The supposed draw that unites global humanity under Marxism is a paradise of a classless society. To achieve this Marxist paradise
the current lower classes under the thumb of the slaving upper wealth classes,
must endure degrees dictatorship of the Proletariat (lower) classes
that weeds out those self-starting independent-minded entrepreneurs that better
themselves and thus the society the entrepreneurs live in.
This so-called beneficent dictatorship must use brutal
totalitarian means to achieve the classless Marxist society. I am guessing the
dumbed-down idiots think (or deceive themselves) periods of totalitarian
brainwashing that ends Liberty-minded Rights to tow the line of the State (the
enigmatic Proletarian dictatorship) is cool (it has been rumored that millennials attracted to Marxism
use “lit”).
Lester DeKoster writing for Acton.org in more
academic terms than I can present, demonstrates the idiocy of the pipe-dream of
a classless society.
JRH 4/5/18
********************************
Marxism, the classless society and history
APRIL 04, 2018
Marx always
insisted that he derived his system from a careful study of history. Marxists
are fond of insisting that they think “concretely,” which means they always
stick to the facts. That this is not really the case may be shown by an
illustration.
Let us suppose that a student of Marxism grasps the truth
that the concept of the classless society, the earthly paradise, is not only
the capstone of Marxist theory but is also the capstone of Marxist propaganda.
It is this vision which distinguishes Marxism from other forms of violent
social criticism, like, say, anarchism, which has never been a serious
contender for men’s allegiance. Sensing, then, that Marxism draws much of its
propaganda appeal, both consciously and unconsciously, from the concept of a
perfect society, the critic begins to examine that idea in some detail.
He finds, first of all, as we have noted, that the Marxist
is very vague about the whole notion of the classless society. Marx hardly
discussed it systematically. Lenin generalized about it, and Stalin was much
too busy explaining its delayed arrival to wish to theorize concerning it. If
the critic presses the matter, and asks for more detail, he learns that the
Communist draws no blueprints of the classless society now. Why?
Well, basically because he cannot. Why not? Because it is impossible to do so
in current language and thought-forms. Once more, why not? Because the very
concepts and language which men now employ are fashioned by the environment of
class struggle out of which they, like all spiritual forms, arise. Our very
habits of thought are conditioned by class struggle. This is true because, Marx
taught, matter always controls the forms of logic, psychology, and language.
This is simply materialism.
Therefore the language, logic, and thought-forms of history
as we live it cannot apply to the new society, where there will be no struggle.
Thought-forms on this side of the revolution do not apply to life on the other
side. History has in this sense no claim on the classless society—the same
history, of course, from which Marx claimed to draw his certainty that the
classless society would be achieved.
Suppose, in the second place, that the critic insists that
there must be something to be learned about the classless society on this side
of the revolution, and points out that the Marxist himself does, after all,
talk and think about it. And suppose that the critic proceeds to argue that communist
experiments have been tried and found wanting, and communal enterprises have
often failed; he then tries to apply the causes of these failures, as he
understands them, to the idea of the classless society. What then?
He finds that the Marxist rejects abruptly all analogies
drawn from history. Why? Because the classless society is, you will recall,
strictly speaking beyond history. History as we know it, governed by the
dialectic and conducive to struggle, will cease when the classless society comes
into being. This being so, all argument drawn from present history cannot apply
to post-history, to the classless society. The Marxist will not be bound by the
lessons of history, the same history which is supposed to validate Marxism. . .
.
Or, finally, the critic draws one last arrow from his
quiver. He seeks to project conclusions drawn from the nature of man himself
into the new society. If man is like this, then in the classless
society he must react like that, and so on. Briskly the Communist
reminds him that the only “man” history knows is the victim of class struggle,
whether he be of the proletariat or of the bourgeoisie. This kind of man will
not exist in the classless society. Therefore any inference drawn from the one
kind of man will not necessarily, or even probably, apply to the other. In
judging the classless society, the Marxist accepts no responsibility to what
history or introspection teach concerning the nature of mankind.
In summary, the Marxist denies that any aspect of history as
we now know it can be used as a standard of judgment in the discussion of the
classless society. This places him in an enviable argumentative position, or,
rather, this removes the concept of the classless society out of the realm of
argument altogether. The idea of the classless society becomes amorphous enough
to be all things to all Marxists, and nothing to all critics. Between it and
history there is, in reality, no logical passage at all. On this subject the
Communist and the anti-Communist volley their charges over a bottomless
gulf—the chasm which divides history from post-history.
This chasm between the dispensations is
important. It represents for Marxism (though no Marxist puts it so) that
hill which in Pilgrim’s Progress is where the great
burden of historical evil drops away. This infinite gulf between history and
the classless society is for Marxism the unintentional recognition that man
must pass through the infinite, in some sense, before he can enter “heaven.”
The complete break which Marxist theory makes between history and the new
society means, in fact, that man as he is will never get into the new world
unaided.
It is quite inconceivable how a Marxist who lived before and
through the revolution could enter the classless society. How could he, in
reality, put on the “new man” in lieu of the man who had been formed by all the
tensions of class struggle? And if he brought into the new society any of the
vestiges of the old, they could become germs from which evil might once more
develop.
It is provocative how closely the Marxist position parallels
Christian doctrine. It is Christian teaching that nothing of history shall
enter unchanged into heaven. It is Marxist doctrine that
nothing of history pertains to the classless society. But in Christianity the
“new man” of heaven will be the “old man” reborn. The continuity is not broken.
This rebirth, however, is not the work of the man, but the work of God.
Marxism, based as it is on philosophical materialism, has no
concept of rebirth. At some point in history, the same persons who make the
revolution, who staff and support the dictatorship of the proletariat, are
supposed to enter the classless society. The fact that that process is presumed
to be gradual obscures but does not lessen the tension which holds between
things of “this” history and things of “that” post-history. The Marxist who
makes that fateful crossing from history into post-history would leave his very
self behind, for that self has been nurtured on the thought, the logic, the
passions, the struggles, and the material realities of history. Without these,
what kind of self, on Marxist grounds, remains? . . .
To escape historical evil the selves which now live and act
in history would have to be destroyed. So long as the self of man is not
regarded as sui generis, that is, a particular after its own kind,
but rather as derivative from the material substratum which forms it, that self
must disappear if the material undergoes radical change. This means that the
men who conduct the revolution, who staff and support the dictatorship of the
proletariat, could not enter the promised land. Nor could their children, born
in the context of struggle. The gulf between history and post-history is fixed,
and affords no crossing. This is instructive. It means simply that man cannot
save himself.
This article is an excerpt from Communism & Christian Faith,
with a new introduction by Pavel Hanes (Grand Rapids, MI: Christian’s Library
Press, 2018), 67–71.
Featured image used under Creative Commons license (CC BY-ND 2.0). Some changes
made (cropping).
____________________
Lester DeKoster (1915–2009) became director of the library at Calvin
College and Seminary, affiliated with the Christian Reformed Church in North
America, in 1951. He earned his doctorate from the University of Michigan in
1964, after completing a dissertation on “Living Themes in the Thought of John
Calvin: A Bibliographical Study.” During his tenure at the college, DeKoster
was influential in expanding the holdings of what would become the H. Henry
Meeter Center for Calvin Studies, one of the preeminent collections of
Calvinist and Reformed texts in the world. DeKoster also amassed an impressive
personal library of some ten thousand books, which includes a wide array of
sources testifying to both the breadth and depth of his intellectual vigor.
DeKoster was a professor of speech at the college and enjoyed taking up the
part of historic Christianity and confessional Reformed theology in debates on
doctrinal and social issues that pressed the church throughout the following
decades. Both his public debates and private correspondence were marked by a
spirit of charity that tempered and directed the needed words of rebuke. After
his retirement from Calvin College in 1969, DeKoster labored for a decade as
the editor of The Banner, the denominational magazine of the Christian Reformed
Church. This position provided him with another platform from which to
critically engage the life of the church and the world. During this time
DeKoster also launched, in collaboration with Gerard Berghoef (a longtime elder
in the church) and their families, the Christian’s Library Press, a publishing
endeavor intended to provide timely resources both for the church’s laity and
its leadership.
About Acton Institute
The Acton Institute is a
think-tank whose mission is to promote a free and virtuous society
characterized by individual liberty and sustained by religious principles.
This direction recognizes the
benefits of a limited government, but also the beneficent consequences of a
free market. It embraces an objective framework of moral values, but also
recognizes and appreciates the subjective nature of economic value. It views
justice as a duty of all to give the one his due but, more importantly, as an
individual obligation to serve the common good and not just his own needs and
wants. In order to … READ
THE REST
No comments:
Post a Comment