Why Marxism Always Fails
November 16, 2010
Elizabeth Scalia
It was not the Marxist ideal in communism that was in error, really. It was that communism was compelled, rather than voluntary. Sometimes a sympathizer with classical Marxist ideology will write to me expounding on the compassionate and generous instincts that he believes are at the heart of Marxism, and reminding me that the Acts of the Apostles describes “wealth distribution” as a social good.
All who believed were together and had all things in common; they would sell their property and possessions and divide them among all according to each one’s need. (Acts 2:44-45)
If Marxism has failed to make manifest the gloriously free and prosperous (or at least materially comfortable) society that it has long-promised—and the more honest debaters will admit that it has failed to produce either liberty or prosperity, wherever it has been tried—the failure, my correspondents argue, has been one of application. If only the right sort of people were charged with implementing Marx's ideas, the theory would prove itself remarkably successful, just as it was for the Apostles.
Well, I agree. But I hasten to point out that the operative words in these verses are “right sort.” The believers freely gave up their properties for the good of the whole community. Non-believers were not compelled to participate; they were left to their own affairs.
I doubt our modern-day exponents of Marxist theory would be amenable to the idea that the Apostolic counterparts to Peter, John, and James would be the right kind of leaders for their distributive endeavor. My correspondents believe that they, themselves, are just the right sort of people to empower with the task of obliterating hunger, poverty, and war, and they would do it without forcing people to submit to what one correspondent has called the “endless ‘no’” of the church.
In good faith, allow me to suggest that the only “right sort” people to entrust with an idea as radical as Marx’s are those who possess a spirit or intellect generous enough to acknowledge the workings of grace, those able to recognize that only something greater than man—call it the Holy Spirit—can induce an instinct voluntarily to enter into a communal life. Absent that, the practice will fail.
Communism, attempted without the infinite capacity and infinite hope that comes from working with and for the infinite God, becomes a mere movement of man, consistent with the nature of man, which is imperfect, selfish, and self-rewarding.
The failed Marxist experiments involved human schemes to prohibit “anti-social behavior” and enforce codified “kindness” supported by informants and intimidation; they enforced a spirit-killing, drive-killing acquiescence but offered no hope for real communism. Action compelled by government can never transcend itself, because the person has nothing to draw on from within, or look to from without.
Without the Holy Spirit prompting the human soul toward the willing surrender of goods and gifts—not for the good of “the state” or “the party” or for some general idea about feckless and unwieldy humanity, but for the sole use of God and the service of his glory—the compelled surrender of humankind serves only to frighten, to inhibit, to shackle and bind, rather than to loosen or free. It feeds the instinct to hoard, rather than hand out. It creates the Gulag.
The state, man-made, cannot embody the greatness the communist promises. All states, all governments, eventually evolve into some Democratic-and-quasi-Capitalist amalgam or they collapse beneath the weight of corruption, for no human being is all-good, and where humanity “may” fail, it eventually will.
Even the church, guided and sustained by the Holy Spirit, has been rocked by the reality of the unavoidable and constant truth that man is broken and in need of salvation.
But it is only by way of the church, in service to the God who instituted her, that anything approaching a Classical Marxist ideal can ever succeed, and in only and exactly the manner in which we have seen it succeed since the Acts of the Apostles and the formation of the earliest monasteries and those extant today: through the self-complete surrender to Christ, the voluntary, un-coerced, un-compelled embracing of personal poverty, and a willingness to be denuded and effaced for the sake of the soul, and that soul's community.
This is the only just means by which a communist ideal may be implemented, and because its undertaking is supernaturally and paradoxically empowering—one becomes free by radically, willfully limiting one’s personal options and possessions—it is anathema to those whose understanding of liberty have been perverted and distorted into something wholly unfree, and super-unnatural.
The communal theory can bring an abundance of riches and a wealth of liberty, but only when each individual first surrenders them both, and not to anyone on earth.
Elizabeth Scalia is a contributing writer of First Things. She blogs at The Anchoress. Her previous articles for “On the Square” can be found here.
Comments:
11.16.2010 | 8:23am
Bangwell Putt says:
Those entrusted, through the Holy Spirit, with the proclamation of the gospel and the sacraments were slow to learn that force will not (to say the least) yield the desired result. Those who are aware of this history and have therefore rejected the authority of the Church are now in the process of replicating the error. The State, in particular, the Courts, are engaged in imposition of another "faith," that of statism and, like those who went before them in the Church, are confident that they are the "righteous".
