Lesson 14: The Communist Manifesto, Chapter 2: Part 3

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

Synopsis of Week 14, Part 3

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

Chapter 2: Proletarians and Communists (third installment)

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

(a) “The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.” It’s a threat. Capitalism must be destroyed, and the structure of the (“bourgeois”) family is, according to Marx, necessary and natural collateral damage. Supposing Marx is thinking straight (a stretch), why ought the benefits of capitalistic society (e.g., technology, hygiene and health) be abandoned if capitalism itself goes belly up? The answer is, only by determined education of later generations to hate that which supposedly deconstructed society. It is a post-apocalyptic view, teeming with not only bare communal living but also mandatory fascist enforcement. Marx’s vision, however, ignores or negates human nature, which is the key flaw. On the other hand, Torah, and especially the Ten Commandments, addresses and commends human nature, facilitating free will and liberty to the breadth of true human interaction.

(b) “Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.” Typical Marxist grievance organizing. The gigantic pool of complaint which is adolescence contains all the seeds of dissent and revolution, not to mention necessary energy, the Marxist seeks and requires to be victorious.

(c) “But, you say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social. And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention direct or indirect, of society, by means of schools, &c.? The Communists have not invented the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class.” An interesting passive-aggressive ploy, blaming the wrongs of bourgeois society for the reactionary wrongs of Marxism. There is no righteousness which may here be imputed; for if the education of capitalist society is destructive, the cure must be reflectively constructive. In this respect, Marx offers nothing but empty promises to the naïve disgruntled. And to that end, Marx admits that indoctrination shall continue under Marxism, therefore creating a life-or-death struggle between capitalism and communism. That he sees capitalism as the root cause of misery is not a moral argument for wresting away the steering wheel. If you don’t like the way we’re driving, get your own car! Or, “Who made you boss?” Effectively, Marx is a fascist, not an egalitarian.

(d) “The bourgeois clap-trap about the family and education, about the hallowed co-relation of parents and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all the family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labour.” There is little to say here. The static and overly obtuse attitudes of Marx make it impossible to discuss him rationally. There is passive-aggressiveness, blaming the bourgeois for the circumstances of the proletariat, when in fact every society is by the consent of the people. This may sound strange, but only when the citizenry succumbs to fear and/or greed may there be the fascist state which Marx describes. If not, Marx gives no credit to the common man for intelligence or fortitude. Naturally, this is exactly so. Marx is a master racist and views the proletariat as merely useful tools towards an endgame of complete Marxist power. If this were not so, Marx would espouse the idea of proletarian politics, that is, republicanism. In the modern age, the collectivist continues to treat the working class as boobs who require to be led towards “intellectualist” ideology (that is, liberalism). Conversely, the true conservative provides each individual sovereignty with attendant risk.

That Marx invokes the family is quite hypocritical, for he tugs on the same heartstrings which he accuses the capitalist as manipulating.

(e) “But you Communists would introduce community of women, screams the bourgeoisie in chorus. The bourgeois sees his wife a mere instrument of production. He hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited in common, and, naturally, can come to no other conclusion that the lot of being common to all will likewise fall to the women.” Not content to whip up the youth, Marx explains to women their plight. The hot buttons pressed are effective, though obviously over-generalized. Marx is a true marketing specialist, not desiring everyone to agree but satisfied to hook the critical mass necessary to make the proposed change. Brilliantly twisted! Nevertheless, he obviously must do more than merely sympathize with grievances; he must supply the solution (Savior element).

(f) He has not even a suspicion that the real point aimed at is to do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production.” Men, apparently, are the problem. Only the “enlightened” man (the communist) is able to know just how foul he is, and able to refrain from exploitation of both woman and child. Notice this fits Marxist doctrine (Victim-Oppressor-Savior) perfectly. It separates the family, and gladly so! It ends capitalism by planting early the seeds of rebellion. Thus, “feminism” and “children’s rights” are essential societal triggers for Marxist control, for they emasculate patriarchal control, beginning anarchic behavior which may be corralled by those who “feel their pain.”

(g) “For the rest, nothing is more ridiculous than the virtuous indignation of our bourgeois at the community of women which, they pretend, is to be openly and officially established by the Communists. The Communists have no need to introduce community of women; it has existed almost from time immemorial.” The fail-safe. Should feminism succeed, the communist is free from any culpability which may arise from such equalization. Should it fail, it can be blamed upon the capitalist patriarchal society which has plotted against both woman and communist. In so establishing this link, an alliance is formed. Therefore, whether or not feminism desires Marxism’s assistance, they are stuck. In a way, Marxism stalks feminism, not allowing it the independence to live as it will. For some recent evidence, notice that the strong conservative woman, certainly a product of some feminist social engineering (for better or worse), is vilified for not toeing the “party line,” that is, for opposing collectivist liberalism, that is, Marxism. There is no inclusiveness unless one is part of the master race, and therefore conservative women are attacked as “trash” and worse. It is a type of bullying, enlightening and highlighting that Marxism has not in its sights the better interests of women.

(h) “Our bourgeois, not content with having wives and daughters of their proletarians at their disposal, not to speak of common prostitutes, take the greatest pleasure in seducing each other’s wives.” Religion is attacked, and capitalism is displayed as most hypocritical. Examined properly, the atheist communist has no standing to judge such things. Beyond this fundamental block, it should be obvious that the decadence which Marx describes is a lie by which mobs are inflamed (Marx vicariously and perhaps jealously reliving the French Revolution). But even if Marx has pinpointed some immorality, it is the purpose of the law to rein that in. Marx’s view of the law is of course that it is fascist and protects the bourgeois. So it is difficult to see how, short of controlling human nature, Marx can achieve the purity for which he ostensibly pines. Or... one can simply invoke the Ten Commandments (but this involves free will, not a component of Marx's utopia).

(i) “Bourgeois marriage is, in reality, a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalized community of women. For the rest, it is self-evident that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of the community of women springing from that system, i.e., of prostitution both public and private.” Did you know that Marx hoped for free love? Open marriages? The decadence of the monarchy replaced with that of the communist. Assuming this has any appeal to any person, who gets to decide which women are part of the “openly legalized community of women”? What if one prefers monogamy? Too bad.

(j) “The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality. The working men have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got. Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word.” In the same manner Marx attempts to destroy the family, the man-woman relationship, and the bond between man and God, now nationalism is decried. This is necessary to remove patriotism, the love of country, one of the emotions which keep men from uprising against their government. Marx’s overall aim is to uncouple the working class from all their loyalties, in fact creating a sense of hopelessness. And without hope, no human can survive. The desperation of the soul instigated by Marxism is by Marx called the “alienation” of capitalism. In other words, Marxism doesn’t cause this emotional collapse, it only points out the real world which thereafter manifests as suicidal or homicidal behavior. In film terms, Marx says, “Take the blue pill” and the “matrix” will be unveiled.

(k) “National differences and antagonism between peoples are daily more and more vanishing, owing to the development of the bourgeoisie, to freedom of commerce, to the world market, to uniformity in the mode of production and in the conditions of life corresponding thereto.” The Marxist doctrine is that nationalism is anyway an illusion. The only brotherhood is that of the working man (the labor union). Despite the perceived camaraderie therein, it is but another way of delineating master racism, in this case, the superiority of working-class over capitalist status. Deeper still, it divides the Jews (both ethnically and, as pointed out in On The Jewish Question, capitalistically) from the non-Jews, an ancient evil revived by Marx for his more satanic deeds.

When Hitler adopted the communist thought process and tactics, his master racism came back to nationalism (National Socialism, or Nazism), opposing Marx. This explains the ideological antagonism between Hitler and Stalin.

(l) “The supremacy of the proletariat will cause them to vanish still faster. United action, of the leading civilised countries at least, is one of the first conditions for the emancipation of the proletariat.” Marx describes the general strike, the nation-paralyzing action to force labor “rights.”

(m) “In proportion as the exploitation of one individual by another will also be put an end to, the exploitation of one nation by another will also be put an end to. In proportion as the antagonism between classes within the nation vanishes, the hostility of one nation to another will come to an end.” Finally, world peace is promised by the false messiah, Karl Marx. Just as soon as labor can achieve the goals of puppet-master Marx, the ocean levels will begin to subside. Sound familiar?

