I Read the Communist Manifesto and All I Got Was This Lousy Uprising
I went searching for a defense of the oppressed. What I found was a philosophy of revenge.
One sweltering night, before Covid and culture wars sent us indoors, I found a meetup group online that met downtown to discuss tough topics. I had time to join just once before jetting off to L’Abri to discuss tough topics—but I picked a good crowd, and a good night. (These thinkers meet in a dim chamber in a lush little Prohibition-era tavern. For two hours in the smoke and low lighting, I was fully convinced that I could be the next great American novelist, if only I could locate a cigar and a talent for nihilistic fiction.) On tap that night was a lively debate on Socialism. The cozy room was packed with people of all politics and races, students and business owners, marrieds and singles, atheists and me; yet despite the diversity, I noted that well over half the room heartily approved moving toward socialism in America. In the crossfire, I caught snippets like, “Norway!” “Scandinavia.” “Single payer healthcare!”—and then the fist-pounding rebuttals: “Look at Venezuela!” and “It has never worked ANYWHERE.” I nodded and took mental notes, but I prayed they wouldn’t call on me. I’m no dummy, but before that night, I sort of thought “socialism” was what I needed to work on to get popular in middle school.
In this election year, the topic is suddenly center stage. Accusations fly that certain politicians want to “drag us all into socialism,” and these don’t exactly deny it, but reassure us this is not the specter your grandaddy railed against. I do remember learning about the Red Scare and McCarthy’s blacklisting of Commies; and until lately, it seemed Americans shivered at the very sound, this Political-System-Which-Must-Not-Be-Named. These days, socialism is presented as your friendly pit bull post obedience school, perhaps even the cure to what ails us. Yet when controversial identity politics come up, some wave the term “cultural Marxism” with alarm. Now, I’m not one to get upset over ideologies, but that’s because I’m ignorant, not chill. For all I know, I could find myself shopping at Wal-Marx and never know, so long as I can still grab windshield fluid, deodorant and McDonald’s on the way home. I’m learning, however, that ignorance is not bliss, and I’m scrambling to catch up. I was never clear on first-issue Marx, much less the hot new 2.0 version; so, as I’m learning to do in my second education, I took myself straight to the source.
I read The Communist Manifesto. (It’s short—it’s a mini-festo). Here’s my big sell for the book: if you like your complex issues boiled down to black and white and your choices binary, you are going to love Karl Marx! I genuinely wanted guidance on the thorny issues of oppression and economic disparity; but, truly, I could have taken his propaganda pop quiz without studying. Check out the brusque taxonomy bursting off the first page:
“The history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of class struggles. Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed…[1]”
Line up, everyone. In Marx’s world, all society can be divided into the ultimate blacktop rivalry: “them as has and them as ain’t.” It’s the P.E. game you’re forced to play whether you opt in or not. “You got fleas, Ochoa? Get off the floor and play ball!” [2] One page into Marx’s Manifesto, and I’ve discovered that you and me and your boss and her pool boy are either Sharks or Jets. Marx has solved it all in a soundbite. His might have been the seminal Tweet of 1848.
A response to valid complaints about Industrialization, The Communist Manifesto is powder keg aggressive, and highly revealing. I’m glad I read it—I gained a window into the sweeping concerns of that era’s economic shifts and consequences of capitalism. However, I’ve learned not to swallow arguments wholesale, but rather to step back and ask questions: What is this author’s worldview; what does he see as the problem; and what is his solution? I used to eat ideologies like after school snacks, but I’m an adult now, and it’s time to read the side of the box. Where is this tasty poison donut made? What did you put in this delicious baloney? Will I die from this, if not now, later, and painfully?
mmm…ideologies
I was shocked by the fury seeping through the pages. Marx’s grievances are great, and his writing is measured; it’s also fuming and self-righteous. His critique of capitalism, the crushing of noble artisan labor into a helpless class of wage labor beneath the industrial machine, is compelling. He views with outrage an economic system that seemed to only and forever enrich one class—the bourgeois. His ills are for reals. But out of the outrage, Marx volleys his solution: violent insurrection. His cure for the crushing inequality is to hijack all capital at gunpoint. I had heard boogeyman stories about Marxism, but I admit I was startled at his bluntness. “The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie…Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property...” [3] His aims are clear, anyway. As a start, I might point to the Ten Commandments and note that at least three of them are invoked here—the great Do Nots of stealing, coveting, and by inference, murder. Perhaps my critique has the benefit of hindsight; I’m no history major, but I believe it’s been broadly documented that Marxism applied destroyed countless lives, and hobbled entire economies. I’m not surprised. The book itself churns like the fires of Mordor. My ripe years have taught me a great caution—never take instruction from a seething man. He may be right in his grievance and woefully wrong in his means.
I continue to check my ingredients and ask my questions: what is Marx’s worldview, and what does he value? Again, Marx sees society divided into two sides, oppressor and oppressed. He does not value private property, as it can only produce tyrants and victims. He calls explicitly for its abolishment, turning all private capital over to the state. (But who runs the state? It’s still people, right?) Worse, he does not view religion or law as objective goods, but merely tools of subjection wielded by the elite. To the oppressed working class, he asserts that “law, morality, religion, are to him so many bourgeois [capitalist] prejudices, behind which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeois interests.” [4] Sound familiar? This sentiment seems to be making the rounds today, and I believe it could be a dangerous trap. Injustice, no doubt, must be ever confronted; but when morality and Law itself is sold as the hammer of oppression, we may find ourselves merely sliding toward a new tyranny. This Slip N Slide only goes one way; and it’s the cheap kind that ends in a patch of stickers on the back lawn.