11.16.2010 | 9:36am
nlag says:
Marxism at its best will undoubtedly fail, and market capitalism will no doubt leave us wanting as well. Why? As you wrote so eloquently, there is this curious thing wrong with the heart of man. Thanks for the article.
11.16.2010 | 10:20am
Jay G says:
A couple of counter points.
1) Marxism does succeed at pointing out, in great detail, how capitalist system only serves to make the rich man richer while oppressing the worker.
2) Christian monastics are a great example of communal living, but lets be clear that their poverty was not voluntary - joining the monastery was voluntary - a life of poverty and living for the communal good was expected of all who wanted to join, and conversely it was expected that the community would provide for the individuals needs.
3) Would a western Christian see #2 as oppression or freedom? If joining the church meant that you were expected to share everything you have for the common good, would people join, write us off as a cult, or even oppress us as communists? Maybe such an expectation would make church membership something more than just another accessory to the American dream.
1) Marxism does succeed at pointing out, in great detail, how capitalist system only serves to make the rich man richer while oppressing the worker.
2) Christian monastics are a great example of communal living, but lets be clear that their poverty was not voluntary - joining the monastery was voluntary - a life of poverty and living for the communal good was expected of all who wanted to join, and conversely it was expected that the community would provide for the individuals needs.
3) Would a western Christian see #2 as oppression or freedom? If joining the church meant that you were expected to share everything you have for the common good, would people join, write us off as a cult, or even oppress us as communists? Maybe such an expectation would make church membership something more than just another accessory to the American dream.
11.16.2010 | 10:34am
Ryan Haber says:
Mr. Putt seems to be operating under the increasingly obsolete Whig/Enlightenment version of history, or perhaps the monstrous version of it spawned by Dan Brown. The Church has certainly in times and places used force in varying ways, but probably not in the times, places, or ways that Mr. Putt has been taught by his high school teachers or James Carroll's hack historical accounts. These versions of history are bred by agenda and ungoverned by the normal practices for historical inquiry among legitimate professionals. History as conducted by such professionals is increasingly yielding results that oppose Anglo-Saxon and anticlerical prejudice.
For example, the typical version of the Spanish Inquisition is that it brutally suppressed heresy by torching all opposition. The Dan Brown (or is it the Wicca?) version is that it was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands or millions of innocents. The reality that has been unearthed in the last forty years is that it was, in comparison to contemporary courts, almost ridiculously lenient. Not only did it not carry out executions, but it regularly sheltered people from execution by a procedure of clemency for first-time offenders. A powerful person who sought the death of another had great reason to lament of his intended victim was arrested by or appealed to (that's right!) the Inquisition. Even a thief might gain clemency by claiming to be a member of a heretical group that denied private property (the Albiguensians, say) and then recanting his heresy. The punishments were usually far less brutal than in the civil courts - no hand chopping, say, which the Spanish crown courts learned from their Moorish predecessors. Lastly, the Spanish Inquisition's carefully maintained records show that about 4000 convictions for heresy resulted in executions over the course of 400 years. That's a slower execution rate than Texas! In those same 400 years, Central Europe, which had a very scant presence of the Inquisition, underwent bloodbath after bloodbath from the Peasant Wars, 1524-5, through the Napoleonic Wars, 1800-1815.
Does all this justify the Inquisition in Spain? Not necessarily. It shows that history is more complex that what is often passed off to people overly ready to believe the worst about the (their own?) Church.
Other examples are numerous: Constantine's Donation, Pepin's Donation, the nature of the Papal States, the captivity years of the Papacy, the rise of clerical celibacy, the use of liturgical language in the Church, the Crusades, the Schism with the East, the Great Schism, witchcraft trials, Church-state relations over investiture, appointment of bishops, taxation, jurisdiction, and so on. The history of the West is a very long and complicated one and a summary like "[Church officials] were slow to learn that force will not (to say the least) yield the desired result. Those who are aware of this history and have therefore rejected the authority of the Church are now in the process of replicating the error," just doesn't cut it. In fact, such a summary shows an unwitting bias planted by the same "liberals" and statists who, to this day, continue to cultivate it.