Whether or not Marx believed his own hype, the concept has appeal to a great many people. Thus, the grievance which may be stated as “war anxiety” is utilized to organize a mass of useful idiots and wealthy dupes into a “peace movement.” I will not say that anti-war protestation is only Marxist, for that would be disrespecting the true emotions of many; only do I say that the peace protester is often directed by event (community) organizers to stand in locales which do nothing but “show the man” that a great crowd may be summoned together, a shaking fist meant to instill fear into the political system. In later incarnation, such assemblage can be turned into riot under the guise of “civil disobedience.” The Hegelian dialectic marches on.

Lesson 14: The Communist Manifesto, Chapter 2: Part 3

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

Synopsis of Week 14, Part 2

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

Chapter 2: Proletarians and Communists (second installment)

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

(a) “The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.” It’s a threat. Capitalism must be destroyed, and the structure of the (“bourgeois”) family is, according to Marx, necessary and natural collateral damage. Supposing Marx is thinking straight (a stretch), why ought the benefits of capitalistic society (e.g., technology, hygiene and health) be abandoned if capitalism itself goes belly up? The answer is, only by determined education of later generations to hate that which supposedly deconstructed society. It is a post-apocalyptic view, teeming with not only bare communal living but also mandatory fascist enforcement. Marx’s vision, however, ignores or negates human nature, which is the key flaw. On the other hand, Torah, and especially the Ten Commandments, addresses and commends human nature, facilitating free will and liberty to the breadth of true human interaction.

(b) “Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.” Typical Marxist grievance organizing. The gigantic pool of complaint which is adolescence contains all the seeds of dissent and revolution, not to mention necessary energy, the Marxist seeks and requires to be victorious.

(c) “But, you say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social. And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention direct or indirect, of society, by means of schools, &c.? The Communists have not invented the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class.” An interesting passive-aggressive ploy, blaming the wrongs of bourgeois society for the reactionary wrongs of Marxism. There is no righteousness which may here be imputed; for if the education of capitalist society is destructive, the cure must be reflectively constructive. In this respect, Marx offers nothing but empty promises to the naïve disgruntled. And to that end, Marx admits that indoctrination shall continue under Marxism, therefore creating a life-or-death struggle between capitalism and communism. That he sees capitalism as the root cause of misery is not a moral argument for wresting away the steering wheel. If you don’t like the way we’re driving, get your own car! Or, “Who made you boss?” Effectively, Marx is a fascist, not an egalitarian.

(d) “The bourgeois clap-trap about the family and education, about the hallowed co-relation of parents and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all the family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labour.” There is little to say here. The static and overly obtuse attitudes of Marx make it impossible to discuss him rationally. There is passive-aggressiveness, blaming the bourgeois for the circumstances of the proletariat, when in fact every society is by the consent of the people. This may sound strange, but only when the citizenry succumbs to fear and/or greed may there be the fascist state which Marx describes. If not, Marx gives no credit to the common man for intelligence or fortitude. Naturally, this is exactly so. Marx is a master racist and views the proletariat as merely useful tools towards an endgame of complete Marxist power. If this were not so, Marx would espouse the idea of proletarian politics, that is, republicanism. In the modern age, the collectivist continues to treat the working class as boobs who require to be led towards “intellectualist” ideology (that is, liberalism). Conversely, the true conservative provides each individual sovereignty with attendant risk.

That Marx invokes the family is quite hypocritical, for he tugs on the same heartstrings which he accuses the capitalist as manipulating.

(e) “But you Communists would introduce community of women, screams the bourgeoisie in chorus. The bourgeois sees his wife a mere instrument of production. He hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited in common, and, naturally, can come to no other conclusion that the lot of being common to all will likewise fall to the women.” Not content to whip up the youth, Marx explains to women their plight. The hot buttons pressed are effective, though obviously over-generalized. Marx is a true marketing specialist, not desiring everyone to agree but satisfied to hook the critical mass necessary to make the proposed change. Brilliantly twisted! Nevertheless, he obviously must do more than merely sympathize with grievances; he must supply the solution (Savior element).

(f) He has not even a suspicion that the real point aimed at is to do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production.” Men, apparently, are the problem. Only the “enlightened” man (the communist) is able to know just how foul he is, and able to refrain from exploitation of both woman and child. Notice this fits Marxist doctrine (Victim-Oppressor-Savior) perfectly. It separates the family, and gladly so! It ends capitalism by planting early the seeds of rebellion. Thus, “feminism” and “children’s rights” are essential societal triggers for Marxist control, for they emasculate patriarchal control, beginning anarchic behavior which may be corralled by those who “feel their pain.”

(g) “For the rest, nothing is more ridiculous than the virtuous indignation of our bourgeois at the community of women which, they pretend, is to be openly and officially established by the Communists. The Communists have no need to introduce community of women; it has existed almost from time immemorial.” The fail-safe. Should feminism succeed, the communist is free from any culpability which may arise from such equalization. Should it fail, it can be blamed upon the capitalist patriarchal society which has plotted against both woman and communist. In so establishing this link, an alliance is formed. Therefore, whether or not feminism desires Marxism’s assistance, they are stuck. In a way, Marxism stalks feminism, not allowing it the independence to live as it will. For some recent evidence, notice that the strong conservative woman, certainly a product of some feminist social engineering (for better or worse), is vilified for not toeing the “party line,” that is, for opposing collectivist liberalism, that is, Marxism. There is no inclusiveness unless one is part of the master race, and therefore conservative women are attacked as “trash” and worse. It is a type of bullying, enlightening and highlighting that Marxism has not in its sights the better interests of women.

(h) “Our bourgeois, not content with having wives and daughters of their proletarians at their disposal, not to speak of common prostitutes, take the greatest pleasure in seducing each other’s wives.” Religion is attacked, and capitalism is displayed as most hypocritical. Examined properly, the atheist communist has no standing to judge such things. Beyond this fundamental block, it should be obvious that the decadence which Marx describes is a lie by which mobs are inflamed (Marx vicariously and perhaps jealously reliving the French Revolution). But even if Marx has pinpointed some immorality, it is the purpose of the law to rein that in. Marx’s view of the law is of course that it is fascist and protects the bourgeois. So it is difficult to see how, short of controlling human nature, Marx can achieve the purity for which he ostensibly pines. Or... one can simply invoke the Ten Commandments (but this involves free will, not a component of Marx's utopia).

(i) “Bourgeois marriage is, in reality, a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalized community of women. For the rest, it is self-evident that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of the community of women springing from that system, i.e., of prostitution both public and private.” Did you know that Marx hoped for free love? Open marriages? The decadence of the monarchy replaced with that of the communist. Assuming this has any appeal to any person, who gets to decide which women are part of the “openly legalized community of women”? What if one prefers monogamy? Too bad.

(j) “The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality. The working men have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got. Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word.” In the same manner Marx attempts to destroy the family, the man-woman relationship, and the bond between man and God, now nationalism is decried. This is necessary to remove patriotism, the love of country, one of the emotions which keep men from uprising against their government. Marx’s overall aim is to uncouple the working class from all their loyalties, in fact creating a sense of hopelessness. And without hope, no human can survive. The desperation of the soul instigated by Marxism is by Marx called the “alienation” of capitalism. In other words, Marxism doesn’t cause this emotional collapse, it only points out the real world which thereafter manifests as suicidal or homicidal behavior. In film terms, Marx says, “Take the blue pill” and the “matrix” will be unveiled.

(k) “National differences and antagonism between peoples are daily more and more vanishing, owing to the development of the bourgeoisie, to freedom of commerce, to the world market, to uniformity in the mode of production and in the conditions of life corresponding thereto.” The Marxist doctrine is that nationalism is anyway an illusion. The only brotherhood is that of the working man (the labor union). Despite the perceived camaraderie therein, it is but another way of delineating master racism, in this case, the superiority of working-class over capitalist status. Deeper still, it divides the Jews (both ethnically and, as pointed out in On The Jewish Question, capitalistically) from the non-Jews, an ancient evil revived by Marx for his more satanic deeds.

