Monday, February 27, 2012

Lesson 22: Communist Economics 2: Labor and Labor Power

Sign up for Newsletter. Send email to

Synopsis of Week 22

Communist Economics

Part 2

Labor vs. Labor Power. Money is an exchange medium, no more or less. The value of a dollar is not set by the intrinsic worth of the paper, ink, artistry, or engraving. Even gold and silver coins are not valuated according to their respective commercial uses. Instead, money is worth exactly that for which it can be traded (purchase).

Labor can be purchased. Laborers exchange their time for a certain amount of money (wage), which in turn is used to purchase goods and services necessary or desired by the laborer. An employer makes a bid, an offer, for this labor through various means (want ad, employment agency, etc). The laborer voluntarily contracts with the employer for a particular wage, which contract is solidified by the action of hiring, accompanied and confirmed by various documentations.

The laborer is normally contracted to work a certain number of hours (workweek, or shift). During the workweek or shift, a minimum of productivity or service is expected in order to retain the position. At times, there may also be a minimum prearranged production or service quota. These are the terms of the bargain, that is, time for money (employment).

The capitalist bargain is twofold. First, that the capitalist shall make a profit over and above the cost of materials, labor, and other expenses. The capitalist has many things invested in his venture, including creative power (the idea or invention), risk (perhaps life savings or mortgaged future), time (which takes away from family and other important options), sweat equity (especially for entrepreneurs), and so forth. For these reasons, there should be no argument whether or not the capitalist is “deserving” to profit from the laborers hired. Second, that the capitalist shall make further profit if the laborers hired exceed the expected or prearranged productivity or service goals. That is, if a laborer can produce in 4 hours that which he was hired to produce in 8 hours, the laborer, still under contract, must continue to produce for another 4 hours. If a contract has any validity, this is true and fair. This is the power of labor, or labor power. The capitalist contracts for labor, but by labor power may (if the laborers are cooperative and satisfactory) leverage more profit than previously believed.

The communist argument is also twofold. First, that the capitalist profits though he does not actually produce anything. This is of course completely false. The capitalist produces by his energy the aforementioned schematic and operating force of the venture. Yet, according to the communist, it is the laborer who has done all the work, and the capitalist who is a swine, his money buying time from the poor defenseless worker. This is of utmost insult to both capitalist and laborer. For except where a corrupt government sanctions monopoly, the capitalist must compete with other capitalists for the finest labor, offering better wages and/or working conditions for quality employees. The laborer also is not a leaf in the wind, having, within free society, options. The laborer has liberty to quit at any time, to move on to greener fields.

But suppose a laborer hasn’t the brains to negotiate the fairest wage, workweek/shift, or working conditions? Or suppose a laborer hasn’t the gumption to resign, being fearful for his future? Is this the responsibility of the capitalist? Or, rather, has the capitalist exploited the laborer? This is a matter of perception. For if he has kept his side of the bargain (contract), providing a certain amount of money in exchange for a certain amount of time, of what concern is it to the capitalist whether or not everything is “fair”? It is not a matter of law, for legal remedies concern that which has previous agreement. Therefore, law being satisfied, it becomes an issue of ethics or morality. Marxism is thus not concerned with business, not even economics, but purely religiosity, and this masked under a guise of anti-religion!

But even here is a stumbling-block for Marx. For if ethics or morality shall be invoked, what is the principle? (1) Is it the avoidance of greed? There is no such biblical principle. Accumulated wealth, while often a barrier to greater spiritual height or depth, has no scriptural limitation! (2) Is it to reject the love of money? If so, shall not this apply to the laborer as well? Did not the laborer enter in with integrity to the bargain? What then compels the laborer to ask for more? Of course, I am being facetious here. It is absolutely acceptable for a laborer to get the highest wage possible but, in the name of fairness, it must be equally acceptable for the capitalist to drive his hardest bargain, that is, to find his lowest cost for any good or service, including that of labor. (3) Is it stealing? Not so, for, all weights and measures being equal, there is no theft in bargaining.

The presupposition is that both capitalist and laborer work under an umbrella of ethics or morality. For the communist, this must serve the “collective [common] good.” Morality, however, does not concern communities but individuals (community sin is composed from individual sins). Thus, a communist asserting morality as basis for any argument is as a gazelle deciding to lie down with lions – it does not fit and it has no strength.

In one area, however, the communist triumphs. It is the acceptance by many laborers that they are easily exploitable. The logical extrapolation is that such laborers believe themselves to have a low mental quality, that is, are able to be outsmarted by a crafty capitalist. This leaves open the door for organization, that is, unionization, which itself demands some dehumanization (herd mentality) in order to achieve collective goals. Thereby, everything feared comes true, only in a form which rewards coveting.

The second communist argument is that profit itself exploits by its exponential nature. For if a company is profitable, it many times expands with greater employment, thereby multiplying the “exploitation” of laborers. But even if a company is profitable and does not hire more labor, the communist supposes the exploitation of the laborers to be increased by their heavier workload. In a worse economy, exploitation is by psychological blackmail, that is, through the fear of losing one’s fortunate retention of employment. It is an all-around winning position for the communist, again by means of perception. However, these perceptions are rooted in the notion that human beings, but animals (whether capitalist pig/ravening wolf or laboring sheep), require superior guidance and intervention from a collective entity, that is, the state.

To sum up, labor power is the power of labor to match or exceed a production or service requirement within a certain space of time (workweek, shift) and for a certain amount of money paid out (wage). This is the expectation of the capitalist but the grievance of the communist. Obviously, there can be no meeting of the minds.

With private property, capitalization is always possible, enabling “exploitation” to pervade universally and completely. This explains why the primary goal of communism must be the abolition of private property. Such view, however, is based not upon fact but hope. It is only the promise of some better life, ultimately a utopia to replace the sodden reality of labor, which motivates in this direction.

Marx posited that “specialization” of labor causes the laborer to be “alienated” from his humanity. In other words, unskilled or uneducated labor is a dehumanization. This is the trick of Marxism, to empathize dearly with those who feel not human but as animals, corralled, exploited, and finally discarded. A laborer who feels trapped within his job or industry (specialization), having few alternative prospects or, rather, alternative ideas, is more likely to side with this communist doggerel.

To ostensibly overcome this dehumanization, this alienation, the communist radicalizes youth and other sympathizers into demanding free college or vocational education, broadcast as the liberation of the laborer (or future laborer) through non-specialization or multiple specializations. This is superficially reasonable until one realizes that if all labor were so educated they would once again equalize to that same playing field, which is the plain of available employment. The result? An overabundance of skill, leading again to that specialization which communism cannot condone. It is futility.

Universal education also poses a riddle which cannot be solved. For if everyone is to be educated, who shall teach? If we say that teachers shall be trained and relocated, what is the motivation? Without regard to quality of student, we cannot expect quality of teacher. Thus, the irony is that universal education must lead to universal mediocrity. On the other hand, if one teacher is superior to another, one set of students should in likelihood become better suited for their eventual goal. Communism, however, having as its tenet the abolition of competition, cannot abide this inequality.

Understanding these paradoxes, the communist demands full employment. This supposedly counteracts that segment of labor displaced by sameness. Yet again, the implementation demands a much larger and more intrusive form of government, the communist state, which end must be slavery and rationing. Logically, there is no other conclusion. Historically, this has been the result.

Marx’s Wage-Labour and Capital: Preliminary.

“From various quarters we have been reproached for neglecting to portray the economic conditions which form the material basis of the present struggles between classes and nations. With set purpose we have hitherto touched upon these conditions only when they forced themselves upon the surface of the political conflicts.”

From this we learn that Wage-Labour and Capital is the first Marxist economic treatise of any substance, an important though oft-dismissed document.

“It was necessary, beyond everything else, to follow the development of the class struggle in the history of our own day, and to prove empirically, by the actual and daily newly created historical material, that with the subjugation of the working class, accomplished in the days of February and March, 1848, the opponents of that class – the bourgeois republicans in France, and the bourgeois and peasant classes who were fighting feudal absolutism throughout the whole continent of Europe – were simultaneously conquered; that the victory of the "moderate republic" in France sounded at the same time the fall of the nations which had responded to the February revolution with heroic wars of independence; and finally that, by the victory over the revolutionary workingmen, Europe fell back into its old double slavery, into the English-Russian slavery. The June conflict in Paris, the fall of Vienna, the tragi-comedy in Berlin in November 1848, the desperate efforts of Poland, Italy, and Hungary, the starvation of Ireland into submission – these were the chief events in which the European class struggle between the bourgeoisie and the working class was summed up, and from which we proved that every revolutionary uprising, however remote from the class struggle its object might appear, must of necessity fail until the revolutionary working class shall have conquered; – that every social reform must remain a Utopia until the proletarian revolution and the feudalistic counter-revolution have been pitted against each other in a world-wide war. In our presentation, as in reality, Belgium and Switzerland were tragicomic caricaturish genre pictures in the great historic tableau; the one the model State of the bourgeois monarchy, the other the model State of the bourgeois republic; both of them, States that flatter themselves to be just as free from the class struggle as from the European revolution.”

