Marxism Disguised as Democracy

Who was Karl Marx?

Karl Marx was a German philosopher who with the help of Freidrich Engels wrote the Communist Manifesto published in 1848. Karl Marx was not a pleasant man, in fact he subjects himself to devilish qualities. For example in one of his plays called Oulanem he claims that his soul was taken out of hell if there really is a God. Also in the play he referred to himself as the 'Princess of Darkness' who plays the dance of death.

Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto

Abolition of Religion

In his Communist Manifesto, Marx proposes the abolition of religion because he believed that religion is being used as a weapon by the bourgeoisie (wealthy people). Used for the purposes of ensuring the proletariat (people of  the working class) behave in a certain way that would not pose a threat to which could result in their loss of riches. Furthermore, Marx adds to his conspiracy theory by claiming that religion is used by the bourgeoisie to manipulate the proletariat into putting their faith in God thus limiting them in trying to take control of their own destinies instead of relying on a higher being hence restricted from living outside the means of only working for the bourgeoisie, remaining enslaved by the bourgeoisie.

Abolition of Family

Also, in his Communist Manifesto, Marx proposes the abolition of family. He believed that the abolition of family will prevent the inheritance of wealth by future family generations which in all fairness should be distributed amongst society purely on the basis that the inheritor did not earn it. I do not dispute the economic logic behind this, however, I am not convinced such integral part of human civilisation should be abolished in the name of economic prosperity.

Love is what intertwines a couple, a family. At least that’s what I think but to put beyond reasonable doubt that the idea abolition of the family is not merely for economic prosperity but to desensitise humans from feeling emotions, to destroy our spirit, eliminate any responsibilities not due to the state, here is a extract from a piece of work written by Marx and Engels in 1844 titled “Love”:

"In order to complete its transformation into the ''tranquillity of knowledge", Critical Criticism must first seek to dispose of love. Love is a passion, and nothing is more dangerous for the tranquillity of knowledge than passion. That is why, speaking of Madame von Paalzow's novels, which, he assures us, he has "thoroughly studied". Herr Edgar is amazed at "a childish thing like so-called love". It is a horror and abomination and excites the wrath of Critical Criticism, makes it almost as bitter as gall, indeed, insane....

The devil and God are not far apart."

What Marx perceives love to be is the opposite of the subjectivity of the presence of God. Sorry but when I’m near a woman that I come to admire and adore, my heart starts to race faster, without my beating heart I have no life, making my heart race faster tells me she is the fuel energising my life.

Introduction of Central Reserve Banking

Furthermore, Marx in his Communist Manifesto conveys a key component of a utopian socialist state. That component is the centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly. Basically, each socialist state should have its own central bank. Today, the Major Central Banks in the world have been implemented in Australia, Canada, England, Europe, Japan, New Zealand and the United States

According to the Reserve Bank of Australia, If central bank authorities believe people have high amounts of money to spend, they will raise interest rates to cause an increase in mortgage repayments hence people will have less money to spend. The reason for this is to limit inflation (increase of price of goods in the economy) because more spending money indicates a higher demand of goods, since there is not enough supply to cater for everyone, the supply will go to the highest bidder hence a rise of inflation. On the other hand, if the economy is showing signs of weakness, interest rates will decrease to encourage spending, increasing economic activity.

Combination of Agriculture and Manufacturing Industries

The Communist Manifesto introduces the idea combining agriculture with manufacturing industries and the amalgamated industries should be controlled by the state. The rationale behind this idea is to prevent the rich people from monopolising both the agriculture and manufacturing industries. It is quite evident in today's economy, besides plant-based products, agricultural products are processed in large scale industrial factories rather than farms. This has resulted in large corporations justifiably gaining a greater interest than farmers in the agricultural industry. Thus, ultimately Marx's rationale behind this idea was nothing more than an inaccurate conspiracy theory.

Capitalism or Socialism/Marxism?

Capitalism is universally understood to be an economic and political system in which individuals and businesses own capital goods. It is important to point out that the right to free trade is not an economic mechanism, it is nothing more than the right to participate in the buying and selling in goods as owners of capital goods. Whereas a socialist economic and political system includes the implementation of Marxist Ideologies. The right to free trade in today's economy, in my opinion is merely an illusion to disguise the presence of a socialist economic and political system. The right of free trade is not as influential on the performance of an economy more so than the role played by central banks around the world.

Ultimately, the information above begs the question: is the democratic political system an advocate of Capitalism or Socialism/Marxism?

Similarity in Rationale Between Liberal Democracy and Communism

Interconnectedness through common rules, values and beliefs. In a Communist State, the government possesses control of mechanisms pertaining to ethics, family, religion, schools, universities, community organisations, culture, human sentiments and aspiration. Communism is perceived as a tyrannical system because of the overarching authority bestowed upon the government.

In a liberal democracy, doesn’t the government also control if not influence ethics, family, religion, schools, universities, community organisations, culture, human sentiments and aspiration? Yes! All in the name of human prosperity!! Liberal democracy says human prosperity can only be achieved through inclusivity and equality. How can one strive for their own intrinsic, personal goals if the system they’re in expects them to behave in a certain way, adopt certain particular thoughts or be influenced into what they ought to think they should strive for in life?

Here is a passage from a book called Demon in Democracy: Totalitarian temptations in Free Societies by Ryszard Legutko:

“Since the issue of the Universal Declaration dignity has no longer been about obligation, but about claims and entitlements. The new dignity did not oblige people to strive for any moral merits or deserts; it allowed them to submit to whatever claims they wished, and to justify these claims by referring to a dignity that they possessed by the mere fact of being born without any moral achievement or effort. A person who desired to achieve satisfaction of a pig was thus equally entitled to appeal to dignity to justify his goals as another who tried to follow the paths of socrates, and each time, for a pig and for a socrates, this was the same dignity. A right to be a pig and a right to be a socrates were, in fact, equal and stemmed from the same moral source.

Having armed himself with rights, modern man found himself in a most comfortable situation with no precedent: he no longer had to justify his claims and actions as long as he qualified them of rights. Regardless of what demand he would make on the basis of those rights and for what purpose he would use them, he did not and in fact, could not lose his dignity, which he had acquired for life simply by being born human. And since having this dignity carried no obligation to do anything particularly good or worthy, he could, while constantly invoking it, make claims that were increasingly more absurd and demand justification for even more questionable activities. Sinking more and more into arrogant vulgarity, he could argue that this vulgarity not only did not contradict his inborn dignity, but it could even, by a stretch of the imagination, be treated as some sort of an achievement."

Article by Adham Tebbie

Click or Tap on Opinions for more articles by Adham.