When Hitler adopted the communist thought process and tactics, his master racism came back to nationalism (National Socialism, or Nazism), opposing Marx. This explains the ideological antagonism between Hitler and Stalin.

(l) “The supremacy of the proletariat will cause them to vanish still faster. United action, of the leading civilised countries at least, is one of the first conditions for the emancipation of the proletariat.” Marx describes the general strike, the nation-paralyzing action to force labor “rights.”

(m) “In proportion as the exploitation of one individual by another will also be put an end to, the exploitation of one nation by another will also be put an end to. In proportion as the antagonism between classes within the nation vanishes, the hostility of one nation to another will come to an end.” Finally, world peace is promised by the false messiah, Karl Marx. Just as soon as labor can achieve the goals of puppet-master Marx, the ocean levels will begin to subside. Sound familiar?

Whether or not Marx believed his own hype, the concept has appeal to a great many people. Thus, the grievance which may be stated as “war anxiety” is utilized to organize a mass of useful idiots and wealthy dupes into a “peace movement.” I will not say that anti-war protestation is only Marxist, for that would be disrespecting the true emotions of many; only do I say that the peace protester is often directed by event (community) organizers to stand in locales which do nothing but “show the man” that a great crowd may be summoned together, a shaking fist meant to instill fear into the political system. In later incarnation, such assemblage can be turned into riot under the guise of “civil disobedience.” The Hegelian dialectic marches on.

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

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

Synopsis of Week 14, Part 2

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

Chapter 2: Proletarians and Communists (second installment)

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

(a) “In bourgeois society, living labour is but a means to increase accumulated labour. In Communist society, accumulated labour is but a means to widen, to enrich, to promote the existence of the labourer.” The only way this is possible is through central control and sub-standard living which is equal among all. That communists claim their utopia has never actually been attempted is worse than frightening, for it means that in every generation they may claim capitalism “stole” their revolution, whether in Russia, China, or anywhere else.

(b) “In bourgeois society, therefore, the past dominates the present; in Communist society, the present dominates the past. In bourgeois society capital is independent and has individuality, while the living person is dependent and has no individuality.” A catchy slogan which means nothing, based on assumption and generalization, supported by incorrect facts and biased conclusions.

(c) “And the abolition of this state of things is called by the bourgeois, abolition of individuality and freedom! And rightly so. The abolition of bourgeois individuality, bourgeois independence, and bourgeois freedom is undoubtedly aimed at. By freedom is meant, under the present bourgeois conditions of production, free trade, free selling and buying.” Do you follow the convoluted logic? As long as it is maintained that the bourgeois society is a police state, the abolition of it by any means is a righteous abolition. Therefore, the ends justify the means, which under Marxist standards may be any means. What is considered theft (redistribution of wealth) is therefore “restitution.” Coveting is “revolutionary philosophy.” Murder is “self-defense.” As long as the target is the capitalist, no problems.

(d) “But if selling and buying disappears, free selling and buying disappears also. This talk about free selling and buying, and all the other “brave words” of our bourgeois about freedom in general, have a meaning, if any, only in contrast with restricted selling and buying, with the fettered traders of the Middle Ages, but have no meaning when opposed to the Communistic abolition of buying and selling, of the bourgeois conditions of production, and of the bourgeoisie itself.” There you have it. No trading, no selling, no production – unless it meets the communist standard, which in most cases means it is verboten. Note the elimination of the bourgeoisie also, which will come, as already explained, by any means. Cheerful, yes?

(e) “You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths. You reproach us, therefore, with intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary condition for whose existence is the non-existence of any property for the immense majority of society.” From the middle-European medieval view, this is interesting. However, it pertains not to America or other socially-advanced nations. The problem here is, Marx is not typifying the ancient world and excluding the modern age, but is reproaching all of technological society. We might agree that backward nations require some revolution to move them forward, but we would never assent that advanced nations need to regress. In any case, burdening capitalism with the responsibility for tyranny is a form of psychological projection, for the communist, even here ideally, is not different from any other Oppressor, intending to set the regulations for the brave new world. “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.”

(f) “In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so; that is just what we intend.” Thus, Marx has made it a life-or-death struggle. You cannot escape this reality by imagining he means this figuratively or through some political process. He says the opposite. It is literal and visceral. Marxists view capitalists as perversions of nature, Oppressors by choice, driven by religion, urged in some (quasi-)genetic manner. Murder is not in their lexicon when it involves capitalists; it is instead a mercy killing.

(g) “From the moment when labour can no longer be converted into capital, money, or rent, into a social power capable of being monopolised, i.e., from the moment when individual property can no longer be transformed into bourgeois property, into capital, from that moment, you say, individuality vanishes. You must, therefore, confess that by “individual” you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property. This person must, indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible. Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriations.” The quintessential argument against private property is the exploitation or theft by which it is amassed. Whether or not this is true, it is a moral argument. Marx therefore, who claims to eschew philosophy and religion, must use this morality as his core bludgeon. The further assertion that communism deprives no man certain power but permits a different power is only a “nice” way of saying that there’s a new sheriff in town. Naturally, only the “best” communists are able to discern and administer such tenets; and such elite reign in reality after a communistic revolution. One only need ask, “Who made you boss?” to find out the answer, for communism is no egalitarianism but only another thuggery.

(h) “It has been objected that upon the abolition of private property, all work will cease, and universal laziness will overtake us.” Not so! The potato fields will be well-attended under threat of privilege loss or worse.

(i) “According to this, bourgeois society ought long ago to have gone to the dogs through sheer idleness; for those of its members who work, acquire nothing, and those who acquire anything do not work. The whole of this objection is but another expression of the tautology: that there can no longer be any wage-labour when there is no longer any capital.” First, let us note the illogical stance taken by Marx by requiring that capitalism ought to have become filled with laziness. Capitalism, not being coercive, is self-motivating. As long as the government does not fund laziness, such attitudes fall in favor of food and lodging. Second, note the linking of “tautology” in attempting to disprove that rich people are the employers of the wage-laborer. If A is true, B must be true also? Or false? Neither is correct. The only thing Marx has “proven” is that communism intends full employment by some means other than self-motivation, which is to say, by slavery.

(j) “All objections urged against the Communistic mode of producing and appropriating material products, have, in the same way, been urged against the Communistic mode of producing and appropriating intellectual products. Just as, to the bourgeois, the disappearance of class property is the disappearance of production itself, so the disappearance of class culture is to him identical with the disappearance of all culture. That culture, the loss of which he laments, is, for the enormous majority, a mere training to act as a machine.” At least Marx is entertaining! This is filled with error. First, there is no distinction between the capitalist and the communist when it comes to loss of productivity, for both are in the business of producing goods, only for different ideological purposes; the former for individual property rights, the latter against. Second, the disappearance of class culture is a stylized way of calling someone a snob or an elitist. It points to, for example, the country club as the playground of the Oppressors. Infantile. Third, the “blueblood” caricature is drawn in order to criticize again the culture, and therefore the economic structure. It is a stilted, static, and very small way to define one’s nemesis, never mind the world in general.

(k) “But don’t wrangle with us so long as you apply, to our intended abolition of bourgeois property, the standard of your bourgeois notions of freedom, culture, law, &c. Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of the conditions of your bourgeois production and bourgeois property, just as your jurisprudence is but the will of your class made into a law for all, a will whose essential character and direction are determined by the economical conditions of existence of your class.” In other words, the police and judges are there to protect the rich, not the poor. Once again, not a Judeo-Christian, not a British, not an American jurisprudence. Instead, Marx fights against the brutish tactics of barbarians. And how? By invoking barbarism as the solution!

Furthermore, there is an egoism here, which decides communism to be so well-attended that the “police state” exists mainly for its suppression. But though their agitations produce many insurrections populated by dupes and idiots, actual communists are few. The law is therefore meant to prevent loss of property and life from whipped-up mobs, not civil rights protesters. But if police fascism exists at any time, it is not communism which will be our savior!