But now, after our readers have seen the class struggle of the year 1848 develop into colossal political proportions, it is time to examine more closely the economic conditions themselves upon which is founded the existence of the capitalist class and its class rule, as well as the slavery of the workers.

We shall present the subject in three great divisions:

The Relation of Wage-labour to Capital, the Slavery of the Worker, the Rule of the Capitalist.

The Inevitable Ruin of the Middle Classes [petty-bourgeois] and the so-called Commons [peasants] under the present system.

The Commercial Subjugation and Exploitation of the Bourgeois classes of the various European nations by the Despot of the World Market – England.

We shall seek to portray this as simply and popularly as possible, and shall not presuppose a knowledge of even the most elementary notions of political economy. We wish to be understood by the workers. And, moreover, there prevails in Germany the most remarkable ignorance and confusion of ideas in regard to the simplest economic relations, from the patented defenders of existing conditions, down to the socialist wonder-workers and the unrecognized political geniuses, in which divided Germany is even richer than in duodecimo princelings. We therefore proceed to the consideration of the first problem.”

Of note for our present day is that the communist has not altered his approach. It is still supposed every moment that society is composed of two classes only, the capitalist and the laborer, all others being offshoots, cousins, or in service to the capitalist. The parallels between yesterday and today are striking and omnipresent: (1) that industrialist money is the overriding corrupting influence, (2) that the laborer, the proletarian, is uneducated, without economic principles endowed, (3) that the communist is alert and active, providing the necessary antithesis to attain the correct synthesis. This boils down again to the Oppressor-Victim-Savior triangle which the communist ever invokes and sadly is able to employ in the most subtle and far-reaching manners. For it is that every generation, and every age segmentation within that generation, carries the pains and agonies of life itself, and many are ready and eager to find a scapegoat on which to hang these travails. The communist is especially equipped to facilitate every such leaning.

Marx’s Wage-Labour and Capital: What Are Wages?

“If several workmen were to be asked: "How much wages do you get?", one would reply, "I get two shillings a day", and so on. According to the different branches of industry in which they are employed, they would mention different sums of money that they receive from their respective employers for the completion of a certain task; for example, for weaving a yard of linen, or for setting a page of type. Despite the variety of their statements, they would all agree upon one point: that wages are the amount of money which the capitalist pays for a certain period of work or for a certain amount of work.

Consequently, it appears that the capitalist buys their labour with money, and that for money they sell him their labour. But this is merely an illusion. What they actually sell to the capitalist for money is their labour-power. This labour-power the capitalist buys for a day, a week, a month, etc. And after he has bought it, he uses it up by letting the worker labour during the stipulated time. With the same amount of money with which the capitalist has bought their labour-power (for example, with two shillings) he could have bought a certain amount of sugar or of any other commodity. The two shillings with which he bought 20 pounds of sugar is the price of the 20 pounds of sugar. The two shillings with which he bought 12 hours' use of labour-power, is the price of 12 hours' labour. Labour-power, then, is a commodity, no more, no less so than is the sugar. The first is measured by the clock, the other by the scales.

Their commodity, labour-power, the workers exchange for the commodity of the capitalist, for money, and, moreover, this exchange takes place at a certain ratio. So much money for so long a use of labour-power. For 12 hours' weaving, two shillings. And these two shillings, do they not represent all the other commodities which I can buy for two shillings? Therefore, actually, the worker has exchanged his commodity, labour-power, for commodities of all kinds, and, moreover, at a certain ratio. By giving him two shillings, the capitalist has given him so much meat, so much clothing, so much wood, light, etc., in exchange for his day's work. The two shillings therefore express the relation in which labour-power is exchanged for other commodities, the exchange-value of labour-power.

The exchange value of a commodity estimated in money is called its price. Wages therefore are only a special name for the price of labour-power, and are usually called the price of labour; it is the special name for the price of this peculiar commodity, which has no other repository than human flesh and blood.

Let us take any worker; for example, a weaver. The capitalist supplies him with the loom and yarn. The weaver applies himself to work, and the yarn is turned into cloth. The capitalist takes possession of the cloth and sells it for 20 shillings, for example. Now are the wages of the weaver a share of the cloth, of the 20 shillings, of the product of the work? By no means. Long before the cloth is sold, perhaps long before it is fully woven, the weaver has received his wages. The capitalist, then, does not pay his wages out of the money which he will obtain from the cloth, but out of money already on hand. Just as little as loom and yarn are the product of the weaver to whom they are supplied by the employer, just so little are the commodities which he receives in exchange for his commodity – labour-power – his product. It is possible that the employer found no purchasers at all for the cloth. It is possible that he did not get even the amount of the wages by its sale. It is possible that he sells it very profitably in proportion to the weaver's wages. But all that does not concern the weaver. With a part of his existing wealth, of his capital, the capitalist buys the labour-power of the weaver in exactly the same manner as, with another part of his wealth, he has bought the raw material – the yarn – and the instrument of labour – the loom. After he has made these purchases, and among them belongs the labour-power necessary to the production of the cloth he produces only with raw materials and instruments of labour belonging to him. For our good weaver, too, is one of the instruments of labour, and being in this respect on a par with the loom, he has no more share in the product (the cloth), or in the price of the product, than the loom itself has.

Wages, therefore, are not a share of the worker in the commodities produced by himself. Wages are that part of already existing commodities with which the capitalist buys a certain amount of productive labour-power.

Consequently, labour-power is a commodity which its possessor, the wage-worker, sells to the capitalist. Why does he sell it? It is in order to live.

But the putting of labour-power into action – i.e., the work – is the active expression of the labourer's own life. And this life activity he sells to another person in order to secure the necessary means of life. His life-activity, therefore, is but a means of securing his own existence. He works that he may keep alive. He does not count the labour itself as a part of his life; it is rather a sacrifice of his life. It is a commodity that he has auctioned off to another. The product of his activity, therefore, is not the aim of his activity. What he produces for himself is not the silk that he weaves, not the gold that he draws up the mining shaft, not the palace that he builds. What he produces for himself is wages; and the silk, the gold, and the palace are resolved for him into a certain quantity of necessaries of life, perhaps into a cotton jacket, into copper coins, and into a basement dwelling. And the labourer who for 12 hours long, weaves, spins, bores, turns, builds, shovels, breaks stone, carries hods, and so on – is this 12 hours' weaving, spinning, boring, turning, building, shovelling, stone-breaking, regarded by him as a manifestation of life, as life? Quite the contrary. Life for him begins where this activity ceases, at the table, at the tavern, in bed. The 12 hours' work, on the other hand, has no meaning for him as weaving, spinning, boring, and so on, but only as earnings, which enable him to sit down at a table, to take his seat in the tavern, and to lie down in a bed. If the silk-worm's object in spinning were to prolong its existence as caterpillar, it would be a perfect example of a wage-worker.

Labour-power was not always a commodity (merchandise). Labour was not always wage-labour, i.e., free labour. The slave did not sell his labour-power to the slave-owner, any more than the ox sells his labour to the farmer. The slave, together with his labour-power, was sold to his owner once for all. He is a commodity that can pass from the hand of one owner to that of another. He himself is a commodity, but his labour-power is not his commodity. The serf sells only a portion of his labour-power. It is not he who receives wages from the owner of the land; it is rather the owner of the land who receives a tribute from him. The serf belongs to the soil, and to the lord of the soil he brings its fruit. The free labourer, on the other hand, sells his very self, and that by fractions. He auctions off eight, 10, 12, 15 hours of his life, one day like the next, to the highest bidder, to the owner of raw materials, tools, and the means of life – i.e., to the capitalist. The labourer belongs neither to an owner nor to the soil, but eight, 10, 12, 15 hours of his daily life belong to whomsoever buys them. The worker leaves the capitalist, to whom he has sold himself, as often as he chooses, and the capitalist discharges him as often as he sees fit, as soon as he no longer gets any use, or not the required use, out of him. But the worker, whose only source of income is the sale of his labour-power, cannot leave the whole class of buyers, i.e., the capitalist class, unless he gives up his own existence. He does not belong to this or that capitalist, but to the capitalist class; and it is for him to find his man – i.e., to find a buyer in this capitalist class.”

