Secret Marxist Part II
I hope I can be a little more on topic with this post. I feel that the last one didn't say much of substance, which is fine by me. I'm writing this more because I love to try to explain the things I believe and to investigate how they fit into the world.
What is Marxism?
I repeat that this is not going to be a very academic examination of Marxist principles, especially on the more technical economics side. I also know little about the establishment of Marx-inspired Communist governments and the specific ideologies of other figures like Mao of China.
It should have been clear in my last post that I am by no means a fan of Karl Marx. He was an antisemite and was not particularly influential within his time. I have no reason to believe he was of great moral character. My uncle (same relative I wrote of yesterday) has spoken disparagingly of Marx, saying he lived in his friend's dad's basement and leeched off his wealth to fuel his activist pursuits and dabbling with philosophy.
I really don't care to defend Marx personally, but I think some of his philosophical innovations are helpful in helping us understand the structure of society and basic mechanisms of the economy. You come after my boy Charles Darwin, however, and you will have it coming to you. (Darwin was a brilliant scientific revolutionary who was nearly 100% right, didn't originate ideas of eugenics or social Darwinism, and never recanted his theories, bite me!)
The value theory of labor is probably the first principle of Marx's theory of Communism as written in The Communist Manifesto. Marx pointed out that business- and land-owners, whom he termed bourgeoisie, had the potential to create products with more value than the inputs—the seeds or unassembled parts; however, they could not realize this potential merely on account of ownership. They had to hire people to do labor for them, the proletariat. Marx claimed that since human labor was necessary to produce valuable goods, a product's value came directly from the laborers who produced it.
A society structured around the transfer of wealth from the laborers to the owners is called capitalism. This ithe basis of most western industrialized economies, like that of the United States, Great Britain, or Germany. Marx believed that in capitalistic societies owners take control of all social institutions to maintain power and influence. To Marx this included literally everything: government, businesses, schools, religion, infrastructure, and even families. According to him, all these things would have to be abolished and restructured in a revolution toward a better society.
Marx likely would have agreed with Sigmund Freud that religion is "the opiate of the masses," engineered to manufacture consent among lower classes for oppression. For the record, I do not share this belief with Marx or Freud.
Marx's claims about family are more interesting to me. Marx noted how lower-class children were compelled into the workforce to help support their parents as early as possible. Marx thought capitalist systems would always exploit families to transfer wealth toward the ownership upper class.
While it's illegal today to send young children to work wages to support their family, having a family is prohibitively expensive for lower classes and you could argue that the mounting costs on raising a family are mechanisms of a capitalist system meant to entrap people within it. I think this is an interesting concept and I'm definitely going to keep thinking about it.
Marx believed that since under a capitalist society business owners were incentivized to pay workers as little as possible, disillusioned laborers of the proletariat would eventually realize the dependence of the bourgeoisie on their labor and use the knowledge to their advantage to improve their wages. This is the basis of labor unions. By denying the business class workers to operate their factories and equipment, the proletariat can extract concessions from industry owners.
Marx further believed that the working class would realize mutual benefit in overthrowing business owners and employers and would take up property and factories in collective ownership so they could share the benefits of their labor. This would grow to an international movement that would sweep the world like wildfire and remove all vestiges of capitalism. He called this hypothetical system communism and he believed its revolution was imminent.
Communist Revolution in Practice
As of today, about 150 years later, a revolution of Marx's description still has yet to occur. Russian Soviets believed that their government had achieved the goals of Marx's Communism, and over the 75 years of their government they made ample efforts to inspire revolution across the world, eventually garnering them such Communist comrades as China, North Korea, Vietnam, East Germany, and Cuba; yet the world resisted a widespread revolution.
The efforts of the United States and its NATO allies played a role in stopping the spread of Communist revolution from the mid-20th century onward. The United States is a unique case because it is a highly industrialized nation that has never developed a dedicated workers party, disproving Marx's thesis that communism as a form of labor movement would be a natural development of all world economies. This was to the dismay of Soviet revolutionaries such as Vladimir Lenin and Leon Trotsky.
Communist nations, in practice, ban private ownership of land and means of production. The government is in control of everything and if you supervise a system of industry you are merely an agent of the government. This gets a little hazy because under Marxist communism you're not supposed to personally benefit from a position of economic power. However, the Chinese government is a good example of a communist economy implementing free market principles; Chinese companies operate similarly to investor-owned corporations in other parts of the world and the owners are able to profit thereby. Jack Ma, the Chinese multi-billionaire CEO of Alibaba, an Amazon competitior, is a good example. However, I imagine the Chinese Communist Party reserves the general right to interfere with Alibaba according to its wishes.
I think one of the most concerning aspects of communist societies is the high degree of internal control and punishment of dissent. The Soviet Union—from the beginning but especially during the government of Josef Stalin—severely punished opposition parties and institutions. There is no freedom of expression or meaningful protection from government abuse. All modern communist governments have been dictatorships.
There's a lot more to Marxist philosophy than this. Like I said, I don't think I've represented the socioeconomic and political sides of it very well. I'm a chemical engineer by education and a scientist by trade; economics is a difficult field for me to grasp.
Slavery, Segregation, and Marxism
What matters is that Marx theorized that oppression of the lower classes was facilitated by the more privileged groups using every possible social structure and institution to prevent the lower classes from rising against them. Last night I realized that American history has something almost exactly like that.
It's chilling to learn the history of slavery and subsequent policies of segregation and dehumanization of Black people in the United States. In every way that Marx saw bourgeoisie dominating the proletariat, middle and upper-class white men—American bourgeoisie, if you will—dictated the lives of Black men, women and children. Black people were disposable and they were appraised as property. Their lives and labor were assigned monetary value—which they had no ability to benefit from. They could be raped or killed or stolen from with no social consequences unless their oppressor so willed it. Everything in slave culture worked to keep them exactly where they were.
Slaves could self-organize in religion, tradition, and family, but these were subject to the whims of their landowner and could be broken up or punished according to his whims.
White slave-owning landowners had a considerable influence on colonial and later state politics. When the Constitution was written they used their influence to ensure that they could protect against the abolishment of slavery and the ability of the new federal government to interfere with their slaves. They augmented their political power against states without significant slave economies through the 3/5ths compromise; they would have counted each Black person as a full person but only to increase their political power; Black people were not citizens and would never be able to vote, after all.
They introduced Fugitive Slave Acts twice to ensure that slaves would always be seen as their property, even in defiance of the laws of other states. The state of Missouri banned the admittance of any free Black people for fear that they would radicalize enslaved peoples and agitate an uprising or mass exodus to neighboring Illinois, which was less likely to honor property claims of their oppressors.
When uprisings did occur, the white elite petitioned the full force of the Federal government against them to slaughter them all. As with Nat Turner's rebellion and John Brown's attempt to begin a violent campaign of abolition throughout the South, slaveowners and their allies were able to exert violence and power to keep things how they liked them.
The Southern Succession and formation of the Confederacy was the ultimate expression of this power. That power continued even after the Civil War and Reconstruction; white people retained the ability to control Black people, to kick them out of positions of power and self-determination, and to discourage them from ever banding together to overthrow the systems of their oppression.
If you can't see parallels with Marxism here, I don't know what to tell you.
I'm going to stop there for now. Next time I'll go more into segregation, Black liberation, Black nationalism, and how Marxism found a place in minority civil rights movements in the 20th and 21st centuries.
