So I finally read "The Communist Manifesto" by Karl Marx. I am putting this on my political blog instead of my review blog primarily because to properly analyze this, I think I need to speak and include my political beliefs, though I shall start from a purely literary perspective. Actually, no, before that, I'll start from an effectiveness purpose.
Reading it, and seeing the political rhetoric within, I understand why it scares Republicans. The ideas espoused by Karl Marx have had a heavy influence on most every government on earth. Indeed, Communism, after Capitalism, was the dominant political philosophy of the 20th century.
The common wisdom of the modern day is that communism was proven wrong because the Russians, the most dominant communist country, ground to a halt due to lagging technological development, corruption and a general lack of freedoms by the local populace. But for something that didn't supposedly didn't work, country after country that wanted to transform themselves from a poor rural or pre industrial society, chose Communism instead of Capitalism.
Furthermore, the first section of the Communist Manifesto, which speaks of the historical class struggle, might be a bit...hyperbolic, but it also makes some strikingly resonant points. The elite in this country are utterly unaccountable. Look at SOPA.
A government, or an elite, that truly respected the median 80% of this country, would never try to pass such an abomination.
And yet, Donald Rumsfeld, as much of an idiot as he is, makes a good point. From orbit, look at North Korea vs South Korea.
And yet...
If it was simply dictatorship that would make a country suffer, why do so many dictators choose the trappings of communism?
I argue that in part it is the powerful rhetoric of Karl Marx's work. History might show that capitalism makes a population more prosperous than communists, simply based on the wealth of the members involved.
But is that what we should measure the value of a society by? The communists certainly didn't. At least at first. In the 1940's and 1950's under Stalin, it was about the accomplishments of their people, defeating the Nazis and putting Sputnik in orbit.
Symbols won the cold war. Landing on the Moon. Star Wars. The Olympics. Bit by bit, the people in the Soviet Union saw how capitalism made Americans free and rich and grew jealous and resentful that their own government didn't give them such freedoms.
And now we have 2012. The central tenet of Capitalism is markets, which requires competition. But maybe...without Communism to compete against, Capitalism is also starting to lose its edge. The very things that Karl Marx talks about in the Manifesto are starting to happen again.
The non 1% are starting to be slowly relegated to serf status. Renfields and other apologetics will whine that the poor in America have it great. They will say that they have freedoms here and such.
And yet...
SOPA, a blantant attempt to steal the internet, something that many people depend on for their work every day, or their enjoyment, was passed in this so called Capitlist Democracy.
Libertarians often say that we don't have capitalism any more. And judging by the workings of our government, I'd agree with them.
The problem with the Manifesto is that there is no real end game in mind. So Karl Marx basically figures that the Proletariat will rise up against the Bourgeoisie and that they will all privately work together in some sort of utopia. It doesn't take into account the most negative of human emotions such as fear, avarice and greed. Capitalism, on the other hand, does.
So the defacto modus operandi for Communism became to enforce its ideals on those who didn't want to obey the tenants of communism.
A free society works more efficiently.
But has our own society become an illusion? Do the elite who run the country realize that giving us the illusion of freedom makes us more productive? But if we were truly free, and our vote truly mattered, would we have to choose between Barack Obama, who with the rest of the Democrats wanted to steal the internet like a bunch of Mafia Thugs until the very last possible moment when the light of day was shown on them like cockroaches?
Or the Republicans.
And really...if you aren't a Republican or a Renfield, do I really need to say what's wrong with the Republicans?
Libertarians often talk about the evil government that forces them to obey laws they don't like under threat of a gun. Well, guess what folks, that is what government is...the biggest mob. The person who controls the appartatus of force and how it is wielded. The theory of the Rule of Law is that it at least depersonalizes that force and makes it less passionate and less arbitrary.
And then we turn around and make corporations people. We say that Cash is Speech.
So for those of us who hold ideals other than the dollar being the ultimate arbiter of what makes society valuable or what makes an individual valuable, are we not also 'under the threat of a gun'? Indeed, if we are the majority in a democracy and the minority can use the levers of power to prevent us from enacting policies that benefit the majority, at what point does it become Tyranny of the Minority?
They say it doesn't.
But then again, they say a lot of things.
I look at Russia with Communism and Russia with Capitalism and I don't see much difference.
I see a lot of differences here, but then I look at the treatment of Occupy Wall Street and I must wonder...are we really free or,like the matrix, are we merely given the illusion of freedom to increase our productivity, and as the need for that illusion goes away, so our so called freedoms are more and more brazenly stripped from us.
I think Karl Marx got an awful lot right, but he never really answered the question of what happens when the Communists 'win' and a new set of Bourgeoisie takes over.