According to Marx, an inherent fallacy in capitalist society is the belief that a laborer is a free man. This concept is filled with error.

First, while true that under capitalism many laborers never transcend beyond that status, there is no denying that entrepreneurship, that is, risk-taking for financial independence, proliferates beside it. That capitalism is able, even willing, to accommodate the small businessman dilutes the argument that such system disallows advancement.

Second, the “buyer class” mentioned by Marx is a red herring (pun intended). For once the capitalist system is so named, it is impossible to distinguish between “middle class” or any other class, all being part of a consumer society which ostensibly gobbles and is gobbled simultaneously. The imagery of the greedy capitalist matched to the animalistic laborer is simply a deceptive depiction of dehumanization (albeit for both sides) which the communist must deliver in order to stoke fires of compassion, guilt, fear, anger, and so forth.

Third, while cheap labor is the lifeblood of capitalism, it provides a systemic expanding lifestyle (“all boats rising”). Unions may take credit for this phenomenon, the result of strikes and negotiation, pensions and benefits, but unions also owe their existence to capitalism! That industrialists relocate once wages and benefits (or other factors) rise above a certain level is a testament also to capitalism’s ability to spread wide prosperity, even beyond its own interests! But let us be careful when judging capitalism through the lens of worker exploitation within nations which do not esteem natural rights, for it must be the governments of these nations which take the responsibility for moral governance. If we instead lay blame or responsibility at the doorstep of capitalism, we fall prey to the trap of communism, that is, false morality posing as economic theory. The Marxist trap, the false morality, is to say that the laborer has his time, in fact his life, stolen by the greedy capitalist, who pays only a living wage and no more, perhaps less. This is the Victim-Oppressor relationship, mere psychological perception, for which communism is offered as the Savior. Let us, however, always recall that communism has shown itself to be more merciless than any mere greed of corporatism, a cruel but real distinction.

Wednesday, February 22, 2012

Lesson 21: Communist Economics: Wages and Labor

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

Synopsis of Week 21

Communist Economics

Introduction to the Lesson. With Marxism, I have two formulary problems. First, it is unnecessarily overcomplicated. Second, and contrarily, it is oversimplified, with malicious intent.

Concerning, for example, Marx’s philosophy of dialectic materialism, this is not hard. It is a scientific view of developmental struggle, as it pertains to men without any inference of religious standards. The “dialectic” is, as previously discussed, merely an argumentative form, both linguistically and in terms of movement. It implies friction, discord, disharmony. It is a need to progress from an obsolete point. The need, however, is subjective, as that conclusion relies on the observer(s). Furthermore, the movement of objectives, even abstract ones, demands a first cause, in essence, a deliberate consciousness, most indubitably and in finality God. These finer points cause dialecticism to broaden to a more Lockean position. By this reasoning, the “materialism” pontificated by Marx naturally becomes of little, if any, power (dialectically speaking).

It might be rebounded that my argumentation is rationalization of the capitalist system, my diminution of “materialism” a device by which in toto the ruling class retains its power and private property, defended on one side by moral principle, on the other by armaments. This is true. I make no claim otherwise, for it is indisputable that Marx believed capitalism to be derived from Judaism, that is, the Law of God; and logically it follows that for communism to dispense with capitalism it must also destroy that Law. As previously determined, it is this Law (most tellingly, the Ten Commandments) which establishes and shields the rights of private property. We therefore come to a granite moment, when we must either surrender or die for everything dear and good.

Dialectical materialism is a mechanism by which the philosopher explains the struggle for man’s liberty as an inevitable consequence from impossible and oppressive conditions, yet there is nothing simpler to understand than slavery. Communism at its origination (that is, “on paper”) and in its practice is full enslavement. Therefore, the complexity of Marxist dialectic materialism (the argumentation of antithesis in order to reach synthesis) is but a ruse to cloud this reality, and more so now that history has marched on. Communism wiggles shinier bait for the have-nots, but the “solution” is no more than “seizing the means of production,” merely a centralization of that same capitalist industrial power.

Fundamentally, this is Marxism (or, more basically, collectivism). It is the grievance of the oppressed become philosophy, and finally collective action. It is mob mentality controlled by a governing mechanism, or body. It is hive distinction and no more.

In the same manner, Marxian economics takes a simple complaint and revolves around it complexity, so that, although the grievance is swiftly understood the (communist) theoretical resolution is incomprehensible (though it be called genius), and, more saliently, the historical analysis proves it genocidal.

Wages and Labor. The capitalist accumulates wealth by employing laborers at a fixed wage, then selling his particular product or service for a profit. The motivation to capitalize the factory, store, or other business entity is this profit, and not necessarily to provide employment, nor even valuable goods and/or services. Employees are, to the capitalist, a necessary requisite, though comes with it responsibility for proper upkeep of their subsistence and morale. The quality of finished goods and services is a byproduct of competition, more competition theoretically determining high quality for a discerning marketplace (not to say that pride in craftsmanship is entirely absent).

At the opposite pole, the Marxist believes in (1) the abolition of accumulated wealth (private property), therefore making capitalization (capitalism) impossible under communism; (2) full employment which is not only promised but also necessary (if you do not work, you do not eat), and (3) a level of quality for goods and services according to an arbitrary standard, nothing to do with competition or marketplaces (that is, a state-run monopoly).

The communist grievance which propels the dialectic (argument) against capitalism is that “profit” amounts to an unfair and unnecessary step to production. That is, profit motive forces a laborer to work beyond the true cost of any good or service (commodity), not only enslaving the laborer but also inflating artificially the commodity beyond its “fair” value (price). The true cost (or value) of a commodity is, according to the communist, materials and other expenses, plus the labor to completion.

In so saying, it is evident that the communist values the laborer and his labor (or “labor power”) but does not attribute value to the capitalist, neither for providing the capitalization, the factory, the materials, the idea, the risk-taking, the marketing and sales, the delivery, the customer service, nor any number of other services known to be part and parcel of any business venture (the names of each particulate changed from business to business). The capitalist becomes therefore expendable. What replaces the capitalist? The central employer, the state. And is the laborer thus set free from his toil or any inordinate valuation? Of course not! Under communism, work is everything, and the valuation of labor is transformed from individualistic to standardized. That is, a communist laborer will have fewer choices, both in terms of vocation and spending power, than his capitalist counterpart. Why then does communism have multi-generational appeal for the working class? For the true proletariat, it is upward mobility. Thereby, we understand that communism is fueled, after all, by individual self-interest, though for a specific economic and/or social grouping (not counting sympathizers).

Returning to economics, the laborer sells his labor to the capitalist but, it seems, at a rate below its true value. That is, the capitalist makes a living off the back of the laborer, who is therefore, according to the communist, shortchanged and exploited. There are several major logical deficiencies here.

First, unless the laborer is a slave, none of this is true. If men are free to leave their employer, the grievance of the laborer is akin to an excuse. But supposing there is a lack of mobility, so that a laborer, or an entire town of laborers, appears to be enslaved (“stuck”) in a place owned by the archetypical “boss” (“his town”), this must be stipulated to be not an economic crisis but one of morality. The purpose of the law (of the land) is to protect fair opportunity for all, but if the law fails to enforce that fairness, either due to some graft or collusion, this is not the fault of capitalism, but of immorality (corruption). The aggrieved labor force must therefore reorganize their government, either by vote or by more radical means, to enforce morality. However, with rare exception, revolutions of the proletariat (French, Russian, Chinese, etc) have not ended with such morality of law but instead with worse horrors and pure totalitarianism.

Second, competition between business entities enjoins that not only quality of goods and services, but also of working conditions, should be elevated. Only governmental collusion to create monopoly enterprises impinges on this truism, and therefore it is again corruption, not capitalism, which causes this real or perceived exploitation. To prevent such abuses against humanity and the community, government must be properly established to protect the natural rights of people, not that industry must be seized by central government. Marx turns this truth on its head, expecting not a change in the system but an overthrow of it, from within or without, as if the morality of men should automatically attract to altruism or idealism. But even here we grasp at straws, for Marx was a student of the French Revolution, a prime example of that bloodlust which follows immoral men after reversal of roles between oppressor and victim (that is, revenge). We cannot therefore say that Marx was ignorant of this, nor mistaken (he being, after all, “genius”), but only that he deliberately omitted such things for the sake of his utopian outlook.

