent for refraining from the courtroom whenever possible. When the adulteress was brought before him, he refused to “play” judge (he actually had no legal standing to do so), and his staunch support for Torah jurisprudence caused the others to slink away in shame. Yet, when they had gone, he turned to the accused and said, “Go and sin no more,” acknowledging her actual sin, that is, her disobedience to God’s law, and admonishing her to continue in life on a straight path. The mercy Jesus was able to obtain was, in other words, a temporary restraining order. In another example, Christ said, “Turn the other cheek.” In this, he did not deny the lawful recourse (“eye for an eye”) but merely proposed omitting the court for the sake of edification. That is, Jesus preferred people work things out for themselves if possible, while at the same time adhering to actual Torah. The result is a people less reliant on government intervention, able to work out conflicts for themselves in a free society.

The issue was never to ignore the Law of God, or to claim some separation from it, but to make it of last resort in human interaction, instead relying on the liberty of the conscience to follow Torah without too much regulation.

Marx, on the hand, was a fomenter of trouble against existing law. His “stateless” utopia indicates a society which pretends to have no regulation. In other words, Marx sells anarchy, the most romantic portion of revolution. Nevertheless, the second stage, the “dictatorship of the proletariat,” is a societal cleansing, with nothing in the least related to God’s jurisprudence. The purest example, and in reality Marx’s template, was the French Revolution, a ten year reign of terror which destroyed the fabric of that country.

(b) “The Communists fight for the attainment of the immediate aims, for the enforcement of the momentary interests of the working class; but in the movement of the present, they also represent and take care of the future of that movement. In France, the Communists ally with the Social-Democrats(1) against the conservative and radical bourgeoisie, reserving, however, the right to take up a critical position in regard to phases and illusions traditionally handed down from the great Revolution.”

Acknowledging the First French Revolution, Marx would go on to fund the Second French Revolution one year later, in 1848.

(c) “In Switzerland, they support the Radicals, without losing sight of the fact that this party consists of antagonistic elements, partly of Democratic Socialists, in the French sense, partly of radical bourgeois.”

A slam of the “impure” Swiss revolutionist movement.

(d) “In Poland, they support the party that insists on an agrarian revolution as the prime condition for national emancipation, that party which fomented the insurrection of Cracow in 1846.”

An admiration for the relative “purity” of the Polish working-class uprising, here within the farming community.

(e) “In Germany, they fight with the bourgeoisie whenever it acts in a revolutionary way, against the absolute monarchy, the feudal squirearchy, and the petty bourgeoisie.”

The elemental Marxists never did gain much of a foothold in Germany, instead falling to the fascistic nationalists. Nevertheless, Hitler was able to synthesize Marxism with nationalism to create the worst master racism ever seen.

(f) “But they never cease, for a single instant, to instill into the working class the clearest possible recognition of the hostile antagonism between bourgeoisie and proletariat, in order that the German workers may straightway use, as so many weapons against the bourgeoisie, the social and political conditions that the bourgeoisie must necessarily introduce along with its supremacy, and in order that, after the fall of the reactionary classes in Germany, the fight against the bourgeoisie itself may immediately begin.”

This is, as previously seen, a confession that the same superstructure used against the communists would be turned against the bourgeoisie. “Meet the new boss...”

(g) “The Communists turn their attention chiefly to Germany, because that country is on the eve of a bourgeois revolution that is bound to be carried out under more advanced conditions of European civilisation and with a much more developed proletariat than that of England was in the seventeenth, and France in the eighteenth century, and because the bourgeois revolution in Germany will be but the prelude to an immediately following proletarian revolution.”

Marx miscalculated. The German people were and are more inclined to their nationalism than perhaps any other European. When push came to shove, the proletariat in Germany retained their Germanic pride over any form of collectivism (that is, before Nazism). One might even argue that the German tendency towards order overthrew the Marxist argument towards chaos.

(h) “In short, the Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things.”

Selling anarchy.

(i) “In all these movements, they bring to the front, as the leading question in each, the property question, no matter what its degree of development at the time.”

Introducing again the abolition of private property as the central goal, the difficulty for Marx is always explaining why “the new boss” ought not have the trappings of the old. After all, in war, to the victor goes the spoils.

Marx not-so-subtly includes "no matter what its degree of development at the time" to indicate that it’s not the amount of wealth accumulated, not even the gap between classes, which matters. Instead, Marx urges a “pure” view of the ideology, that all private property is to abolished under the belief that to own is to oppress.

The Buddhist might agree to some extent, invoking that ownership of things brings pain to the body and/or soul. The Christian can also be brought to agreement by quoting Jesus as saying, “If you want to be perfect, sell all you have, and give to the poor.” Even so, the Law of God is clear, “Do not steal you neighbor’s property.” The transparent implication is that God recognizes the right to private property, and that no individual may, except in times of war, or for legal indenture, or as a condition of Torah punishment , take that private property.

Thus, Marxism begins and ends in sin.

(j) “Finally, they labour everywhere for the union and agreement of the democratic parties of all countries.”

The grand vision is a worldwide communism. This necessarily ignores all types of nationalism, all ethnic traits, and every other non-geographical boundary. It is foolishness, ending in genocides.

(k) “The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.”

This is a war cry, not a protest march. This is a challenge, not a temper tantrum. This is revolution unending.

The “forcible overthrow” is sedition. It automatically makes any avowed communist (or Communist) the enemy of a capitalist nation. It may properly be called treason.

The question we have as Americans is, Does the First Amendment bestow rights on the communist? Article 3, Section 3 of the Constitution answers boldly, that treason against the United States is defined (in one form) as “adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.” If the “forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions” (this includes the government) does not fall under this heading, what does? The proper way to redress grievances is, first, through communication (personal power); second, through the vote (legislative change); third, through constitutional amendment.

(l) “Working Men of All Countries, Unite!” Again, not a call to march, but a call to bear arms against one’s own nation, class against class.

Calling on “working men” is treason in another sense. For if the working men unite to general strike, the result may be starvation for many citizens. The government therefore, being empowered to protect the main body of its citizens, for the “general welfare,” has not only every constitutional right, but also duty, to break this Marxist unity into whichever separation restores the former order.

Naturally, the communist will call this fascism, the suppression of necessary rights, including that to bring grievances to one’s government. The dilemma is, however, solved by noting that communists do not recognize the standing government as theirs, and therefore they are not actually standing up for their “rights” as citizens. The actionable corollary is that any invocation of “communist rights” is an oxymoron. More to the point, it’s a ruse, meant to allow them to gather their strength in numbers necessary to make their mob unstoppable. This was the beginning of the French Revolution.

“Workers of the World Unite” ought therefore to be taken very seriously, and more so stopped in its tracks before it destroys everything in its path.