The Naked Communist (11 page)

It will be recalled from the previous chapter that Marx and Engels identified the thing we call "free will" as being nothing more nor less than a conscious awareness of the materialistic forces which impel the individual to act. This conscious awareness of "natural necessity" makes men think they are choosing a course of action, when, as matter of fact, they are simply watching themselves follow the dictates of material circumstances.

Once again it will be seen that Marx and Engels over-simplified. The complexities of human behavior cannot be explained simply in terms of "necessary" responses to material circumstances. Often men defy material circumstances to satisfy numerous other motivations such as the desire for self-expression, the moving power of a religious conviction, the drive of a moral sense of duty, the satisfying of personal pride or the realizing of a personal ambition.

This fallacy -- the refusal to recognize man's moral agency and the power to make a choice is fatal to Marxism. It is the initial error on which a multitude of other fallacies are built. When Communism says the human mind is the absolute victim of material circumstances and that human history is merely the unavoidable response of human beings to physical conditions, it must demonstrate these claims with examples. Note how this fallacy compounds itself as Marx and Engels attempt to use it in explaining the structure of society.

Fallacy 3
-- First of all, Marx and Engels said the form of society is automatically determined by the economic conditions which motivate the dominant class in any particular age. As Marx put it: "Are men free to choose this or that form of society for themselves? By no means. Assume a particular state of development in the productive forces of man and you will get a particular form of commerce and consumption. Assume a particular stage of development in production, commerce and consumption and you will have a corresponding social structure, a corresponding organization of the family, of orders or of classes, in a word, a corresponding civil society. Presuppose a particular civil society and you will get particular political conditions which are only the official expression of civil society."
⁴

It seems inconceivable that Marx and Engels could have allowed wishful thinking to so completely obscure the facts of history that they would have convinced themselves that when a certain type of production exists a certain type of society must exist also. In ancient times the mode of production remained the same for centuries while society ran the gamut of almost continuous change. Historians and economists have pointed out that if history demonstrates anything at all it is the fact that there is no direct relation between mode of production and the form society will take. Let us see why.

Fallacy 4
-- Marx and Engels believed that the State (any form of sovereign government) is an unnecessary appendage to society which the dominant class creates to forcibly preserve its interests and suppress the uprising of the exploited class. Marx and Engels did not believe any government in any age represented the interests of all of the people or even the welfare of a majority of the people. In the Communist Manifesto they said: "The executive (branch) of the modern State is but a Committee for managing the common affair of the whole bourgeoisie (property class)."
⁵

Sociologists, psychologists, historians and political scientists point out that not by any stretch of imagination can government be called an appendage to society because it is the very heart of group living. This is true because society cannot exist unless it is governed by some degree of authority, and the presence of authority in society constitutes "government." Man is by nature a social and political being, and therefore the creation of governments to direct the members of the community toward their common welfare is simply an inherent expression of the very nature of man. Therefore a stateless society (a civilization without a government) which Marx and Engels vigorously advocated would be an unorganized mob.
It would be no society at all.

Fallacy 5
-- Marx and Engels also encounter difficulty when the form of the State is explained as an inevitable outgrowth of some particular form of economic circumstances. If this were true then the same mode of production would always produce the same essential form of government. Let us take a look at the history of ancient Greece and ancient Rome. In both of these nations the fundamental mode of production was slavery. According to the Marxian explanation the form of these governments should have remained approximately the same so long as the mode of production (slavery) remained in effect.

But contrary to Marxian expectations we find both these governments passing through many changes even though the mode of production did not change. In Athens there was a succession of hereditary monarchies, followed by the aristocratic and democratic republics, then the despotism of the thirty tyrants and finally democracy was established once again. In Rome there was first an elective royalty followed by the aristocratic and democratic republics, and then came the absolute monarchy under the Caesars. These are typical of the incidents in history where the form of the government has changed while the mode of production has remained the same.

Now let us illustrate the fallacy of this Communist theory another way. If the form of the State is fixed by Economic Determinism, then the form of the State should change when the mode of production changes. But this seldom happens. Take the history of the United States for instance. The form of the U.S. Government has remained essentially the same since its founding. Was the government different in the slave-economy of the south than the industrial economy of the north? Did the government in the south change after slavery was abolished? The mode of production changed, the form of government did not. In other words, men can create any form of government they wish without reference to the prevailing mode of production. There are many historical examples which clearly refute this important Communist concept.

Fallacy 6
-- In connection with the creation of the State, the Communists also maintain that a code of laws is developed to protect the exploiting class; further, that if the mode of production changes the code of laws will have to be reformulated to foster the specific new mode of production. Logically, this would mean that each time there is a revolutionary change in the mode of production there will have to be a revolutionary change in the system of law. In no instance should the same code of law be capable of serving nations which are under different modes of production.