Third, Marxist economics cannot escape its own Hegelian synthesis. Europe, Canada, even the United States, have all taken on their own socialist economic tendencies, predicated on getting something for nothing. This includes (1) the issuance of fiat currency as a method for spreading wealth to the working classes, (2) unionization as a way to extract more wage for labor, even beyond its value, (3) health and other benefits which become public policy or even mandates, (4) student loans to ostensibly educate on a broader scale, and so on. Real capitalism is based upon hard assets, whether gold, land, oil, crops, or other resource. Today’s borrower, however, often capitalizes his venture with a certain amount of nonexistent money, over and above the value of any collateral. Thereby, the modern capitalist (whether industrialist or homeowner) is a slave to a monetary policy which distorts the economy and diminishes the value of all profit. Whereas the laborer without any capitalization (say, a renter) only must worry about subsistence, the capitalist (say, a mortgagor) must be concerned with the cost and value of all things monetary (stock market, banking system, etc), or else face ruin.

Due to this worldwide “soft socialism” (Keynesian capitalism), the exploitation which Marxism describes is anachronistic, and the modern communist should no longer find the industrialist to be his enemy. Nevertheless, even (or especially) where the standard of living is highest, protests continue against “profits too high” in Big Oil, Big Pharma, and so forth. This ongoing protestation provides good evidence that the goal of communism is not the elevation of the proletariat, or the continuation of the middle class, but instead the destruction of capitalism.

The banker and financier are also targets for the communist, but only when easy credit and low interest rates disappear. The exaggerated boom-bust cycle of Keynesian capitalism creates these conditions, on one hand providing cash for a sprawling materialistic society, on the other side squeezing closed the hand that giveth. When mortgages and student loans become scarce or impossible to pay back, the marches commence upon those who seemingly manipulate the money supply and interest rates. This, however, is another communist ploy, for it is a central banking system with the blessing of corrupt government (think: Federal Reserve, IMF, European Union) which controls those levers, and this machination is specifically engineered by communists and their ilk. That is, central banking is itself a communist plank, furthering the charade! [We now see (in 2012) just how cannibalistic is central banking within a quasi-capitalist system.]

Fourth, Marxist economics relies not on mathematics but on ethics and/or morality. Consider the simple contract, which sets the terms for all legal agreements between men. If a laborer by some contract has agreed to work 8 hours but produces the value so anticipated in 4 hours, no matter if that speed was attained by worker skill or supervisory whip, there are 4 more hours which the laborer in reality owes the employer. The agreed-upon (contracted) wage rate, if paid properly and promptly, is ostensibly in accord with the needs of both laborer and capitalist. Therefore, any excess labor is in fact the property of the capitalist and not the laborer. Marx, however, disagrees, and judges this excess labor to be inordinate, even slavery, the capitalist finding himself richer at the expense of his laborers. Yet, no such thing has occurred. Nevertheless, the grievance thus becomes a moral argument, that the capitalist “steals” time, and therefore wage, from the laborer. In its simplest form, Marxist economics is envy, specifically, coveting. When confronted, however, with this basic error, the communist attacks religion, specifically Judaism, for protecting “exploitation” through the force of both church and law (police).

In truth, the “value” of labor is not confined to an agreement by contract, but may be extrapolated to whatever profit may be creatively squeezed in reselling that which is already produced (or, if a service, that amount of time which it takes to complete a certain task). As an example, some salesmen work on commission and some on wage, indicating that the value of service labor is in the eye of the beholder. Thus, a laborer, having no particular leverage but his own manpower, should be wise enough to know and say the true value of his labor, the contract reflecting such inward knowledge and negotiation (if any). But if we say that the laborer hasn’t clout or education sufficient to effect the proper wage rates for himself, it falls to organized (collectivist) labor, that is, unions, to do it for him. Historically, we may say that such unionization has won the day against child labor and sweat shops, but its pensions and benefits packages have in the private sector chased many a manufacturer to less costly regions, and in the public sector bankrupted many a city and state, or, in the case of Greece 2012, entire nation.

In order to therefore resist such Marxist infiltration and amalgamation, that is, revolution, corruption must be stemmed, beginning at the personal level, then systemically. For when corruption becomes systemic, communism appears as a savior to persons oppressed by unfair collusion, that is, by crony capitalism.

Consider this 1891 Frederick Engels quote from the introduction to Marx’s Wage-Labour and Capital (originally 1849):

“And this is the economic constitution of our entire modern society: the working class alone produces all values. For value is only another expression for labour, that expression, namely, by which is designated, in our capitalist society of today, the amount of socially necessary labour embodied in a particular commodity. But, these values produced by the workers do not belong to the workers. They belong to the owners of the raw materials, machines, tools, and money, which enable them to buy the labour-power of the working class. Hence, the working class gets back only a part of the entire mass of products produced by it. And, as we have just seen, the other portion, which the capitalist class retains, and which it has to share, at most, only with the landlord class, is increasing with every new discovery and invention, while the share which falls to the working class (per capita) rises but little and very slowly, or not at all, and under certain conditions it may even fall.”

This application of mathematical economics no longer applies. The “working class” is not comprised merely of those who “produce” but also of those who provide various “non-essential” services, of entrepreneurs, of management positions, of the retired, of pensioners, of widows, of trustees, of “marketers” who thrive on trading (stocks, bonds, real estate, antiques, autos), of musicians, of artists, of inventors, of advertising geniuses. The capitalist economy has proven itself not only workable and long-lived but also expandable and flexible to accommodate the dreams and aspirations of even the proletariat. Under the aegis of the capitalist system, anyone can become suddenly rich, whether by the discovery of some new sensation, the resale of some lost treasure, or the invention of some necessity.

Marxism, however, does not count such delicacies. For the communist, there is no opportunity under capitalism, only the exploitation of one for another.

Again, from Engels (same source):

“But, these discoveries and inventions which supplant one another with ever-increasing speed, this productiveness of human labour which increases from day to day to unheard-of proportions, at last gives rise to a conflict, in which present capitalistic economy must go to ruin. On the one hand, immeasurable wealth and a superfluidity of products with which the buyers cannot cope. On the other hand, the great mass of society proletarianized, transformed into wage-labourers, and thereby disabled from appropriating to themselves that superfluidity of products. The splitting up of society into a small class, immoderately rich, and a large class of wage-labourers devoid of all property, brings it about that this society smothers in its own superfluidity, while the great majority of its members are scarcely, or not at all, protected from extreme want.”

According to the communist, there are only two classes, rich or poor, one which capitalizes production for its own sake (apparently), the other which is perpetually duped into this slavery. The law in these cases neither protects natural rights nor fair opportunity, the two pillars of a free society, but only engulfs the poor for the pleasure and enrichment of the privileged class. This, however, describes not capitalism but the limitations imposed by monarchy, by czar, by emperor, where there is the subjugation of a people without power.

Marx and Engels purport that capitalism is similarly guilty of such governmental collusion, that is, of corruption. Historically, this is true. Yet, communism is not the cure, nor is it even incrementally better, but is actually worse, for in those nations which have painted themselves purely red (Russia, China, North Korea) the tyranny which followed was worse than the capitalism before. Centralization, the very thing which Marx uses to accuse capitalism, is the pillar of communism (or any other despotism)!

The choice becomes then between the individual liberty of capitalist society and the central control of communism, the former falling prey to oligarchy, the latter to dehumanization, starvation, and genocide. Yet, no comparative analysis is actually necessary. All one need do is observe whether the desperate of this world emigrated from or immigrated into America or Russia, West Germany or East Germany, North Korea or South Korea, and so on. According to this proletariat (have-not) standard, it is no contest.

But hear Engels:

This condition (capitalism) becomes every day more absurd and more unnecessary. It must be gotten rid of; it can be gotten rid of. A new social order is possible, in which the class differences of today will have disappeared, and in which – perhaps after a short transition period, which, though somewhat deficient in other respects, will in any case be very useful morally – there will be the means of life, of the enjoyment of life, and of the development and activity of all bodily and mental faculties, through the systematic use and further development of the enormous productive powers of society, which exists with us even now, with equal obligation upon all to work.

It is no longer possible to even entertain such pipedreams. We live now beyond 1849 and 1891, and know full well that collectivism, whether Marxist, Leninist, Maoist, or any other, is only brutal fascism masquerading as a savior.

This is truth.

Monday, February 13, 2012

Lesson 20: What is a Communist?

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

Synopsis of Week 20

What is a communist?

Those new to our program will likely have a few questions, so I thought this week I would break it down.

The communist agenda boils down to one goal: the abolition of private property. Everything else espoused or touted by the communist (Marxist, socialist) is a means to that end.

It is by seizing the already-established capitalist means of production (both farmland and industry) that the communist plans to continue feeding and providing for the citizenry. Single-family dwellings will be demolished, to be replaced by high-rises. No deeds or contracts will be honored. All who work will eat, and all who eat will work (no unemployment, no hunger). There shall be no or very little individual autonomy where it concerns work, food, living arrangements, travel, and so on.

To accomplish this far-reaching (in fact, world-dominating) vision, the “superstructure” (government, education, religion, family, etc) must also be infiltrated. The Fabian Socialists (the progressives) have since the early 1900’s taken a slow corrosive road to meet that requirement. The effect has been to undermine expectations in every field, including between men and women (feminism, homosexuality), the old and the young (generation gaps, revolutionary thought), the rich and the poor (continuous class warfare), and on it goes. This weakens the moral fiber of individuals and therefore the fabric of society.

The destruction of religion and of the family is not motivated by a communist hatred for morality. Instead, these are merely necessary devices to remove any regulatory impediment. That is, religion and the family provide structures and ordinances which interfere with communist control. For the communist, there can be no other rules or commandments other than that of the state.

Do not be deceived to think that the communist is a hedonist. Communists consider themselves to be the most moral of all people, against crime, against exploitation, against oppression. The fact that individualism, personal liberty, and spirituality is crushed by communism never counters the communist’s own collectivist self-image. To attack the radical under the pretense of moral high ground is to miscalculate and, ultimately, to lose. Instead, the communist must be attacked specifically by providing historical and logical evidence that genocide is communism’s ultimate end, for both the practical (resources, control) and ideological (hive mentality) “reasons.” The loss of personal liberty is not a persuasive argument against the true collectivist, but it may be for the communist sympathizer (multiple times more common than an actual communist).

Collectivism depends on mob mentality. In such, there is a need to be liked. Whether or not this is a genetic predisposition is unknown. In any case, collectivism robs its members of the ability to live outside group-think. For the communist or communist sympathizer, this amounts to stylistic controls over speech and action (political correctness), as well as a perversion of charity which careens into self-sacrifice for ideology rather than for God (we should not say “for men” as this causes a particular strain of collectivism, that is, humanism, to take root)

[The motivator of true charity is a holy spirit, and the ultimate reason is that God, not any person or state, commands it.]

Currently (2012), we have reached the point of no return. Our financial system has been deliberately undermined, and our society has been splintered into competing cultic factions rather than a cooperative libertarianism. The communists in power (and there are many) have apparently decided that now is the time for a bloodless revolution against a capitalist system sufficiently weakened to collapse under its own weight, to be reconstituted under “proletariat” rule. The war between individualism and collectivism is officially begun. The stakes are slavery or liberty, life or death. In other words, the Mark of the Beast is here.

[I do not here include the danger of Islamic world domination, as it is a separate issue, though no less deadly or enslaving. I also do not distinguish between self-proclaimed socialists and those fascist elements of society known as “New World Order.”]

Let us now examine in some detail the primary goal of communism and its two secondary thrusts.


Someone who believes not in private property, that is, and more specifically, who does not believe in the right to private property, is a communist. The right to private property derives first. Without such right, there can be no security in property, for rights beget laws to protect such rights. If the right is not acknowledged, the laws to such a right will not promulgate. As it is spoken colloquially, possession is nine-tenths of the law. Thus, in our system, the right to private property is protected by 90% of the law. Put another way, a full 90% of the law is dedicated to protecting private property.

The abolition of private property being, as we’ve learned, a basic tenet of communism, there is no reason to believe that any possession in private hands should continue under communist rule. Any promise the communist makes in this regard is a lie, simply a linguistic tool to bring you to agreement with whichever argument seems most beneficial at the time to him (Hegelian dialectic). Under communism, there can be no real ownership of private land, private homes, or any other article, be it automobile, clothing, or food, or even of the fleshly body. The pure communist, that is, Marxist, doctrine, both in the original writing and in its subsequent incarnations, does not support such conclusion.

There are today various powerful factions which are pushing towards this communist goal. The United Nations is far and away the most odious and obsequious in this regard, being both instigator and sycophant. For instance, the program known as Agenda 21 has as a final goal the elimination of single-family dwellings, calling them “unsustainable.” Under such guise, the unwary compassionate and guilt-driven cave to propositions which render and designate as “non-developable” various areas of formerly private property. The insidious nature of the program is that it for the most part bypasses the federal and state levels of government, and instead brings the Agenda 21 processes to the local level, where political machinations are less noticeable yet more powerful.

The United Nations also funds and issues studies regarding the effect of “greenhouse gases” on the atmosphere and on the planet in general. This “climate change” research has been used as methodology to infringe upon private business practices, and as evidence in attempting to impose a carbon tax upon nearly everyone on the planet. Of course, who makes such decisions and where such taxes flow through has not received the proper media scrutiny or professional analysis it deserves. If such proposals were genuine, every effort would be made to ensure honesty and accountability. The fact that climate change advocates are so rabid in denouncing the opposition rather than in providing indisputable proof of their claims should be enough for rational beings to dismiss them. Yet, the Marxist agenda rumbles onward, easily bringing in new blood through those triplets of doom: Compassion, Guilt, and Fear.

The Occupy movement is suitably-named. For though their ranks claim not to be communists but only disgruntled capitalists (or, at worst, easily-led hedonists), their goal, entrenched in their label, is to prove that private property is but a figment of imagination and not reality. Their marches upon public squares should not fool anyone. This is merely a test of resolve against the system of private property per se. For if the government has not the stomach to remove illegal protestation from public buildings and lawns, there is in theory less to fear when (not if) the Occupiers move to private business or personal property. Whether or not they know it, the Occupiers are being used to prove a point, which is that a “place” cannot be owned. They occupy and dare to be evicted. In point of law, they have no right whatsoever to occupy even public property, for in doing so many ordinances have by them been broken from the first moment. When, for example, no permit has been secured, it is illegal assembly, and the First Amendment does not protect that assembly. Local legal requirement must be satisfied for that right to exist. Likewise, if curfew is broken, or if security measures have not been met, or if noise pollution laws have been broken, the police have every right to break up the party (because such assemblage ought to be viewed in such manner, that is, as a party). [I do not here include individual breaches of law, such as drug use or nudity, as reasons to infringe the right to public assembly; instead, those lawbreakers must be arrested as a matter of singularity.]


The standard for the communist is that religion serves no purpose but to perpetuate capitalism. When we acknowledge this, there must be two reactions. First, we must defend religion if we love capitalism. But this is the weaker argument. While it denotes the proper self-interest, it nevertheless focuses upon the material world, which is transitory, rather than on the spiritual, which is, after all, eternal. Many cannot or will not defend capitalism long if fortunes reverse, especially under particular conditions, and therefore the defense of religion fails with it. This is in fact how so many poor and aggrieved are co-opted by communism – there is a surrender to it through economic circumstances, which surrender includes also an acknowledgment that society, particularly religion, has “colluded” to protect that capitalist system of haves and have-nots. Thus, religion becomes dispensable for many who have received no good or comfort from it. Rather than defending the right to freedom of religion, there is a change of heart to oppose religion on supposedly moral grounds! The lowlight to this perversion of judicious thinking has been displayed most bloody during the first French Revolution.

Second, and more importantly, we must defend capitalism if we love God’s Law. For, according to Marx, it is absolutely foundational that the abolition of private property begins with the abolition of Judaism, that is, with the abolition of God’s Law. This is not inference but based on actual writings from Marx in such volumes as On the Jewish Question and The Poverty of Philosophy. Therefore, any person who has the least inclination to the Law of God must, as a matter of anti-communism, defend capitalism. Nevertheless, capitalism must also be regulated according to morality, that is, by God’s Law, else capitalism is naught but another bludgeon against the powerless (see Bastiat’s The Law).

Specifically, it is the Ten Commandments which may be most strongly invoked as the barrier to communist thought, first against the abolition of private property, then against the abolition of religion. It must actually be in this order, for religion itself is able to be corrupted, by a mix of heartfelt compassion and guilt coupled with governmental nudges in certain directions (though the Law of God calls it abomination, “hate-crime” laws make it punishable to exhibit anti-homosexual tendencies; and recently the Catholic church has experienced a monarchic interjection into the rights of free religion by coercion to approve, or at least not deny, contraception through convoluted insurance rules).

Protection of private property is integrally founded in the final five of God’s Ten Commandments. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house, so that thou shalt not steal it. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife (an inequality of circumstance), so that thou shalt not commit adultery. Thou shalt not murder, that is, plan to commit taking a person’s ultimate property, his life, especially in the way of leading to or from stealing or adultery. Thou shalt not bear false witness, for to do so in court (which this commandment addresses) is to steal a man’s possessions, his liberty, even his life. Thus, to be communist, even “on paper,” is to renege on and rebel against at least half the Ten Commandments.

The Ten Commandments are a part of God’s Law, the entirety known as Torah. The Ten Commandments do not exist in a vacuum. They were given with every other commandment by God through Moses. If you believe the commandments were given by God, this is fact. Therefore, we cannot dissociate the Ten Commandments from Torah. We see then how it is that Marx has identified Judaism (Torah), not Christianity, as the root cause of capitalism, except that he categorizes capitalist Christians as “Jews,” to him this label a stigma. It is therefore incumbent upon every Christian to choose between communism and Torah Law.

Why Torah Law? The Law of God, being the highest incarnation and manifestation of lawfulness, Marx knew it of vital necessity to disparage and remove it as quickly as possible. This strategy was remarkably easy to implement in 19th Century France, England, and Belgium. Russia fell to it in the 1910’s. Germany was stricken with nationalist (Aryan) socialism in the 1930’s. The United States, however, having its Constitution founded upon Torah Law, has been a much harder nut to crack. The corrosion of the Constitution, and the morality which backs it, is therefore the crown jewel of communist hope. The high law of Torah may then be replaced by man’s law. When God is removed, the state is God.

The reality that Torah is the ultimate protector of private property drives the communist with his own overarching moral argument, which is that the oppressed and exploited of this world would be better served without such moral code. Therefore, the high law protecting private property (Torah) is the enemy of communism. Religion, specifically Judaism, is thereafter viciously attacked.

To protect Judaism has in recent times become somewhat common behavior for non-Jews. We see a great love for the Jews and Israel rise in the present day. Perhaps it is a response to the history of the Jews during the Nazi regime, or in Russia, or in any other such place. This is good, and heartfelt, and benefits great things. However, to protect the Jews and Israel without a concurrent protection of Torah is to bring a socialist attitude with it. For the Jews without Torah are the same as all others, that is, non-Jews. Israel without Torah is just another secular nation. The goal is to protect Torah, and thereby the Jews and Israel will be protected, whether or not those both or either accepts it individually. In so doing, the non-Jew fulfills the biblical prophecies concerning role reversal, that is, rather than the Jew being a light for the non-Jew, the non-Jew shall be a light for the Jew. But if the light is not Torah, then the Jew is no longer a Jew and therefore nothing has been protected or saved.

The priorities then of both Jew and non-Jew should be to love God’s Law, protect it from harm, which in turn will defeat the communist and secure our freedom in capitalism, the only truly free market system. It is a matter of priority and righteousness. The stakes are high. Choices will be made. Some will take the Mark of God and some will take the Mark of the Beast.


As with religion, the family unit provides a particular structure, with certain expectations and rules, generally uniform throughout the cultures of the world. The father is more likely than not to be in charge, the mother a nurturer, the children subordinate under an authoritative figure who provides both love and discipline. Obedience and forgiveness are in regular cycle, mimicking a relationship with God. These things jibe neither with idealistic communism (proletariat collectivism) nor realistic, that is, historical communism (fascist central governance).

There is no conjecture necessary here. The principles of communism clearly call for children to be ripped from their family unit as early as practicable, this in order to educate the youth in every manner of work. “Work” is made primary over love. It matters not if the mother objects or if the child is traumatized. The state has necessity and therefore takes precedence over personal desires. The idea that the Bible ordinates family relationships and provides guidelines for raising children is of course without meaning for the communist.

The father figure within the family loses his authority to the state. Under our current welfare state society, we see that children are often born into fatherless homes, some statistics rising as high as 70% for certain populations segments. Such children often end up in some societal or economic turmoil, causing an unending cycle of dependence upon the state or else survival in the ghetto (crime). In so saying, it should be obvious that it is not poverty which causes these things but the idea that the family unit is dispensable. Historically, ghettoized cultures with strong family units (for example, Irish, Italian, Jews) have been able to make dynamic economic leaps from one generation to the next. By contrast, cultures with weak family units generally stay dependent on government handouts or else excel through dangerous underground economies (drugs, prostitution, etc).

By extension, abortion becomes familiar and convenient as a way to manage unwanted children (whether or not born into poverty). Historically, abortion has been advocated to keep down the population of those people known to be dependent upon government or those considered to be inferior in society. The sanctity of life is therefore imagined as a slogan for only those who can afford it. Class warfare is thus perpetuated, and abortion becomes, at least by perception, a “right” for the underclass. For the sake of obtaining some power over the self, the family unit and the sanctity of life is diluted down to a court case, to be resolved by several government employees (judges). The nature of the family and of life becomes an ideological rather than moral battle, and Fabian Socialism has achieved another goal.

The divorce rate is another communist wrecking ball. Divorce by irreconcilable differences is neither by Torah nor Christian permission. Such easy divorce dissolves the family, disparages marriage, and propagates promiscuity (without the threat of financial or other ruin, adultery runs rampant), all Fabian Socialist goals.

Drilling deeper, another of the Ten Commandments, Honor thy Father and thy Mother, is here transgressed. For where there is no father (the family unit dissolved or never achieved), or mother (the child aborted or taken), there can be no honor given. Just because honor is commanded does not exclude that one receiving the honor has no responsibility to be present. Divorce, abortion, fatherless children, and the like are unwarranted shirking of this responsibility, and teach society that God’s Law may be flouted. Communist control over the family unit deliberately destroys the commandment.


Private property is the cornerstone of civilization. Without private property, only the few have wealth and power, and the rest are slaves to one degree or another. The establishment of this civilization comes through Torah, most explicitly in the Ten Commandments.

Religion is supposed to be the community mechanism by which such law is protected from corruption, that is, the watchdog of Torah. The family unit is a smaller version of that community, God’s Law passed down through the generations, as it is written. At the individual level, we are all responsible for our own actions, a personal responsibility. We obey or sin, according to God’s Law, and we repent personally as necessary. From such obedience then springs love, which is manifested most graciously in charity, giving voluntarily from free will (excluding those charitable acts already mandated by God in His Word).

Communism explodes this to pieces. Within communism, charity is a function of the state, to be distributed as arbitrarily selected, the revenue coming by coercive progressive taxes and other theft from labor. The “liberal” mindset is that such taxes are good and fair, and the more given the better off is society. Whether or not they participate in such scheme, liberals feel morally superior for having their charitable dreams realized, their compassion spread o’er the land through a slavery to the state. The state, having proved to the liberal its compassion, becomes in tandem with liberalism more powerful as it buys favors, votes, and “love” through such “charity.” Without any political opposition, this type of encroachment soon becomes a demand in the name of the “common good” (or “general welfare”) for the life, liberty, and property of every citizen. This is the plotted course for communism in America. It ends with the abolition of private property, of true religion, and of the strong family unit.

Sunday, February 5, 2012

Lesson 19: Principles of Communism - Segment #3

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

Synopsis of Week 19

The Principles of Communism

By Frederick Engels



We conclude studying Engels’ The Principles of Communism.

20. What will be the consequences of the ultimate disappearance of private property? Society will take all forces of production and means of commerce, as well as the exchange and distribution of products, out of the hands of private capitalists and will manage them in accordance with a plan based on the availability of resources and the needs of the whole society. In this way, most important of all, the evil consequences which are now associated with the conduct of big industry will be abolished. There will be no more crises; the expanded production, which for the present order of society is overproduction and hence a prevailing cause of misery, will then be insufficient and in need of being expanded much further. Instead of generating misery, overproduction will reach beyond the elementary requirements of society to assure the satisfaction of the needs of all; it will create new needs and, at the same time, the means of satisfying them. It will become the condition of, and the stimulus to, new progress, which will no longer throw the whole social order into confusion, as progress has always done in the past. Big industry, freed from the pressure of private property, will undergo such an expansion that what we now see will seem as petty in comparison as manufacture seems when put beside the big industry of our own day. This development of industry will make available to society a sufficient mass of products to satisfy the needs of everyone. The same will be true of agriculture, which also suffers from the pressure of private property and is held back by the division of privately owned land into small parcels. Here, existing improvements and scientific procedures will be put into practice, with a resulting leap forward which will assure to society all the products it needs. In this way, such an abundance of goods will be able to satisfy the needs of all its members. The division of society into different, mutually hostile classes will then become unnecessary. Indeed, it will be not only unnecessary but intolerable in the new social order. The existence of classes originated in the division of labor, and the division of labor, as it has been known up to the present, will completely disappear. For mechanical and chemical processes are not enough to bring industrial and agricultural production up to the level we have described; the capacities of the men who make use of these processes must undergo a corresponding development. Just as the peasants and manufacturing workers of the last century changed their whole way of life and became quite different people when they were drawn into big industry, in the same way, communal control over production by society as a whole, and the resulting new development, will both require an entirely different kind of human material.”