(l) “The selfish misconception that induces you to transform into eternal laws of nature and of reason, the social forms springing from your present mode of production and form of property – historical relations that rise and disappear in the progress of production – this misconception you share with every ruling class that has preceded you. What you see clearly in the case of ancient property, what you admit in the case of feudal property, you are of course forbidden to admit in the case of your own bourgeois form of property.” By a clever device, Marx is able to ask, “Do you still beat your wife?” If the past equals the present, Marx proves a lineage or pattern. If the present is worse, the guilt is more so. But at no time does Marx allow that capitalism may evolve into equity and compassion; that would steal his show.

(m) “Abolition [Aufhebung] of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.” It is imperative for Marx to both inculcate the youth and divide them from their foundation. He embarrasses any who would dissent from this plot by insinuating they are not true radicals, a badge of dishonor.

(n) “On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.” In a perversion, Marx causes the proletarian to envy family unity among bourgeoisie, then proceeds to slam that unity as a result only of wealth. In other words, even though a strong family structure is something to treasure, the working class ought not aspire to it lest they should appear upper crust. A famous philosopher once said that the poor have a peculiar bias in that they look down on the rich, and Marx here attempts to cement such philosophy as active social revolution. A strong family, according to Marxist doctrine, results from privilege. Yet, wealth is no guarantee for a strong family, and poverty does not prevent it. The rich also have their share of broken homes and wayward females. Perhaps we can say these miseries among the rich are fewer, but only because there are fewer rich. Regardless, Marx’s target is not the family but the structure, which by its very nature threatens the authority of the Marxist, a competition of blood against water. By linking wealth, specifically accumulated wealth, to this competitor, Marx pits envy against love, a sociopathic ploy to divide and conquer. If successful, however, the overthrow of private property becomes a simpler matter.

Lesson 14: The Communist Manifesto, Chapter 2: Part 1

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

Synopsis of Week 14:

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

Chapter 2: Proletarians and Communists

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

(a) “The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties.” Marx does not offer communism as a “party” but as a “movement.” At the fundamental level, there is no opposition between “The Communist Party” and, say, “The Green Party.”

(b) “They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole.” Having coordinated communism as the “good guy” of proletariat movements, that is, having articulated “Marx’s Eleventh Commandment” – “Thou shalt not be separate from any working-class political party” – Marx now offers a Twelfth, “Thou shalt not deviate from proletariat goals and priorities.” In truth, the communist is the most helpful and compassionate person when it comes to working-class grievances. Whether or not these are sincere emotions, it provides the communist a willing partner, the aggrieved Victim. And as we know, when someone is sympathetic to a particular plight, we call that person “friend.” This is a difficult bond to break, especially when the alternative is realism and responsibility. Therefore, though the capitalist view of economics is correct, it clangs loudly against the brass door of communist hand-holding.

Nevertheless, Marx’s assertion is a power move. For after having befriended the Victim of the Oppressor, the communist prods and nudges his “friend” to more and more inflamed situations, such as general strikes and violent protests, eventually to social revolution. If we ask why this is possible, we must be willing to accept two truths: (1) many people are ill-informed and ill-educated, making them prime targets for the communist “exploitation” spiel, and (2) the capitalist is ill-equipped to respond to the communist, except in purely partisan manner. Therefore, our education is meant to prepare the anti-communist for the future, one likely to be filled with verbal (as well as physical) clashes. We should not fear such confrontation.

(c) “They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement.” The Marxist indeed lives up to this, not providing any new “principles.” Nevertheless, the collectivist is actively shaping proletarian movements from within, by emotion and imagery, and by perverting the views of the other side.

(d) “The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only: 1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality. 2. In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.” This simply distinguishes that in each country, or at each stage of economic development, the working-class struggle has a different flavor. It’s an obvious observation but there is an element of subversion within, which is that the recognition of these differences actually does empower the communist to approach the proletariat interests from an more elitist “I know better than you what’s going on” attitude.

This Marx concedes in the next paragraph: “The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.” There is no doubt that Marx intends the communists to be the intellectual guide for the more vague proletarian goals. For example, the Occupy people have no cohesive message (nor even a frame of reference for subculture etiquette), yet the Marxist is able to connect even these random dots to produce a picture which says that “squatting” is a relevant goal; this evolves a mere gathering of disparate losers into a grand congregation of natural rights “philosophers.” Of course, a willing media propagates such a false image of the Occupy movement but, since many news outlets are Left-leaning, such things were preordained anyway (the ultimate proof of this is the crowning of Occupy as “Person of the Year” by Time Magazine, but the omission of the Tea Party from any such honor, or even much acknowledgment).

(e) “The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.” An assumption which draws in many aggrieved. The irony is that the same greed imputed to the rich is expected from the poor. In order to achieve the proper passion for “overthrow,” Marx stirs up envy and hatred.

(f) “The theoretical conclusions of the Communists are in no way based on ideas or principles that have been invented, or discovered, by this or that would-be universal reformer. They merely express, in general terms, actual relations springing from an existing class struggle, from a historical movement going on under our very eyes.” The self-effacing nature of the statement is attractive to the powerless, who seek not another false leader. Marx empowers the powerless. But of course we know this is a lie – Marxism is absolute power.

(g) “The abolition of existing property relations is not at all a distinctive feature of communism. All property relations in the past have continually been subject to historical change consequent upon the change in historical conditions.” In one fell swoop, Marx disassociates himself from the chanting of the crowd who espouse his rhetoric. It is the worst passive-aggressive move of all time, blaming the mob for violence which he himself whips up. He is a troublemaker, causing havoc and slipping away. That the proletariat cannot see this duplicity is worrisome, as it is the main leverage the anti-communist has against Marx. If one says to the working-class revolutionary, “But Marx makes you to take the blame for what he said,” the common response is, “I think for myself, and Marx only mirrors my personal thoughts which I had before I read his work.” How does one fight this? Only by saying, “Then you are also responsible for over 100 million deaths,” the explanation for this statement being, “If you are a like mind to Marx, then you are the same as Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and many other tyrants and murderers.” After this, I think there is no hope for your audience.

(h) “The French Revolution, for example, abolished feudal property in favour of bourgeois property.” His historical basis does not nullify the horror of the French Revolution, and it does not give regal basis for any future collectivism or mob rule.

(i) “The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products, that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few.” Nonsense which intends to void the legal contract as a basis for ownership.

(j) “In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.” And now you know the truth. It is not faith which communists fight, it is rule of law. Where do we get private property? The Ten Commandments provides at least two rationales. First, “Thou shalt not steal” presupposes private ownership, and if one studies the commandment in depth, per Torah, it is clear. Second, “Thou shalt not covet” makes it a serious crime to plot the destruction or theft of private property, which devolves down to two communist thoughts: (1) “If I can’t have it, neither can you,” and (2) “I don’t want it, and therefore neither may you have it.” These vital foundational stones settle the boxing card as “Marx vs. Torah” or “Evil vs. Good.” Repeating, it is not Christian faith which the communist despises, but the Jewish commandments, which the Christian is (at least in skeletal form) compelled by God to obey.

(k) “We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing the right of personally acquiring property as the fruit of a man’s own labour, which property is alleged to be the groundwork of all personal freedom, activity and independence.” Not “alleged” but proven. The key is that Marxism must be atheism in order to deny the commandments.

(l) “Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! Do you mean the property of petty artisan and of the small peasant, a form of property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no need to abolish that; the development of industry has to a great extent already destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily. Or do you mean the modern bourgeois private property?” The argument is that there are levels of private property, and that Marx is able to say which is worthy and which is not. Supposing this were true, there is no end to it, for once the “bourgeois” property is abolished, the “artisan” is next. The ultimate goal of the Marxist is to destroy technology and economics down to such a bare-bones existence that no resistance will ever again be possible. That is, Marx is against human progress, a great irony.

(m) “But does wage-labour create any property for the labourer? Not a bit. It creates capital, i.e., that kind of property which exploits wage-labour, and which cannot increase except upon condition of begetting a new supply of wage-labour for fresh exploitation. Property, in its present form, is based on the antagonism of capital and wage labour.” Marx never anticipated the credit system, the assembly line, the personal computer, and many other human creations which make life easier, better, and more productive for... the labourer, the proletariat. Thus, free capitalists have far more variety than their communist counterparts. The counter-argument that such variety is just a distraction to corporate control is a ruse meant to focus envy back upon private property; that is, class warfare. Note, for example, the idea that high-speed Internet is a “right” – which sets those who haven’t the wherewithal to connect or afford it to have “free” access at the expense of more productive (or even “luckier”) members of society. It is a flattening of expectation, met by theft of resources through communist extortion and coercion.

