It appears Marxism is becoming increasingly popular in North America, especially among young people..The irony of this is hard to quantify. Many young adults growing up in the world’s freest countries with the highest standards of living, nevertheless favour a political and economic perspective that openly offers tyranny in theory and in practice..Perhaps they don’t realize that Marxism is an inherently violent and elitist ideology..Karl Marx considered politics to be essentially a matter of class warfare. The ruling class, or bourgeoisie, exploits and oppresses the working class, i.e., the proletariat. In his view, any particular individual’s political views are determined by his place in the class struggle. Members of the bourgeoisie would naturally support capitalism because it enables their power, while proletarians would naturally support socialism because it would destroy their alleged oppressor..Strangely, though, Marx considered himself and those who accepted his doctrines as being exempt from this economic determinism. That is, everyone’s political views simply reflect their place in the class struggle, except for the Marxists themselves. Marxists are uniquely exempt from the deterministic forces that control everyone else. In other words, they have a special elite status above all other people..As Marx and his accomplice Friedrich Engels wrote in The Communist Manifesto, “… 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.”.The “portion of the bourgeois ideologists” that he refers to consists of Marx, Engels, and their followers. They are members of the bourgeoisie themselves, but have “raised themselves” above the other people. This little group conveniently becomes the new elite to rule the anticipated Communist society. As Paul Johnson explains Marx’s point in his well-received 1988 book Intellectuals, “… the intellectuals would form the elite, the generals, the workers the foot-soldiers.”.Johnson expands on Marx’s desire to be part of the new ruling elite by noting, “Marx was an academic; or rather and worse, he was a failed academic. An embittered, would-be don, he wanted to astonish the world by founding a new philosophical school, which was also a plan of action designed to give him power.”.This elitist element is important for understanding Marxism. After the proletariat stages a successful revolution against the bourgeoisie, the new society will be ruled by a small elite group with dictatorial powers..Of course, Marx openly advocated for revolution, and when he speaks of “revolution” he’s not speaking metaphorically. He’s talking about violence and lots of it. As he explains in The Communist Manifesto, the societal conflict between the two classes reaches a point where “war breaks out into open revolution, and where the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat.”.The Communists, Marx writes, “… openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions.”.When Marx indicates there must be a “violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie” and a “forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions,” he means business. There will be blood, death, and destruction..What has been the result when countries implemented Marxism? Death, destruction, and oppression. This should not be a surprise. The practice matches the theory like a hand fits a glove. With this being the case, why are people surprised Marxist countries are totalitarian hell-holes?.In his book, Johnson explains the inherently violent nature of Marxism is partly a reflection of Marx’s personality: “The undertone of violence always present in Marxism and constantly exhibited by the actual behaviour of Marxist regimes was a projection of the man himself. Marx lived his life in an atmosphere of extreme verbal violence, periodically exploding into violent rows and sometimes physical assault.”.Marx was a violent person and he advocated violence for political purposes. At least he was consistent in that respect. But why would anyone find that appealing? A generation hung up on so-called “microaggressions” should understand that macroaggressions — like politically-motivated executions and political prisons — are a much worse alternative. Yet those are inherent features of Marxist states and entirely consistent with the ideology itself..There are no redeeming features in Marxist ideology. Both in theory and practice, Marxism offers nothing but tyranny..Michael Wagner is a columnist for the Western Standard
It appears Marxism is becoming increasingly popular in North America, especially among young people..The irony of this is hard to quantify. Many young adults growing up in the world’s freest countries with the highest standards of living, nevertheless favour a political and economic perspective that openly offers tyranny in theory and in practice..Perhaps they don’t realize that Marxism is an inherently violent and elitist ideology..Karl Marx considered politics to be essentially a matter of class warfare. The ruling class, or bourgeoisie, exploits and oppresses the working class, i.e., the proletariat. In his view, any particular individual’s political views are determined by his place in the class struggle. Members of the bourgeoisie would naturally support capitalism because it enables their power, while proletarians would naturally support socialism because it would destroy their alleged oppressor..Strangely, though, Marx considered himself and those who accepted his doctrines as being exempt from this economic determinism. That is, everyone’s political views simply reflect their place in the class struggle, except for the Marxists themselves. Marxists are uniquely exempt from the deterministic forces that control everyone else. In other words, they have a special elite status above all other people..As Marx and his accomplice Friedrich Engels wrote in The Communist Manifesto, “… 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.”.The “portion of the bourgeois ideologists” that he refers to consists of Marx, Engels, and their followers. They are members of the bourgeoisie themselves, but have “raised themselves” above the other people. This little group conveniently becomes the new elite to rule the anticipated Communist society. As Paul Johnson explains Marx’s point in his well-received 1988 book Intellectuals, “… the intellectuals would form the elite, the generals, the workers the foot-soldiers.”.Johnson expands on Marx’s desire to be part of the new ruling elite by noting, “Marx was an academic; or rather and worse, he was a failed academic. An embittered, would-be don, he wanted to astonish the world by founding a new philosophical school, which was also a plan of action designed to give him power.”.This elitist element is important for understanding Marxism. After the proletariat stages a successful revolution against the bourgeoisie, the new society will be ruled by a small elite group with dictatorial powers..Of course, Marx openly advocated for revolution, and when he speaks of “revolution” he’s not speaking metaphorically. He’s talking about violence and lots of it. As he explains in The Communist Manifesto, the societal conflict between the two classes reaches a point where “war breaks out into open revolution, and where the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat.”.The Communists, Marx writes, “… openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions.”.When Marx indicates there must be a “violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie” and a “forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions,” he means business. There will be blood, death, and destruction..What has been the result when countries implemented Marxism? Death, destruction, and oppression. This should not be a surprise. The practice matches the theory like a hand fits a glove. With this being the case, why are people surprised Marxist countries are totalitarian hell-holes?.In his book, Johnson explains the inherently violent nature of Marxism is partly a reflection of Marx’s personality: “The undertone of violence always present in Marxism and constantly exhibited by the actual behaviour of Marxist regimes was a projection of the man himself. Marx lived his life in an atmosphere of extreme verbal violence, periodically exploding into violent rows and sometimes physical assault.”.Marx was a violent person and he advocated violence for political purposes. At least he was consistent in that respect. But why would anyone find that appealing? A generation hung up on so-called “microaggressions” should understand that macroaggressions — like politically-motivated executions and political prisons — are a much worse alternative. Yet those are inherent features of Marxist states and entirely consistent with the ideology itself..There are no redeeming features in Marxist ideology. Both in theory and practice, Marxism offers nothing but tyranny..Michael Wagner is a columnist for the Western Standard
