Karl Marx was a complex figure. Communism and Socialism are associated with him. The idea at the heart of his and Engel's Manifesto is simple though. Basically, Marx decried the advantage of property ownership and the inequality it produces in the world economy. Those who own property, and especially lots of property (the "means of production) are set to control all those who work under them. Therefore, he believed that all property (real estate, factories, businesses, etc.) should be public property. Property ownership results in a ruling class over a Capitalist society (with capital meaning property, basically). Marx and Engels say in the Manifesto of Capitalism:
"It has agglomerated population, centralised the means of production, and has concentrated property in a few hands."
See for all citations from here on: (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/manifest.pdf)
The idea here is a ruling class that has by chance of history inherited the power to rule industry and all of life. The "economy" is regarded as belonging to them. Marx and Engels would say the Dow Jones Average or the Fortune 500 belong to this class. Those at the top of these structures control everything in life: the condition of the workplace, the government, the church, and the family. The individual capitalist (or bourgeois) as he calls them, may fall and be replaced by another, but the class remains distinct as a ruling entity over all other members of society (the proletariet).
Marx and Engels go on to say that these capitalist folks will be overthrown by a new spirit: "A spectre is haunting Europe — the spectre of communism." This spirit will motivate, over time, all members of the proletariet to produce a classless society in the future, called communism, in which property rights are destroyed, everything is owned by everybody, and there is no bourgeois. Marx mentions societies will "prepare" themselves for this, unwittingly, as industry grows.
The Communist governments of Russia and China, Cuba and Korea wanted the change to communism immediately. These revolutionary government's leaders relied on the following logic from the Manifesto:
"If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means
of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class."
(I know this passage is controversial, as those who used it for revolutionary purposes did not abolish their own power.)
What resulted was a world-wide blood bath, as these small groups of leaders gained a following and created violent revolution throughout the world, changing the face of the nations in a century. These leaders remained in control, and no classless society ever emerged in these nations (see George Orwell's "Animal Farm").
So now, we have two things: The Manifesto's view of capitalism and its view of communism. What about socialism? How does the Manifesto regard it? And is President Obama a socialist? Here is a quote from the Manifesto regarding a socialist position that sounds like our president:
"A second, and more practical, but less systematic, form of this Socialism sought to depreciate every revolutionary movement in the eyes of the working class by showing that no mere political reform, but only a change in the material conditions of existence, in economical relations, could be of any advantage to them. By changes in the material conditions of existence, this form of Socialism, however, by no means understands abolition of the bourgeois relations of production, an abolition that can be affected only by a revolution, but administrative reforms, based on the continued existence of these relations; reforms, therefore, that in no respect affect the relations between capital and labour, but, at the best, lessen the cost, and simplify the administrative work, of bourgeois government."
Plain English: One form of socialism is a mechanism of the ruling class to suppress true Communist revolution by giving the working class "stuff."
Does that sound like Obama? It does doesn't it? I think Obama is socialist in his views of the economy according to the Manifesto.
What does the Manifesto say the purpose of such socialism is? To stave off revolutionary tendencies of the working class through gifts.
I am no Communist. I am not a socialist either. Nor do embrace the capitalist system when the working person is squeezed as much as they can be by those who control property, but based on Marx--I don't think Obama is just trying to help "the least of these," but craftily is also helping the greatest. For those of you who hate George Bush, know that the motivations of these two men are not that disparate, or separated. They both help the lesser of society in some way to serve the greater, if not only for their own benefit, then for the benefit of themselves and others of their class.
The greatest difference between them is: Who is going to take care of you better? Business or big government? Where should the power lie heaviest? After all, Bush was an oil man and Obama is a constitutional law professor (a lawyer--read government) from Harvard.
Who will really take care of you better though? God. Yes, there is one power, one government, one Kingdom, and one King that all will bow to. So if your a Christian, remember that your Savior is not legislating in Washington. Nor is he test-drilling for oil in the sands of Arabia. He is in Heaven, and He will take care of us--our Lord Jesus Christ is our hope, not the petty powers of this world.
No comments:
Post a Comment