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

(1847)

SEGMENT #3

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.

END

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.