Publius Returns

Karl Marx

Marxists believe that Marxism describes the true potential of human beings, and that this potential can be fulfilled in collective freedom after the Communist revolution has removed capitalism's constraints and subjugations of humanity.
“In short, the Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things."

“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. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Workers of the world, Unite!" Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Communist Manifesto.

The Ever Changing, Changeless World

In a recent article, I made small references to the moral philosophy of Immanuel Kant. An acquaintance, after reading the article, complained that the Categorical Imperative, the part of which I was referencing, was both bullshit and flimflam. He then made the observation that I did not understand Kant in any case. As it turns out, he wrote his doctorial thesis on Kant. I concede to his admonitions.

It is interesting to note that the young Marx was an avid reader and proponent of both Kant and Voltaire as well. One might speculate whether Marx understood them either. The mature Marx departed from much of the ideology of Kant, making way for his own form of the dialectic, for which Engels gave him great praise.

All were social manipulators in their own way. All argued with the status quo concerning religion, social interrelation, economics, and moral perspective. They were the radicals of their day, whose time, effort, and energy were wholly directed toward contradiction. They were determined writers about the ideas of social class, organized religion, and the essence of moral behavior.

Central to Marxi’s thinking was the thesis of class struggle and revolution, a result of the glaring economic disparity between the have’s and have not’s of his day. Marx and Engels’ Communist Manifesto has been the bible for revolutionary radicals of every country and every decade since shortly after it was written. Like Mein Kampf it directs radicals in the aversion to and overthrow of the status quo.

In every age, class has inevitably immerged through one social dynamic or another. Over time the distance between classes grows, causing an ever increasing dislike of one for the other. Different seasons use different terms such as “the working class”, “minority”, “proletariat”, “whiteness”, “capitalist.” But all are directed at those who appear to be in control either by their wealth, status, or position of power. And each, as Marx, Hitler, Stalin, Mao and others who were revolutionaries have done, work tirelessly to overthrow the status quo. In many cases, it matters not what the establishment is, simply that it has to be changed. And this occurs as the “apparent” class chasm grows.

Obama offered up the maxim that America is the greatest country on earth, help me change it. I paraphrase, but the meaning is the same. This is certainly a Marxist contradiction, and though it seemed benign at the time, its meaning is becoming quite clear as the days unfold. As a community organizer, Obama worked in areas where poverty is prevalent, literacy is in question, and welfare is the norm. His background was steeped in Marxist principles as was that of many of those with whom he surrounded himself.

But history is rife with such radicalism. While America, at Obama’s insistence, is the greatest nation on earth, it, still, must be changed? Why? Because some have and some don’t? But is there not contradiction there as well?

Historically, and currently, many people in other nations do not have access to the “rule of law”, the liberty to chose one’s path, the means to advance one’s station through hard and productive work, freedom of speech, the right to self defense, and a free market economy. Yet the radical Marxists who have found their way into the government do not believe such liberties pertain to those for whom they speak. Interestingly enough, not one of them is in any way a part of the class they appear to represent. Why is that? Because they realize it is from that class they can manipulate, encourage, and pursue the necessary votes to gain admittance to the throne of power.

Alexis de Tocqueville recognized that something different was being created in America. It was not following the old and established authoritarian rule of Europe. While the founding fathers were slow, sometimes reluctant, to shed the ways (sometimes evils) of the past, through recognition of their faults, they overcame them. And now, in today’s America, anyone can prosper and live with dignity and liberty. Is it not simply a matter of determination? But that is only one way to power. There is another, and that other is through deceit.

One can build a platform that caters to the poor, the infirm, the supposed trodden upon, and the bleeding heart liberal. They need only find someone to blame, and they have. These principles worked for Marx, Hitler, Mao, et al. And once they gain that power, it is easy to gain more power by the usurpation of liberties, the appointment of radicals of like mind, and by the expansion of government filled with Marxists sympathizers.

Marx was, indeed, open about his aims. The Obama radicals remain anything but transparent about theirs.

The truth of the matter is that this is all a bit silly when one understands that we are, in fact, governed by the money changers, and the game we play is a bit laughable.

You cannot continue to deny that wolves are upon you and still expect your liberty to survive.