Thursday, November 1, 2018

Marxism: The Politics of Envy

I just finished reading the famous (or infamous, if you will) work of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, published in 1848 (a mere eleven years before a similarly impactful work by Charles Darwin), originally entitled "Manifesto of the Communist Party." These days it's simply known as "The Communist Manifesto," perhaps because that title sounds more like idealism than partisan politics? Who knows.

You can find it yourself here:

I was led to believe by someone recently that Karl Marx wasn't such a bad guy, that it was Lenin and Stalin who took Marx's good ideas and used them to their own evil ends.

However, upon reading the work myself, I found what I had expected, in terms of the vilification of the "ruling class," based on what many contemporary public speakers have long elucidated regarding the adoption of Marxist ideas in the corruption of Western Culture by the Left.

From paragraph to paragraph, the work is a nearly non-stop barrage of manipulative imagery designed to anger the reader and make him or her believe that there is no justice in the world as long as some have more wealth than others. These are the politics of envy, and have absolutely nothing to do with the real-life factors surrounding workers getting proper compensation in a free market economy.

I'll be the first in line to observe that it does appear unfair that many CEO's, for example, have salaries so immense that they seem hard to justify as compared to the lowest tier workers for the same company. But I'll also be the first to point out that Bill Gates, for example, doesn't owe me a penny just because I bought Windows Whatever and paid what I thought to be too high a price. How Gates amassed his wealth is certainly up for debate, but I refuse to agree with the concept of forcing him to give me some of it, even if he is one day successfully identified as a criminal for his past business practices.

While I'm spiritually inclined to side with the underdog, there is a difference between seeking justice and fairness for all, and instilling hatred for those who actually create wealth, jobs and power in a free society protected by a Constitution such as ours. Power that, for a country, equates to safety if it is a democratic republic, and not a totalitarian regime.

To top it all off, the cherry on Marx's and Engel's pernicious sundae was to be found within the final paragraph:

"The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions."

That particular ethos is exactly why decades of Leftist propaganda on our college campuses have resulted in the academic support of, and collegiate involvement in, aggressive protests against a seemingly infinite collection of imaginary manifestations of oppression that the vast majority of Americans, regardless of color, sexual orientation or payscale, don't actually experience in their day to day lives.

How is it, that in terms of violent resistance, Karl Marx is seen as an altruistic visionary who is the champion of the downtrodden proletariat, and Ted Kaczynski is relegated to murderous madman status? They embody opposite ideologies, yet believe the same violent means are justified by their disparate ends. And while it is true that Kaczynski is considered a madman for injuring and killing people, and not for his political ideologies, it is also true that Marx's ideologies did give Lenin and Stalin the framework from which they could murder millions.

Does that give Marx himself murderous madman status? No. But it does reveal the fact that it is historically demonstrable to take Marxist ideas to a malignant extreme.

Before it's too late, such needlessly aggressive behavior must be strenuously rejected by all who wish to maintain freedom for ourselves and our progeny. We are at a genuine crossroad in our history, and tomorrow's freedom is guaranteed to no one, especially while some try to physically force their dreams of a Thought Police Utopia on a country full of individuals who are not currently slaves to the collective.

1 comment: