Marx and his minions never, ever wanted a peaceful world. Desiring to live a "peaceful & quiet life in all godliness and submission" as 1 Thessalonians 4:11-12 exhorts us, is not in the Marxist's DNA. In fact, it is an anathema to them. War, conflict and perpetual struggle is what makes for the material of Marxist clay. Listen to one of the most respected and brilliant of Marxist theoreticians who ever lived, Leo Trotsky, "The permanent revolution, as Marx defined it, is a kind of revolution that cannot negotiate with any form of class domination. It does not stop at the democratic stage, but implements socialist measures and declares war on reaction abroad. The seed of each phase of this revolution is contained in the preceding one, and it will only stop with the liquidation of all class distinctions. Democracy was not considered an end in itself, but an an immediate prelude to the socialist revolution to which it is linked indissolubly." Notice his caustic choice of words: "Cannot negotiate", "Declares war", and "Liquidation." Liquidation was the early 20th century's favorite euphemism for annihilation and death. It was used because it has a more sterile, almost cleansing ring to it. What did the Marxist want to cleanse? Any semblance of capitalistic profit , ownership and superiority of the richer classes in any given society. To give you a template to better understand the Marxist worldview, I want to use a common story found in the bible. I know that no analogy has a perfect correspondence; but I offer this story to give you more vivid teaching points to see clearly the two Marxist players in his "permanent revolution." The story can be found in 1 Kings 3:16-28: Then two prostitutes came to the king and stood before him. The one woman said, “Oh, my lord, this woman and I live in the same house, and I gave birth to a child while she was in the house. Then on the third day after I gave birth, this woman also gave birth. And we were alone. There was no one else with us in the house; only we two were in the house. And this woman's son died in the night, because she lay on him. And she arose at midnight and took my son from beside me, while your servant slept, and laid him at her breast, and laid her dead son at my breast. When I rose in the morning to nurse my child, behold, he was dead. But when I looked at him closely in the morning, behold, he was not the child that I had borne.” But the other woman said, “No, the living child is mine, and the dead child is yours.” The first said, “No, the dead child is yours, and the living child is mine.” Thus they spoke before the king. Then the king said, “The one says, ‘This is my son that is alive, and your son is dead’; and the other says, ‘No; but your son is dead, and my son is the living one.’” And the king said, “Bring me a sword.” So a sword was brought before the king. And the king said, “Divide the living child in two, and give half to the one and half to the other.” Then the woman whose son was alive said to the king, because her heart yearned for her son, “Oh, my lord, give her the living child, and by no means put him to death.” But the other said, “He shall be neither mine nor yours; divide him.” Then the king answered and said, “Give the living child to the first woman, and by no means put him to death; she is his mother.” And all Israel heard of the judgment that the king had rendered, and they stood in awe of the king, because they perceived that the wisdom of God was in him to do justice. Here is how the Marxist Worldview would place definitions to interpret this story...
A) "Limited Resource": a limited resource is something of value that two classes of people want; and as members of the collective the specific resource is something we all should have equal rights to. You may be thinking that no one has the rights to another person's baby, but you are thinking with a Judeo-Christian mindset. In the Marxist world we all should have equal access whether it be to a country's natural resources (oil, steel, lumber, grain) or human resources including the children of the people. Subtle Marxist teachings have been leaking in to our common language for years. Do you recognize these phrases by our popular politicians -- "It takes a village to raise a child," "You didn't build that," "It is child abuse to raise your children to hate certain sexual lifestyle choices." B) "The Bourgeoisie" (pronounced the 'burr-zhwa-zee"): these are the owners and controllers over the means of production. According to Marx, the bourgeoisie plays a heroic role in history by revolutionizing industry and modernizing society; however, it also seeks to monopolize the benefits of modernization and exploit the property-less proletariat which creates the revolutionary tensions. In this story, the lady whose baby lived was claiming and demanding sole ownership over the child because she produced it from her loins. But as any good Marxist knows, her loins are actually the property of the state and therefore, so is the child. C) "The Proletariat": this is the lowest and poorest class of people (often it represents the majority) who have not had the good fortune of being placed in the natural advantage of possessing property or the means of production. Because of this inequity in material standing and ownership, the proletariat feels unjustly exploited by the bourgeoisie. Therefore, as Trotsky explained, they hold the moral right to demand a permanent revolution until total equality for all people is achieved. In this story, the poor woman had the simple misfortune of losing her child by suffocation. As a result of this unforeseen calamity, she is put at an unfair disadvantage as compared to the other women. The state should fight for her rights to have what the other woman has - - do we not use this same reasoning for those women who have children outside of wedlock? How can they be held responsible for living in abject poverty? D) The "Organ of Justice": Historically, government in the mind of Marx, has been designed and put in place to keep "hegemonic control" (fancy word for power) in the hands of the bourgeoisie. Those who profit from their economic advantage, are in turn able to buy and pay for those who run the government to keep power in their greedy, dirty hands of oppression. E) "Repressive State Apparatuses": The use of force that keeps power in the hand of the ruling classes through threats, terror and recrimination. The police are the agents of the bourgeoisie, and naturally, they can't be trusted. F) "Alienation": The wall of separation that is between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat which causes disconnect from one fellow human being to another. This condition of alienation is used to explain why such things as crime occurs in society - the social bonds that should tie people together are fatally weakened by the exploitative relationship between Capital (bourgeoisie ownership) and Labor (proletariat sweat equity). **This is just a small sampling of how Marx viewed and described the world that he saw. I just have two conclusions for you to chew on before we continue our M & M study. I believe these conclusions are true in every Marxist revolution: (1) In order for true equality to occur, Marxism cannot provide real answers to lift the proletariat up to the level of the bourgeoisie; but they can bring the bourgeoisie down to the level of the proletariat. The lady couldn't raise her baby from the dead, but she could kill the other woman's baby. In her jealousy and demand for equity she had no care for the feelings of the other; all she wanted was material fairness. Marxists by nature are deconstructionists, they are destroyers, they often are cold and calculating. Claiming compassion for the poor, they can only really reach out and grab a pound of flesh from the rich. That is why when you live in Russia for any amount of time you don't see any real long-term development; only the mind numbing sameness of the collective. You can travel to Bulgaria, East Germany, Poland, Ukraine, and Russia and you will see the same monotony of grey concrete and stupid slogans promoting solidarity and unity. And everyone walking by wearing their shapkas and long scarves to stave off the Siberian winds, knows those promises have yet to fully be realized. (2) In this biblical story, Solomon clearly derived his power from God. This can not be tolerated by the Marxist who wants the collective to determine who should rule and control the means of production. To the Marxist, God and his religious system is nothing more than a man made repressive construct that is designed to maintain the status quo and keep power in the hands of the nobility & aristocrats. God, to the Marxist, is nothing more than a fanciful myth put in place by the bourgeoisie to keep the poor under submission; he is a poor man's opiate to keep them ignorant and malleable. So, if you can kill God, you immediately level the playing field. However, if you allow God to live, you have to admit he has the Sovereign right to pick winners and losers - and this is simply not fair nor can be tolerated in an equal society. Take your time on this page...the more you digest the definitions the more every day political speech you read in newspapers and hear on television reports will make sense. Good luck digging in the clay!
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Archives
August 2018
|