(n) “Let us examine both sides of this antagonism. To be a capitalist, is to have not only a purely personal, but a social status in production. Capital is a collective product, and only by the united action of many members, nay, in the last resort, only by the united action of all members of society, can it be set in motion. Capital is therefore not only personal; it is a social power. When, therefore, capital is converted into common property, into the property of all members of society, personal property is not thereby transformed into social property. It is only the social character of the property that is changed. It loses its class character. Let us now take wage-labour. The average price of wage-labour is the minimum wage, i.e., that quantum of the means of subsistence which is absolutely requisite to keep the labourer in bare existence as a labourer. What, therefore, the wage-labourer appropriates by means of his labour, merely suffices to prolong and reproduce a bare existence. We by no means intend to abolish this personal appropriation of the products of labour, an appropriation that is made for the maintenance and reproduction of human life, and that leaves no surplus wherewith to command the labour of others. All that we want to do away with is the miserable character of this appropriation, under which the labourer lives merely to increase capital, and is allowed to live only in so far as the interest of the ruling class requires it.” The “noble” goal of the communist is that all people should live at the lowest level of subsistence. These decisions are to be made by bureaucrats, that is, “death panels.” The idea that Marxism, even generational Marxism, could quell the longings of human beings is ludicrous. Infants are selfish from the moment they are born. The commands of God which control human behavior are given out of love for our free will, not as a means of coercive fascism. Freedom isn’t free. But Marx intends that freedom to accumulate wealth is the maker of exploitation and misery. That he believes the destruction of ambition (whether genetically or environmentally) to be the solution is the most dangerous ideology ever devised, for it even allows eugenics based on probability of such ambition. Simply, it permits Jews (then others) to be destroyed as a “service” to the human race.

Lesson 13: The Communist Manifesto, Part 5

I hold weekly meetings for interested parties here in Hendersonville, NC. This is a synopsis from our 13th meeting.

Synopsis of Week 13 Meeting:

1. There is an inherent flaw in my nature. As a rational and reasonable person, I generally believe that most or all other people are rational and reasonable until proven otherwise. Some may say this is far too egalitarian and generous, giving credence to any number of boobs, nuts, or despots. Yet I find a vast wealth of insights within each range of intelligence and demeanor. The key to it all is sincerity. If one’s presentation is earnest, I find myself listening to it with some intensity. As a youth, this naturally caused some problem as I did not filter, permitting an array of philosophies to come thither, under the umbrella that to learn was to grow. As not a youth, I still ascribe to this mindset, except that I have developed a prejudice, which is that if my individualism is called to question the message is to be ignored, even defeated. Any message which relies on the surrender of my personal sovereignty is in my terminology “master racist,” that is, elitist with the goal to subjugate all beneath. Communism is one of several “master racist” theories, all of which are distasteful or dangerous, or both.

A common denominator among such master racist theories is a tendency to blame the Jews for social and/or economic ills. As we have learned, Marxism is based fully and almost completely on the notion that capitalism, the supposed scourge of all mankind, is derived exclusively from Judaism, and that the Jews, being unable to escape their own religion and/or genetics, must be at the very least reeducated to renounce Judaism. Nazism, the nationalist version of communism, takes this paranoia and hatred to its highest level. Islam has at various times in its history, most strikingly at present, decided that the nation of Israel and the Jews therein are the root cause of Arab misery. Even the Christian religious oligarchy has for most of its history tended to lay much blame on the Jews, leading to many pogroms and persecutions. In so examining these truths, every member of society is at some point forced to make a choice: either (1) take personal responsibility for the ills in one’s life, or (2) place the blame on someone else, that is, play the victim. Note that when things go wrong and the decision is to find a scapegoat, it generally has been the Jew who is so crucified; and this much easier due to master racists having previously laid the groundwork, causing the excuse “there must be something to it.”

We are currently at the forefront of a monsoon for such master racism. Marxists are again blooming with familiar anti-Semitism, locked arm in arm with Neo-Nazis and Islamic fascists. These have many anti-Jewish sympathizers not otherwise affiliated. Fortunately, at this particular juncture in history Christians have made a majority decision to defend the Jews. Perhaps it is that Christians and Jews find themselves in common territory, both blamed and persecuted for current social and economic ailments. Nevertheless, in an attempt to peel away at the capitalist structure, Jews and Christians are bombarded in their respective houses of worship by the Marxist perversion of the “social justice” philosophy. We therefore are on the precipice.

Some have questioned why I focus on the antiquity of Marx when it seems that the pressing need is to fight against the current atmosphere of master racism. When I began this undertaking, I could not respond properly; but I can now tell you quite confidently that to understand Karl Marx is to understand all current events, whether the topic is Big Government, the Euro, Occupy Wall Street, Al Qaeda, or Barack Obama. It’s not that Karl Marx was “right” but that his adherents have made him pervasive, struggling in a never-ending battle to organize human grievances into power blocs, then wielding such power within the realms of politics, war, labor, media, education – everywhere. The victim mentality, once the realm of losers and the mentally deficient, has become ubiquitous, fostered by softening agents such as political correctness, welfare giveaways (including corporate bailouts), fairness doctrines, judicial activism, male feminization, and directed compassion (social justice). Once established, Victims are focused against the Oppressor. This direction is by a “Savior,” that is, a doctrine which is the antithesis of the Oppressor. The acceptance of such Savior (communism, for example) comes irrespective of its flaws in that “at least it’s not the same old thing.”

The fact that such progression of events recurs every day, sweeping with it those in society so predisposed to utopian solutions, indicates that individualistic and sovereign ideology has been permitted to go weak and flabby. The nature of Law, whether we say through Torah or Constitution, is attacked every day as relative (for the atheist), outdated (for the anarchist), and exploitative (for the communist). Private property, absolutely protected by the Law, is viewed as imperialistic. The ownership of guns, meant to defend private property, is subjected to its own war. Freedom of religion, speech, assembly, and the press is proposed as only meant for those who weep for the common good. In all things and in every way, the individual is being forced to choose between personal autonomy and hive mentality. More and more, the latter is being touted as the remedy for a variety of personal maladies and inconveniences, and is further supported by the ideology of “utilitarianism” which benefits the “general welfare,” overturning the “atomism” of libertarianism (a fallacy in itself).

We are hurtling towards destruction by, in a word, envy. Not that coveting is a new idea; after all, it’s covered by the Ten Commandments. The problem is that, down to the least fiber of society, such godly mandates have not been enforced. There used to be a time when the street-corner communist would not be permitted to continue his diatribe, run off by citizens or even the local beat cop; now, under the aegis of “freedom of speech,” the communist is given even more right than the preacher, though the former is to every degree a traitor and the latter at worst a nuisance. The schoolroom, once under indirect supervision by the parent, is now a breeding ground for perversion and treason, the teacher of such trash often protected by the local school board. And let us not forget Washington DC, ground zero for central planning, where actual communists, socialists, and assorted eugenicists chair entire divisions of government.

But I submit that we are to blame. We, the individualists who are shocked at the state of the country and the world, have done little to stop it. When we vote, we choose pocketbook over principle. When we shop, we give little thought to our community. When we educate, we don’t choose our materials carefully. We don’t want to get too involved, because it means a loss of free time or some social ostracism. Many feel that perhaps it’s dangerous, leading to fights or prison. We are tired and scared. And so many give in, throw hands in the air, and surrender to the winds of change. Once so surrendered, these cynical become tools of master racists; for they who no longer want to be tired or scared begin to mock and criticize those who have not been themselves defeated. There is thus an envy against fortitude, seeking to destroy thy neighbor’s soul.

This goes beyond just a difference of opinions. This is a struggle between good and evil.