Engels makes two very dangerous summations: (1) that central governance is more capable than private capitalism to meet and even exceed the needs of the people, and (2) that a change in economic and social structure produces an evolution of the human race (“an entirely different kind of human material”).

We first consider his economic argument, but soon discover that Engels has no foundational plan other than to seize the means of production, communism bending the inventions of capitalism to utopian goals. Being not creative, but parasitic, communism already arouses great doubt for its future capabilities. Since we know that religion, especially God’s Law, shall not apply under communism, this doubt is not relieved but exacerbated. In fact, without such moral framework, the very notion to believe as truth any words of communism must be retired. How does one travel in belief with one who denies belief? Ah, but the communist will say that I speak to manipulate back to capitalism. How true! For Marx has already expounded that to expunge the Law of God (that is, Judaism) is to eradicate capitalism. If I take the communist at his word (as the communist demands), I know that I must defend capitalism for no other reason than I must defend the Law of God! I therefore oppose communism on the most basic level.

Contemplate also that the work ethic demanded from communism derives not from Biblical measures (except as the communist kidnaps that source) or familial teachings (the traditional patriarchal family unit being another target of communism), but supposedly from some altruistic guidance. There is here a vast chasm separating from logic. For when one performs work for the good of all (even in the most socialistic way), every individual, including the self, benefits. The prime motivator for success in any endeavor is still, even under communism, self-interest. As an aphorism, “If everybody receives, so will I.” Thereby, whether under the harshest or most hypnotic of auspices, the permanent abandonment of individualism can never be made to disappear. This poses a clear and continuing threat to communism, which explains its ongoing authoritarianism, tyranny, and murder within those most red nations.

The only place for selflessness and brotherly love is under the heading of love, such as is experienced between parent and child, or (more to the point there) between charitable giver and recipient. Under communism, charity (and perhaps even love) should be thought as an unnecessary expenditure, a mere requisition which the state sufficiently fills. If the nature of charity is thus undermined (the absence of wealth accumulation being a side issue), human nature must be thought to gravitate not to benevolent collectivism but instead to barbarism or atomistic isolationism, both of which must be swiftly and violently quelled by the communist state, for its self-preservation. In other words, communism is self-perpetuating anti-socialism! Even after history’s experience, the communist continues to say that human nature may be bent to change from the rational understanding of voluntary giving to the irrational acceptance of mandatory redistribution.

This leads to the second consideration, one perhaps more dangerous than the collectivist societal and economic revolution, which is the expectation that, via communism, “human material” will manifest in a different form. This we do not doubt, for history has proven that under Marxist and Leninist banners the human spirit has been dashed to pieces.

Do not, however, be fooled into the cliché, “Communism is a good idea, but only on paper.” As we have repeatedly learned, the firmament of communist philosophy and manifesto of action is replete with repression of religion, forced labor, and disintegration of support groups (such as the family). The notion that such hardships are necessary evils to reach some vague wonderland is not only wishful thinking, but also has been disproved by horrendous historical events in many nations, leading to the starvation or extermination of nearly innumerable proportion (somewhere between 80 and 200 million persons). Socialism, that is, forced economic collectivism, has been, especially in those most tyrannical states (Stalinist Russia, Maoist China, North Korea, Pol Pot’s Cambodia), a spectacular failure.

“People will no longer be, as they are today, subordinated to a single branch of production, bound to it, exploited by it; they will no longer develop one of their faculties at the expense of all others; they will no longer know only one branch, or one branch of a single branch, of production as a whole. Even industry as it is today is finding such people less and less useful. Industry controlled by society as a whole, and operated according to a plan, presupposes well-rounded human beings, their faculties developed in balanced fashion, able to see the system of production in its entirety. The form of the division of labor which makes one a peasant, another a cobbler, a third a factory worker, a fourth a stock-market operator, has already been undermined by machinery and will completely disappear.”

Proven by history to be untrue, this communist mainstay is heard daily. According to these doomsayers (claims all made since at least 1845), any day now capitalism is going to destroy the middle class, technology is going to swallow up every decent wage-paying job, the urban areas are going to be complete slime-pits of poverty, and so forth. The inability of the communist to forecast correctly is yet another strike against the modern-day Bolshevik. Yet the message continues to proliferate, based mainly on exploiting the idealistic nature of the youthful and feminine (call it “compassion”), the inherent self-loathing of many successful people (call it “guilt”), and the self-preservation instinct for personal wealth (call it “fear”). I do not disparage these psychological manifestations, for they are natural enough. They are, however, breeding grounds for collectivist volunteerism, harboring emotions easily picked off by experts in such subversion (think Alinsky).

“Education will enable young people quickly to familiarize themselves with the whole system of production and to pass from one branch of production to another in response to the needs of society or their own inclinations. It will, therefore, free them from the one-sided character which the present-day division of labor impresses upon every individual. Communist society will, in this way, make it possible for its members to put their comprehensively developed faculties to full use.”

What is not mentioned is the fate of the naturally-inclined. When a machinist is needed but a man prefers to be a teacher, a musician, or even a dilettante, the central government with motto “Everything for the common good” is not likely to be as forgiving as the individualistic capitalist society which follows the credo, “Do it on your own dime.”

But for those handicapped, physically or any other way, there can be no quarter. A stubborn mind can be reeducated but damage wrought by God is of no value to the communist. Whereas the dig against capitalism is lack of compassion, the true nature of communism has shown itself to be without pity. This again is underscored by that ideology’s lack of godly basis.

“But, when this happens, classes will necessarily disappear. It follows that society organized on a communist basis is incompatible with the existence of classes on the one hand, and that the very building of such a society provides the means of abolishing class differences on the other. A corollary of this is that the difference between city and country is destined to disappear.”

This appeals only to those in the less-privileged class, or who have some guilt for belonging to the upper crust.

“The management of agriculture and industry by the same people rather than by two different classes of people is, if only for purely material reasons, a necessary condition of communist association. The dispersal of the agricultural population on the land, alongside the crowding of the industrial population into the great cities, is a condition which corresponds to an undeveloped state of both agriculture and industry and can already be felt as an obstacle to further development. The general co-operation of all members of society for the purpose of planned exploitation of the forces of production, the expansion of production to the point where it will satisfy the needs of all, the abolition of a situation in which the needs of some are satisfied at the expense of the needs of others, the complete liquidation of classes and their conflicts, the rounded development of the capacities of all members of society through the elimination of the present division of labor, through industrial education, through engaging in varying activities, through the participation by all in the enjoyments produced by all, through the combination of city and country – these are the main consequences of the abolition of private property.”

In other words, under communism you may no longer live where you like (country and city no longer separated), how you like (lone wolf existence not permitted), or by which means (agriculture and production work will be mandatory, in fact, conscripted). The abandonment of self is thus a necessary component to communism.

This applies not only to economic and social ways, but also psychologically. For if communism is the only game in town (the abolition of capitalism necessarily the death of competition), the mind must wrap itself around those limitations. This leaves two choices: surrender or resistance. Under communism, however, there is no such right as individualistic freedom to protest. That right, and the self which exercises it, shall be made non-existent. Such repression forces the survival instinct, causing many a spirit of liberty to retreat and finally wither away.

All useful idiots who protest against capitalism under the protective nature of the capitalist system, including the rights and privileges thereof, should consider that they march themselves into oblivion. Their rebellious nature shall not later withstand the communism (the only alternative to capitalism) for which they now clamor.

21. What will be the influence of communist society on the family? It will transform the relations between the sexes into a purely private matter which concerns only the persons involved and into which society has no occasion to intervene. It can do this since it does away with private property and educates children on a communal basis, and in this way removes the two bases of traditional marriage – the dependence rooted in private property, of the women on the man, and of the children on the parents. And here is the answer to the outcry of the highly moral philistines against the “community of women”. Community of women is a condition which belongs entirely to bourgeois society and which today finds its complete expression in prostitution. But prostitution is based on private property and falls with it. Thus, communist society, instead of introducing community of women, in fact abolishes it.

A fantastical set of circumstances is produced by Engels in order to create a societal grievance. “Prostitution” is a straw man argument, set up for no other reason than to proclaim that communism shall conquer it (the victim-oppressor-savior ploy). There are several errors in using this example. First, prostitution has survived through every type of economy and governmental structure, and is aptly known as “the oldest profession.” Second, the concept that under communism everyone shall have what they need is merely a cloud of smoke, and to sell one desire (sex) for another (purchasing power) shall likely remain a quick method for such advancement of purpose, whether or not exploitative. Third, under a true communist state, the separation of children from mothers, a tenet, would realistically create circumstances amounting pimping women for labor power (children).