No Johnny! It’s not what you think!
Moreover, Marx does not value all human life, if such life is found on the wrong side of the divide. There is no “all men created equal” here, no natural rights, no equality before the law. This is clear in his contempt for the capitalists and his clarion call for the violent seizure of property: “…their mission is to destroy all previous securities for, and insurances of, individual property.” [5] Marx’s mission is not reformation of human society, but righteous revolution at great human cost. If there is no respect for life on the page, there can be none in the system it sires. Lest this seem an overreaction, or simply the failure to implement “true Marxism,” I find Marx to be quite clear in condemning certain lives to the dust bin. “Society can no longer live under this bourgeoisie, in other words, its existence is no longer compatible with society.” [6] The belief that a certain group’s “existence” is unfit for society is the very soil of terrorism and genocide. It is not hard to follow this rabbit trail. We may think only tyrants sign off on seizure of property or the snuffing of lives; yet the swelling contempt in our own national divide should give us serious pause. It is not unthinkable for us, when fear and anger form our worldview. It is not unthinkable, when, like Marx, we let outrage write our “solution.” Buyer beware.
Marx’s categories have crept in to current political discussion, and these categories must be closely examined. He has seen the age-old human plight of scarcity and suffering and backlogged each society into camps of oppressor and oppressed. If this is true, the lines of good and evil have been irrevocably drawn, and there is no room for redemption, only force. Yet a severe treatment demands correct diagnosis. If a doctor orders intensive chemo for a broken foot, you will pay dearly for the chemo and limp out with a broken foot. If Marx is correct and humans are forever locked into class division in a zero-sum game, if the system itself is rotten to the core, then an uprising is the only answer. However, before we sign on, we must take heed. This is an incendiary pitch. This is not a Board Meeting; it’s a call for blood. There may be cries to fumigate the house, but we better be sure we have a right to name the vermin.
In our calls for justice, a foundation of truth is essential. Marx sees corruption contained in a class; the Bible (ironically, one of Marx’s “tools of oppression”) offers a far more equalizing message: all men are made in the image of God; yet all are corrupt and disconnected from God; and all are offered renewal through the cross of Jesus. The Bible is never blind to real oppression—“A poor man’s field may produce abundant food, but injustice sweeps it away”[7]—and God commands his people to work for justice. Yet in the Bible’s view, no one is righteous or evil by dint of his class; you won’t find degrees of “good” or “bad” in lines of intersectionality. All men are equal in dignity and worth before God; and at the same time, all men need his mercy. This is why, I think, Jesus preached forgiveness so hard. He challenges the ease with which we smear our enemies and hold ourselves righteous: “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?”[8] In Marxism, there is no self-humility or forbearance, and no hope of unity or love—there is only the evil of the oppressor which must be fought with evil means. His bitter solution cannot possibly lead to peace. (Maybe it can—I haven’t studied the similar aims of the French Revolution.) From what I’ve read, the grim methods of Marxism merely served up the same ol’ oppression with brand new overlords. Animal Farm, anyone?
Say It Don’t Spray It
2020 has given us Covid, class wars, and constant confusion. Do I know where we should go politically? No. Our nation’s concerns are complex and won’t be solved by soundbites. In spite of this, I’ve never felt so encouraged; we really do have the gift of freedom in this country to think for ourselves, examine the assumptions that shape our politics, and offer grace to each other as we search together for solutions. After reading Marx’s Manifesto, I think it’s fair to warn against voices that would stir up class wars and perpetuate division. Do we have real issues to face? Manifestly (pun intended). But must we haplessly count off and hurl dodgeballs at enemy faces? I graduated from P.E. years ago. Our nation comprises many races, beliefs, great opportunities and shameful mistakes; but we are nothing less than American brothers and sisters who deserve each other’s ear and respect. Educate yourself, read deeply, vote, by all means, get involved (loudly if you want, but, you know, wear a mask). However, let’s not fail to look into the fundamental claims of the worldviews demanding our allegiance. Let us not outsource our thinking to soundbites; and be very cautious of politicos that hold onto power by promoting anger and fear. History repeats itself; and hatred and contempt bear rotten fruit, on either side of the divide.
“Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor [perpetual animosity, resentment, strife, fault-finding] and slander be put away from you, along with every kind of malice [all spitefulness, verbal abuse, malevolence].” Ephesians 4:31, Amplified Bible”
[1] Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto (Zwiehander Press, 2019), 15.
[2] Direct quote from Coach Otter in 6th grade. I was not athletically enthused, and my friend Hope and I preferred to sit in a corner and scratch each other’s backs rather than play dodgeball.
[3] The Communist Manifesto, 44.
[4] The Communist Manifesto, 30.
[5] The Communist Manifesto, 30.
[6] The Communist Manifesto, 32.
[7] Proverbs 13:23
[8] Luke 6:41