2. Let us continue now with more drivel from The Communist Manifesto:

“No sooner is the exploitation of the laborer by the manufacturer, so far, at an end, that he receives his wages in cash, than he is set upon by the other portions of the bourgeoisie, the landlord, the shopkeeper, the pawnbroker, etc.”

Poor little laborer. Born into a certain class, unable to move up the ladder, always to be under the thumb of the elite. Hooey! This is entirely middle-European medieval thinking, and has nothing to do with other various locales and time-slips, including that of the United States. Likewise, such an economic caste system is unlike Judaism in nearly every respect and much more like Hinduism. Furthermore, with the luxury of historical hindsight, we know that such a scenario is more indicative of communism than capitalism; for the subjugation of the laborer is mandatory in a society which proscribes a set portion for all things.

“The lower strata of the middle class — the small tradespeople, shopkeepers, and retired tradesmen generally, the handicraftsmen and peasants — all these sink gradually into the proletariat, partly because their diminutive capital does not suffice for the scale on which Modern Industry is carried on, and is swamped in the competition with the large capitalists, partly because their specialized skill is rendered worthless by new methods of production. Thus the proletariat is recruited from all classes of the population.”

Notice that in Marx’s static world, everyone remains ageless (figuratively speaking) and immobile, as if new workers are not constantly being born or emigrating from here to there. Marx builds a terra totally industrialized, without regard for natural rights. He is not describing true capitalism or republicanism but instead a dystopia which will juxtapose nicely to his proposed utopia. Marx is one of the great swindlers of all time.

The existence of such oppressed populations bestows on Marx a type of visionary status. For if an historical oligarchy of the aforementioned nature can be applied, the fantasy world of Marxism is brought to life in vivid color. Then, it is a simple matter to sway by emotional redress the sympathies of a great crowd. That common folk have been poorly represented, both politically and economically, in many ways and many times, is a fact. Yet, the slow evolution of free societies from barbaric (autocratic) frameworks is not evidence that Marx’s government by mob rule (democracy) has in the past or will in the future work to any more efficient or fair degree. In fact, just the opposite.

The folly of Marxism therefore cannot be overstated. If the idealized stateless society (that is, without rule of law) is successfully implemented, it must denigrate back to the very barbarism it presupposes to overcome. The French Revolution is the prime example for such mayhem. However, no “democratic” revolution, not even the French, was ever literally “stateless.” Due to human nature, barbarism and “the new boss” takes over immediately. Yet, rather than acceding to history and logic, the Marxist sees this impurity of former revolutions as still providing an opportunity for “true” collectivism to one day reign. It is this eternal optimism of the human spirit which Marx has kidnapped, and for which hundreds of millions have needlessly been murdered.

The collectivist dreamer is the Marxist’s greatest ally, for he is the architect, having the greatest passion.

The collectivist who dissents from Marx may only find such freedom within the representative capitalism he believes to disdain. The collectivist who finds his solace in imaginations of a brave new world has only this liberty to daydream while in a free and individualistic society. That is, the “enemy” of the collectivist is actually his only friend (but the reverse is not true).

“The proletariat goes through various stages of development. With its birth begins its struggle with the bourgeoisie. At first the contest is carried on by individual laborers, then by the workpeople of a factory, then by the operative of one trade, in one locality, against the individual bourgeois who directly exploits them. They direct their attacks not against the bourgeois conditions of production, but against the instruments of production themselves; they destroy imported wares that compete with their labor, they smash to pieces machinery, they set factories ablaze, they seek to restore by force the vanished status of the workman of the Middle Ages.”

Marx is a great showman, but he perhaps believes his own tripe. Either way, he is a sociopath, a description applied to him also by his “friend” (and “father of modern anarchy”) Bakunin [see previous Synopses].

That the small updrafts of revolution felt in Europe would seem to predate later upheavals is a myth. In fact, except for the French Revolution (and even this is probably suspect), all communist uprisings have not been spontaneous but deliberate agitations. But the pure evil and hatred from the French masses has never since been equaled, and every community organizer who so wishes has a form of “revolution envy.”

“At this stage, the laborers still form an incoherent mass scattered over the whole country, and broken up by their mutual competition. If anywhere they unite to form more compact bodies, this is not yet the consequence of their own active union, but of the union of the bourgeoisie, which class, in order to attain its own political ends, is compelled to set the whole proletariat in motion, and is moreover yet, for a time, able to do so. At this stage, therefore, the proletarians do not fight their enemies, but the enemies of their enemies, the remnants of absolute monarchy, the landowners, the non-industrial bourgeois, the petty bourgeois. Thus, the whole historical movement is concentrated in the hands of the bourgeoisie; every victory so obtained is a victory for the bourgeoisie.”

Whether Marx is speaking figuratively or literally, this is the danger we all face. For when the working man (proletariat) is organized to “help” the middle class to defeat the excesses of the rich, there appears to be a common cause under which everyone wins.

Note, however, the progressive agenda. At first, the working man intends only that the “non-working” rich (monarchy, landowners, non-industrial [key!] bourgeois, and petty bourgeois) be removed from their offices, even from their wealth, for they are “non-productive” members of society. These are by Marx called “enemies of their enemies.” Thus, the middle class, whose goal has been to be upper class, find themselves driven backwards by an ideology of envy, focusing no longer on their own self-interest but on the habits and living conditions of the “non-working” rich.

In a modern example, the middle class daily hears how the “banksters” have stolen the future while providing no reasonable service to the community. The medieval fear of Machiavellian (or perhaps Papal) economics is freshly driven through minds of mush, aptly prepared through university education and media bombardment. Therefore, the question becomes not whether “banksters” provide value but rather in which manner shall we dispose of them. A lynch mob is gathered.

The emotional storm which may be summoned by envy should never be underestimated. Certainly, Marx was aware of such power (see Marx and Satanism in Synopsis Week 3). Nevertheless, the morality of a bankster resides only in the rule of law (Constitution, Torah), not in one’s relative social or economic position.

If a bank has been bailed out by tax dollars, the target of contempt ought not be the bank but the politician and bureaucrat who voted for, authorized and financed that bailout. Such public officials have no recourse; they either provide common value by their representative service or they do not. If not, their ouster is the vote. It is thus the height of insanity, immorality, and illogic to protest a bank for receiving bailout funds but not to unseat the corrupt politician who greased all the squeaky wheels. Once again, we the people are to blame for being led by emotion and not pragmatic thought.

The banker who fails is not subject to such public scrutiny. This is a private sector matter, and the banker’s perceived value is denoted by his dismissal or retainer.

Marx, however, attempts to flip the tables, claiming that the private sector ought to be under the scrutiny, command, and authority of the workers themselves (the dictatorship of the proletariat), where no man may achieve without consensus. Only the Marxist idealist, driven by blind emotion, could be deceived to such totalitarianism. Yet, there are many such idealistic fools, and therein lies our destiny.

But with the development of industry, the proletariat not only increases in number; it becomes concentrated in greater masses, its strength grows, and it feels that strength more. The various interests and conditions of life within the ranks of the proletariat are more and more equalised, in proportion as machinery obliterates all distinctions of labour, and nearly everywhere reduces wages to the same low level. The growing competition among the bourgeois, and the resulting commercial crises, make the wages of the workers ever more fluctuating. The increasing improvement of machinery, ever more rapidly developing, makes their livelihood more and more precarious; the collisions between individual workmen and individual bourgeois take more and more the character of collisions between two classes. Thereupon, the workers begin to form combinations (Trades’ Unions) against the bourgeois; they club together in order to keep up the rate of wages; they found permanent associations in order to make provision beforehand for these occasional revolts. Here and there, the contest breaks out into riots.

The difference between local and central economics is made. Yet, Marx is either blind to or unwilling to inform that it is central economic planning which is the maker of tumult. While pretending to care for local trade and production, Marx simultaneously makes the case against private property ownership and the “fascist” police element which protects it. This confusion is necessary for Marxism to triumph.

Local economies naturally thrive to better degree of affability and affordability, but even at such a small unit level the protection of property, whether through central police force or by individual gun ownership, is proper and essential. For if a trained police force is conscripted by a tyrannical central government, it is mandatory that the people have their own musketry in order to save themselves from poverty or extinction. Marxism denies the authority for a central government (capitalism) but still insists on a new and undeniable central government, the crafty “dictatorship of the proletariat.” The question is and shall always be, however, “And what if I as a free being reject that central authority?”