Once again history throws confusion on Communism when this theory is applied to specific situations. One of the best examples is the history of the Western World where radical changes in methods of production have often been followed by no more than minor alterations in the various codes of law. Modern capitalistic society throughout Europe and America is, in general, governed by codes of law which are founded on the same fundamental principle as those which prevailed centuries before the Industrial Revolution. In England the Common Law was developed during the days of a feudal economy. The overthrow of Feudalism only strengthened the Common Law, and it was further strengthened after the Industrial Revolution. In America the abolition of slavery did not overthrow the fundamental legal code of either the states or the nation. These are simple examples of the rather obvious historical fact that there is no essential dependence between society's method of production and the code of laws which it chooses to create.

Fallacy 7
-- Communism further alleges that religion is not of divine origin but is simply a man-made tool used by the dominant class to suppress the exploited class. Marx and Engels described religion as the opiate of the people which is designed to lull them into humble submission and an acceptance of the prevailing mode of production which the dominant class desires to perpetuate. Any student of history would agree that there have been times in history when unscrupulous individuals and even misdirected religious organizations have abused the power of religion, just as all other institutions of society have been abused at various times.

But it was not the abuse of religion which Marx and Engels deplored as much as the very existence of religion. They considered it a creation of the dominant class, a tool and a weapon in the hands of the oppressors. They pointed out the three-fold function of religion from their point of view:
first
, it teaches respect for property rights;
second
, it teaches the poor their
duties
towards the property and prerogatives of the ruling class; and
third
, it instills a spirit of acquiescence among the exploited poor so as to destroy their revolutionary spirit.

The fallacy of these allegations is obvious to any student of Judaic-Christian teachings. The Biblical teaching of respect for property applies to rich and poor alike; it admonishes the rich to give the laborer his proper wages and to share their riches with the needy. Time and again the Old Testament denounces the selfish rich because "the spoil of the poor is in your houses. What mean ye that ye beat my people to pieces, and grind the faces of the poor? saith the Lord."
⁶

The New Testament denunciation of the selfish rich is just as pointed: "Go to now, ye rich men, weep and howl for your miseries that shall come upon you.... Behold, the hire of the laborers who have reaped down your fields, which is of you kept back by fraud, crieth: and the cries of them which have reaped are entered into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth."
⁷

It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of god.
⁸

As to the allegation of the Communist that religion makes men passive, we have only to observe that the dynamic power of religious convictions is precisely what prevents a soundly religious person from accepting Communist oppression and Communist mandates. A person practicing the teachings of the Judaic-Christian philosophy will not lie or steal on command. He will not shed innocent blood. He will not participate in the diabolical Communist practice of genocide -- the systematic extermination of entire nations or classes.

It is clearly evident from the numerous Communist writings that what they fear in religion is not that it makes religious people passive to the dominant class but that it
prevents
them from becoming passive to Communist discipline. Deep spiritual convictions stand like a wall of resistance to challenge the teachings and practices of Communism.

Furthermore, the Communist sees in the dynamic ideology of Judaic-Christian teachings a force for peace which cuts through the vitals of Communism's campaign for world-wide revolution. As Anatole Lunarcharsky, the former Russian Commissar of Education declared: "We hate Christians and Christianity. Even the best of them must be considered our worst enemies. They preach love of one's neighbor and mercy, which is contrary to our principles.
Christian love is an obstacle to the development of the Revolution.
Down with love of our neighbor! What we want is hate.... Only then can we conquer the universe."
⁹

Fallacy 8
-- Communist writers likewise maintain that the Judaic-Christian code of ethics is "class" morality. By this they mean that the Ten Commandments and the ethics of Christianity were created to protect private property and the property class. To show the lengths to which Communist writers have gone to defend this view we will mention several of their favorite interpretations of the Ten Commandments. They believe that "Honor thy Father and thy Mother" was created by the early Hebrews to emphasize to their children the fact that they were the private property of their parents. "Thou shalt not kill" was attributed to the belief of the dominant class that their bodies were private property and therefore they should be protected along with other property rights. "Thou shalt not commit adultery" and "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife" were said to have been created to implement the idea that a husband was the master of the home and the wife was strictly private property belonging to him.

This last line of reasoning led to some catastrophic consequences when the Communists came into power in Russia. In their anxiety to make women "equal with men" and prevent them from becoming private property, they degraded womankind to the lowest and most primitive level. Some Communist leaders advocated complete libertinism and promiscuity to replace marriage and the family. Excerpts from a decree issued in the Soviet of Saralof will illustrate the point:

"Beginning with March 1, 1919, the right to possess women between the ages of 17 and 32 is abolished ... this decree, however, not being applicable to women who have five children.... By virtue of the present decree no woman can any longer be considered as private property and all women become the property of the nation.... The distribution and maintenance of nationalized women, in conformity with the decision of responsible organizations, are the prerogative of the group of Saralof anarchists.... All women thus put at the disposition of the nation must, within three days after the publication of the present decree, present themselves in person at the address indicated and provide all necessary information....