Perhaps the most pernicious aspect to the prostitute angle is that it perverts the traditional (biblical) marriage relationship into a sex-for-security scam. This has been used as a fulcrum for many decades by the feminist movement.

There is also a crass hypocrisy inherent in the language of Engels. The statement “It will transform the relations between the sexes into a purely private matter which concerns only the persons involved and into which society has no occasion to intervene” is simply dialectic. Of course communism will shape the relationship between the sexes. First, it will abolish the traditional family unit, which will alter the father-mother bond. Second, it will abolish private property, which will (intentionally) emasculate the male impulse to conquer, driving away the feminine desire for security. One might even argue this to be an intentional dagger into the heart of biblical male-female relationships (Genesis 3:16).

The ruination of real love between two people is the goal. The reason for this objective is to ensure that the state has first loyalty. In Orwell’s 1984, this paradigm is ably and fully fictionalized, the Ministry of Love therein performing the function of emotional moderation, that is, the conscience of the state vs. the conscience of the self, or of any continuum outside communism.

22. “What will be the attitude of communism to existing nationalities? The nationalities of the peoples associating themselves in accordance with the principle of community will be compelled to mingle with each other as a result of this association and thereby to dissolve themselves, just as the various estate and class distinctions must disappear through the abolition of their basis, private property.”

Under communism, all peoples will be “compelled” to “mingle.” For many nationalities, ethnicities, and individual personalities, this will be impossible, their options narrowing down to resistance until death. This logically proceeds to a master racism of ideology, those not in “accordance with the principle of community” aberrant and therefore disposable. The argument that communist dominance will lead to anything less, such as a segregated society of collectivists and individualists, is antithetical to communist dogma.

23. What will be its attitude to existing religions? All religions so far have been the expression of historical stages of development of individual peoples or groups of peoples. But communism is the stage of historical development which makes all existing religions superfluous and brings about their disappearance.

First, this is not factual. It is the elder religion, Judaism, which is, according to Marx and others, most dangerous for the communists. Destroy Judaism, they say, and capitalism, as well as Christianity, falls. Second, it is self-limiting. By the 1840’s, the Ottoman Empire was in decline, and Islam was a less fearsome force than had been in previous centuries, or would be in the 20th century after discovery of that most precious resource, oil. Thus, while communism may have held an ascending line at the same time Islam was slipping (roughly 1840-1920), that power has not held, both for the ferocity of that religion and the historical violence of communism. In other words, communism has not overcome Islam, despite great attempts at conquest and/or Marxist infiltration. Third, it is vain. The concept that religions shall simply fall away in deference to communism is either extremely naïve in its self-centeredness or else a lie so deceptive that it fools even the liar. In either case, communism has found its main weakness in the inability to stamp out religion, and therefore has gone far underground to topple churches or entire denominations from within. Religion does not fall to communism, but individuals and places of worship crumble from corruption within. This is a commentary upon those who claim to be faithful to God.

24. “How do communists differ from socialists? The so-called socialists are divided into three categories.

[ Reactionary Socialists: ] The first category consists of adherents of a feudal and patriarchal society which has already been destroyed, and is still daily being destroyed, by big industry and world trade and their creation, bourgeois society. This category concludes, from the evils of existing society, that feudal and patriarchal society must be restored because it was free of such evils. In one way or another, all their proposals are directed to this end. This category of reactionary socialists, for all their seeming partisanship and their scalding tears for the misery of the proletariat, is nevertheless energetically opposed by the communists for the following reasons: (i) It strives for something which is entirely impossible. (ii) It seeks to establish the rule of the aristocracy, the guildmasters, the small producers, and their retinue of absolute or feudal monarchs, officials, soldiers, and priests – a society which was, to be sure, free of the evils of present-day society but which brought it at least as many evils without even offering to the oppressed workers the prospect of liberation through a communist revolution. (iii) As soon as the proletariat becomes revolutionary and communist, these reactionary socialists show their true colors by immediately making common cause with the bourgeoisie against the proletarians.”

These are “regressives.” They want not a communist future nor a capitalist present. It is nearly an artisan movement, deciding for a time which never truly existed, and can never be imposed. This is opposed not only by the communist but also by the individualistic capitalist.

“[ Bourgeois Socialists: ] The second category consists of adherents of present-day society who have been frightened for its future by the evils to which it necessarily gives rise. What they want, therefore, is to maintain this society while getting rid of the evils which are an inherent part of it. To this end, some propose mere welfare measures – while others come forward with grandiose systems of reform which, under the pretense of re-organizing society, are in fact intended to preserve the foundations, and hence the life, of existing society. Communists must unremittingly struggle against these bourgeois socialists because they work for the enemies of communists and protect the society which communists aim to overthrow.”

These are “weekend warriors.” They are do-gooders, but have a vested interest in their own wealth or status. These are the progressives’ best allies, truly motivated by compassion and/or guilt. They are dupes (sympathizers to the “victims”) and useful idiots (sympathizers to the “savior” – that is, communism), but they are held in contempt by true communists.

“[ Democratic Socialists: ] Finally, the third category consists of democratic socialists who favor some of the same measures the communists advocate, as described in Question 18, not as part of the transition to communism, however, but as measures which they believe will be sufficient to abolish the misery and evils of present-day society. These democratic socialists are either proletarians who are not yet sufficiently clear about the conditions of the liberation of their class, or they are representatives of the petty bourgeoisie, a class which, prior to the achievement of democracy and the socialist measures to which it gives rise, has many interests in common with the proletariat. It follows that, in moments of action, the communists will have to come to an understanding with these democratic socialists, and in general to follow as far as possible a common policy with them – provided that these socialists do not enter into the service of the ruling bourgeoisie and attack the communists. It is clear that this form of co-operation in action does not exclude the discussion of differences.”

Engels knew not what to make of “democratic socialists.” Even today, “experts” find the term “democratic socialist” difficult to define. They are not dreamers for the past nor defenders of the present but they work within the capitalist system to seemingly “keep the home fires burning” for the true revolutionary. They may perhaps be known as Fabian Socialists but they are much less active in subversion than they are in conviction. If it makes it any clearer, Eugene Debs, Bernie Sanders, and Howard Zinn are many times classified under this heading.

25. What is the attitude of the communists to the other political parties of our time? This attitude is different in the different countries. In England, France, and Belgium, where the bourgeoisie rules, the communists still have a common interest with the various democratic parties, an interest which is all the greater the more closely the socialistic measures they champion approach the aims of the communists – that is, the more clearly and definitely they represent the interests of the proletariat and the more they depend on the proletariat for support.

Engels actually gives us fair warning. The democratic parties are those which should be watched most closely for socialist and communist tendencies and ties.

In England, for example, the working-class Chartists are infinitely closer to the communists than the democratic petty bourgeoisie or the so-called Radicals. In America, where a democratic constitution has already been established, the communists must make the common cause with the party which will turn this constitution against the bourgeoisie and use it in the interests of the proletariat – that is, with the agrarian National Reformers.

The Constitution of the United States is viewed by Engels as a document which already has sufficient inherent democracy to topple republicanism, which in this context regards the protection of private property rights.

The National Reformers were “land reformists” who called for a statutory limit on the amount of land any one person could hold, and believed that homesteaders ought to forfeit their right to property once they moved on. These particular opponents of wealth accumulation found themselves at odds with gold miners, railroad magnates, and other wealth seekers in the American West.

“In Switzerland, the Radicals, though a very mixed party, are the only group with which the communists can co-operate, and, among these Radicals, the Vaudois and Genevese are the most advanced. In Germany, finally, the decisive struggle now on the order of the day is that between the bourgeoisie and the absolute monarchy. Since the communists cannot enter upon the decisive struggle between themselves and the bourgeoisie until the bourgeoisie is in power, it follows that it is in the interest of the communists to help the bourgeoisie to power as soon as possible in order the sooner to be able to overthrow it.”

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

“Against the governments, therefore, the communists must continually support the radical liberal party, taking care to avoid the self-deceptions of the bourgeoisie and not fall for the enticing promises of benefits which a victory for the bourgeoisie would allegedly bring to the proletariat. The sole advantages which the proletariat would derive from a bourgeois victory would consist (i) in various concessions which would facilitate the unification of the proletariat into a closely knit, battle-worthy, and organized class; and (ii) in the certainly that, on the very day the absolute monarchies fall, the struggle between bourgeoisie and proletariat will start. From that day on, the policy of the communists will be the same as it now is in the countries where the bourgeoisie is already in power.”

Strangely, the strategy is given before the war is waged.