Now and then the workers are victorious, but only for a time. The real fruit of their battles lies, not in the immediate result, but in the ever expanding union of the workers. This union is helped on by the improved means of communication that are created by modern industry, and that place the workers of different localities in contact with one another. It was just this contact that was needed to centralize the numerous local struggles, all of the same character, into one national struggle between classes. But every class struggle is a political struggle. And that union, to attain which the burghers of the Middle Ages, with their miserable highways, required centuries, the modern proletarian, thanks to railways, achieve in a few years.

Simply speaking, Marx credits the capitalists for slitting their own throats. When ventures to mass market transportation and communication devices succeed, it is an unwitting “victory” for the working man, who can turn these means of “oppression” on the Oppressors. This is called twisted logic; for neither the bourgeoisie nor proletariat ever has in mind such connivance, but only the Marxist agitator-organizer sees technological marvels as opportunities to destroy the very system which created them.

This organization of the proletarians into a class, and, consequently into a political party, is continually being upset again by the competition between the workers themselves. But it ever rises up again, stronger, firmer, mightier. It compels legislative recognition of particular interests of the workers, by taking advantage of the divisions among the bourgeoisie itself. Thus, the ten-hours’ bill in England was carried.

Marx here uses hindsight to rewrite history. It was not conspiracy which drove industry to exploit men but only the necessity of growth. The working class took the meager increase in living standards as a fair trade for unfair business practices, until at last the industry barons understood by both safety issues and labor strikes that minimal investment would not cut it. But only the Marxist would view this voluntary contract for subsistence as forced slavery. Whether the conditions allow or not for such a comparison, the fact is that no police force kept these industrial workers chained to their posts; and therefore liberty, even if not libertine, is a better lot in life than the Negro slavery of the United States and elsewhere.

Regarding changes in labor laws, these too are driven by men of character, not only disgruntled proletariat. For without the cooperation of sane and moral leaders (in business, in politics), an upset working class should not exist in the face of fascism and brutality. Marx excludes those elements of moral influence – the family and the church – which impact the social evolution he so dearly (and inaccurately) historicizes.

Altogether collisions between the classes of the old society further, in many ways, the course of development of the proletariat. The bourgeoisie finds itself involved in a constant battle. At first with the aristocracy; later on, with those portions of the bourgeoisie itself, whose interests have become antagonistic to the progress of industry; at all time with the bourgeoisie of foreign countries. In all these battles, it sees itself compelled to appeal to the proletariat, to ask for help, and thus, to drag it into the political arena. The bourgeoisie itself, therefore, supplies the proletariat with its own elements of political and general education, in other words, it furnishes the proletariat with weapons for fighting the bourgeoisie.

Beyond the dramatic claptrap, Marx sets the stage for subversion. Those who read this script are apt to believe that military enlistment is a step towards insurrection, but true moral documents (Torah, Constitution) comment upon such treason.

The fact that the upper class normally conscripts or appeals to the working and middle classes for military might and protection does not necessarily designate a lack of courage, or even elitism. To categorize the upper class as mere shells of human beings is an emotional nip to unduly glorify the lower classes. In fact, many “elite” began as mere grunts. Marx thus ignores (likely, intentionally) all of the capitalist rags-to-riches and private-to-general biographies which do not further his narrative of an inescapable caste system.

Further, as we have already seen, entire sections of the ruling class are, by the advance of industry, precipitated into the proletariat, or are at least threatened in their conditions of existence. These also supply the proletariat with fresh elements of enlightenment and progress.

This goes back to Marx’s view that each evolutionary step in economic progress rearranges the social order, so that a former Oppressor may become a future Victim. Thereby, no vestige of possible grievance is left unattended, all such complaints fodder for Marxist organizational power.

Finally, in times when the class struggle nears the decisive hour, the progress of dissolution going on within the ruling class, in fact within the whole range of old society, assumes such a violent, glaring character, that a small section of the ruling class cuts itself adrift, and joins the revolutionary class, the class that holds the future in its hands. Just as, therefore, at an earlier period, a section of the nobility went over to the bourgeoisie, so now a portion of the bourgeoisie goes over to the proletariat, and in particular, a portion of the bourgeois ideologists, who have raised themselves to the level of comprehending theoretically the historical movement as a whole.

In other words, people begin to choose sides between rich and poor, whether or not that is their actual place in the “caste” system.

Marx is thus a hypocrite. If the division of classes is, as Marx claims, a trick of the bourgeoisie, Marxism’s playing of an “unfairness” card (that is, with negative emotions, distinguishing between rich and poor) is itself bourgeoisie! In modern parlance, Marx has raised a type of false flag. To go further, in his Pharisaic hypocrisy (saying and not doing), Marx is the ultimate false prophet and unmasked non-savior; for he has broken a cardinal commandment in that he is a respecter of men (that is, of classes).

Of all the classes that stand face to face with the bourgeoisie today, the proletariat alone is a really revolutionary class. The other classes decay and finally disappear in the face of Modern Industry; the proletariat is its special and essential product.

A burst of pride from Marx fixates his acolytes to believe they are special, all the while breaking the code that no one is any more special than another. This is the ideology which bespeaks the master racism we have formerly explored.

The lower middle class, the small manufacturer, the shopkeeper, the artisan, the peasant, all these fight against the bourgeoisie, to save from extinction their existence as fractions of the middle class. They are therefore not revolutionary, but conservative. Nay more, they are reactionary, for they try to roll back the wheel of history. If by chance, they are revolutionary, they are only so in view of their impending transfer into the proletariat; they thus defend not their present, but their future interests, they desert their own standpoint to place themselves at that of the proletariat.

A line between “true revolutionary” vs. “poser” is drawn. Those who join the side of the proletariat for the sake of preserving some trace of their social and economic status are viewed as useful idiots, purposeful puppets of the “cause” until such time that the chaff may be separated from the wheat. There will be, after all, a litmus test following the revolution. They will turn on and eat their own.

Note that the “lower middle class” also denotes their children. Those offspring of the upper class down to the middle class may be counted on to revolt against their own parents’ “degeneracy.” Nevertheless, the lower middle class are in many ways true believers, not yet having reached the stratum of “made men.” They have neither enough “stuff” to protect nor too much to “throw off their shackles.” The class distinctions here are important, for they also attribute loyalty and ferocity to the revolution. Marx is therefore showing us part of his playbook.

The “dangerous class”, [lumpenproletariat] the social scum, that passively rotting mass thrown off by the lowest layers of the old society, may, here and there, be swept into the movement by a proletarian revolution; its conditions of life, however, prepare it far more for the part of a bribed tool of reactionary intrigue.

War-gaming with Marx is a brutal business. His view on the ultra-poor is truly frightening, savaging them as mainly traitors by way of their longing for even the level of working class.

Note that at no time does Marx give any value to conscience, morality, or his arch-nemesis - conversion through repentance.

In the condition of the proletariat, those of old society at large are already virtually swamped. The proletarian is without property; his relation to his wife and children has no longer anything in common with the bourgeois family relations; modern industry labor, modern subjection to capital, the same in England as in France, in America as in Germany, has stripped him of every trace of national character. Law, morality, religion, are to him so many bourgeois prejudices, behind which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeois interests.

After having separated out by economic and social class the ethnography of each, Marx pretends to have some superior wisdom and ordinance. Marx lays heavily into his mortal enemies – law (Torah, Constitution), morality (family, individuality, rights), and religion (faith, conviction). In effect, he means to isolate any proletariat who would adhere to old codes of conduct. Reshaping the psyche is an important piece to Marxism (it should be mentioned that Marx’s approach is quite primitive compared to the psy-ops from, say, Saul Alinsky).

All the preceding classes that got the upper hand sought to fortify their already acquired status by subjecting society at large to their conditions of appropriation. The proletarians cannot become masters of the productive forces of society, except by abolishing their own previous mode of appropriation, and thereby also every other previous mode of appropriation. They have nothing of their own to secure and to fortify; their mission is to destroy all previous securities for, and insurances of, individual property.

At last Marx makes known his ulterior goal: the dissolution and destruction of private property. Contracts are to be ignored, including that made between God and men (Torah, Ten Commandments), and between governments and men (Magna Carta, Constitution). It might be argued that I oversimplify, but there is not reason to overcomplicate. Remove these elements of belief from society and there is a resulting chaos which must be managed. Whether or not Marxism is capable to implement such management has been the subject of argument from moment one. Nevertheless, the totalitarianism of supposed communist nations proves outright that Marxist “management” has been and likely will always be at the point of the sword.

The insecurity which Marx seeks to breed is, he supposes, followed by a necessity for security. Philosophically, this has been a template for control over great nations and even religions, but whether insecurity by destabilization of economic framework may be equitably mollified by a promise of “enough” (each according to his needs) has already been answered. Human nature is to want “more” and that is not going to be kosher in the Marxist world to come.

All previous historical movements were movements of minorities, or in the interest of minorities. The proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority. The proletariat, the lowest stratum of our present society, cannot stir, cannot raise itself up, without the whole superincumbent strata of official society being sprung into the air.

While this statement of fact appears to be a self-effacing boldness, it also is a misnomer, if not an outright lie. For though the proletariat truly hold the reins to all power, whether by the vote or by the pocketbook, or even by the rising tide, the fact is that most people just want to be left alone. Thus, the age-old question “Why doesn’t somebody do something?” is often met with blank stares and fingers pointing in other directions.

It is not true, however, that the proletariat are paralyzed with fear, or forced to submit through fascism or denaturing their water with fluoride. Instead, there is a normalcy bias which occludes much conversation regarding “fighting City Hall.” The working class are basically good moral folks who would like to see their children do somewhat better than they, while they themselves enjoy a land of liberty which protects all hard-won property rights and certain natural civil rights.

The “minority” to which Marx reflects is not ethnic but economic. He means “the 1%.”

Though not in substance, yet in form, the struggle of the proletariat with the bourgeoisie is at first a national struggle. The proletariat of each country must, of course, first of all settle matters with its own bourgeoisie.

The worldwide urge he describes is settled first nation by nation, as if debts must be paid. Frightening is only the start of it, but Marx is casual towards tacit genocide.

In depicting the most general phases of the development of the proletariat, we traced the more or less veiled civil war, raging within existing society, up to the point where that war breaks out into open revolution, and where the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat.

A summary.

Hitherto, every form of society has been based, as we have already seen, on the antagonism of oppressing and oppressed classes. But in order to oppress a class, certain conditions must be assured to it under which it can, at least, continue its slavish existence. The serf, in the period of serfdom, raised himself to membership in the commune, just as the petty bourgeois, under the yoke of the feudal absolutism, managed to develop into a bourgeois. The modern labourer, on the contrary, instead of rising with the process of industry, sinks deeper and deeper below the conditions of existence of his own class. He becomes a pauper, and pauperism develops more rapidly than population and wealth. And here it becomes evident, that the bourgeoisie is unfit any longer to be the ruling class in society, and to impose its conditions of existence upon society as an over-riding law. It is unfit to rule because it is incompetent to assure an existence to its slave within his slavery, because it cannot help letting him sink into such a state, that it has to feed him, instead of being fed by him. Society can no longer live under this bourgeoisie, in other words, its existence is no longer compatible with society.

Only a collectivist would see the futility in permitting individual rights to define a community. Whereas the individualist libertarian sees such free market exercise (whether in economics or society per se) as morally superior, shaping the community to its unique talent base, the true collectivist marks it all as inhumane and immoral. Meanwhile, the Marxist manipulates this grievance, endeavoring to take the Thesis (libertarianism) and Antithesis (collectivist community) to the predetermined Synthesis (Marxism).

There is of course so little truth to Marx’s depiction of capitalist and libertarian society that one should think it unnecessary to comment, but comment we must for the sake of the naïve and aggrieved. Thus, briefly, Marx’s statement applies only to the sliver of human interaction which still pretends that a monarch is chosen by God, or that industry may freely pollute without restraint. By every measure, capitalism has evolved to the point where such fundamental rules may never again be breached. Oppositely, historical evidence shows that those nations called communist have been lax with their environmental conditions and tyrannical in their authoritarianism, thus causing massive economic and societal damage.

An example of such Marxist double-talk concerns the boom-bust business cycle, commonly blamed on the excesses of capitalism but which is in reality a result of communitarian Keynesian economics. Since 1913, the Federal Reserve has implemented a policy of fractional banking and fiat money, adding tons of phony bills into the system, all in the name of promoting (or perhaps more accurately, providing) technological progress. The first boom wave lasted 16 years and ended about 1929, and was followed by a 16-year bust wave ending about 1945. This bust was caused by investment in a weak market, specifically, initial public offerings (IPO’s). Roosevelt’s New Deal did nothing but exacerbate the effects of the economic hangover known as the Great Depression, the Fed blasting out their notes at a record pace. By the end of World War II, the United States was flush with capital and an increased money supply courtesy of the Federal Reserve. Spurred by this infusion, as well as some reduced government spending, America boomed again, leading to another excess that overran the actual strength of the economy and/or currency. The end of the 1960’s brought another bust, and Richard Nixon made a public surrender of the US Dollar in 1971 by putting an official end to the gold standard (though in reality Roosevelt had effectively outlawed that standard by his 1930’s gold seizure). After the great malaise of the 1970’s, Ronald Reagan returned a bit of discipline to federal spending, taxation, and regulation. From about 1982 to about 1996, the money supply in real terms actually shrank, accompanied by a terrific American economic revival as well as a corrective (though criminal) “savings and loan crisis.” Yet, the Keynesian model did not go away and printing resumed with ferocity, causing both the dot-com bubble (1995-2001) and the housing market bubble (1995-2008) to crumble. Bailouts for favored losers followed, causing even more havoc by a fomenting money supply sent into weak markets (good money after bad). This has left America with the prospect of a decades-long recovery.

What has this to do with our subject? Just that for more than 100 years it has been the collectivist Keynesian model running aground the economy and currency of the United States. Yet the passive-aggressive behavior of the collectivist blames capitalism for the inherent flaws of this failed economic system, despite the fact that Keynesianism has since 1913 ruled the overall ebb and flow. The success of American capitalism is that even within the Keynesian model of fake money, we have been able to create real technology, grow real businesses, build real houses, even manufacture real ballistic missiles. Though on the back of phony notes, capitalism understands the nature of individualism and creativity, rejecting collectivism. The backlash is that Keynesians view capitalists as “ungrateful” for the opportunity, but in reality it has been capitalism which has caused Keynesianism to appear successful! Thus, one might credible assert that capitalism is to be credited for all the growth; and Keynesianism to blame for all the terrible recessions and depressions, and the fact that the United States has no gold standard or other strong basis for its currency.

The essential conditions for the existence and for the sway of the bourgeois class is the formation and augmentation of capital; the condition for capital is wage-labor. Wage-labor rests exclusively on competition between the laborers. The advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the laborers, due to competition, by the revolutionary combination, due to association. The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.

Interestingly, Marx embraces the “alienation” of the working class from its value as both laborer and human being. Naturally, this is tactical, since such alienation is useful to stoking the fires of revolution. That the alienated working class has produced from capitalist dreams the means of capitalist destruction Marx finds ironic; but he nevertheless fails to mention the increase in living standard and personal freedom which capitalism has afforded to nearly every person – things which the revolutionary must be willing to refute – things which Marx depicts as “bribes” from the elite.

Marx can, however, provide no surety. America has disproved Marx’s theory in toto. Capitalism continues to struggle its way to victory even under Keynesian economics and socialist entitlement programs provided by infiltrators and sympathizers. The American arena is very different from that of Europe. Americans do not bow to coercion, whether communist or fascist (at least not knowingly). They do not engage in perpetual civil wars and they detest class warfare. America itself was founded by common folk, for common folk. Essentially, America is closest to a “stateless utopia” (small government) – and at this the Marxist gnashes his teeth.

Next Week: We conclude The Communist Manifesto. Promise!