For example, the typical version of the Spanish Inquisition is that it brutally suppressed heresy by torching all opposition. The Dan Brown (or is it the Wicca?) version is that it was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands or millions of innocents. The reality that has been unearthed in the last forty years is that it was, in comparison to contemporary courts, almost ridiculously lenient. Not only did it not carry out executions, but it regularly sheltered people from execution by a procedure of clemency for first-time offenders. A powerful person who sought the death of another had great reason to lament of his intended victim was arrested by or appealed to (that's right!) the Inquisition. Even a thief might gain clemency by claiming to be a member of a heretical group that denied private property (the Albiguensians, say) and then recanting his heresy. The punishments were usually far less brutal than in the civil courts - no hand chopping, say, which the Spanish crown courts learned from their Moorish predecessors. Lastly, the Spanish Inquisition's carefully maintained records show that about 4000 convictions for heresy resulted in executions over the course of 400 years. That's a slower execution rate than Texas! In those same 400 years, Central Europe, which had a very scant presence of the Inquisition, underwent bloodbath after bloodbath from the Peasant Wars, 1524-5, through the Napoleonic Wars, 1800-1815.
Does all this justify the Inquisition in Spain? Not necessarily. It shows that history is more complex that what is often passed off to people overly ready to believe the worst about the (their own?) Church.
Other examples are numerous: Constantine's Donation, Pepin's Donation, the nature of the Papal States, the captivity years of the Papacy, the rise of clerical celibacy, the use of liturgical language in the Church, the Crusades, the Schism with the East, the Great Schism, witchcraft trials, Church-state relations over investiture, appointment of bishops, taxation, jurisdiction, and so on. The history of the West is a very long and complicated one and a summary like "[Church officials] were slow to learn that force will not (to say the least) yield the desired result. Those who are aware of this history and have therefore rejected the authority of the Church are now in the process of replicating the error," just doesn't cut it. In fact, such a summary shows an unwitting bias planted by the same "liberals" and statists who, to this day, continue to cultivate it.
11.16.2010 | 10:36am
CKG says:
Well put, Ms. Scalia.
The fundamental problem with Marxism (as with all 'utopian' ideologies) is, at its core, an error concerning human nature. Any system that assumes that humans are 'angelic' (and indeed, requires that angelic-ness in order to work) will sooner or later (more likely, sooner) crash on the shoal of human fallenness.
Your correspondent is not the first person ever to note the apparent correspondence between Communist aspirations and Acts 2. But, as you properly note, apart from the action of the Holy Spirit, people just don't work that way. All attempts to have a 'Christianity apart from Christ' are doomed. . .
I am reminded of what TS Eliot said, in Choruses From 'The Rock', about "dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good". . .
The fundamental problem with Marxism (as with all 'utopian' ideologies) is, at its core, an error concerning human nature. Any system that assumes that humans are 'angelic' (and indeed, requires that angelic-ness in order to work) will sooner or later (more likely, sooner) crash on the shoal of human fallenness.
Your correspondent is not the first person ever to note the apparent correspondence between Communist aspirations and Acts 2. But, as you properly note, apart from the action of the Holy Spirit, people just don't work that way. All attempts to have a 'Christianity apart from Christ' are doomed. . .
I am reminded of what TS Eliot said, in Choruses From 'The Rock', about "dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good". . .
11.16.2010 | 10:47am
A wonderful post.
I just happened to read Isaiah Berlin's "Freedom and Its Betrayal: Six Enemies of Human Liberty" this week, and I was struck by the degree to which the philosophy of these six enemies often seemed modeled on Christianity, as with Hegel and Fichte who Berlin says were deeply influence by the Christian tradition. The love and sacrifice for the sake of others, it's all there, except for sin, the cross, and redemption.
I've run into many a progressive at cocktail parties who, upon hearing me let slip my Christian orientation, will make nice and explain that while they aren't believers they too believe in the "teachings" of Christ to feed the poor and all that. And when they are talking I think to myself that they'd probably wake up before they started throwing people in the Gulag. The Gulag, I think, is a safe and reasonable shorthand for a Christianity without the sin, the cross, and the resurrection.
Fr. Richard John Neuhaus described Edward Norman's Secularisation as a "bracing little book," and I can't think of a Christian writer to address the humanization of Christianity:
Once Christ has been represented as primarily concerned with justice and welfare, rather than with sin and corruption, the equation of his religion with the tenets of modern Humanism is easily effected. Humanism, however, in whatever guise it presents itself, is about the sovereignty of humanity and its imagined needs, and not about the demands of God at all. It is not only inherently an enemy of authentic Christianity, but also its probable successor.
And then later...
Once humanity and its needs have been elevated to sovereign determination of public and private action, anything that can be represented as an affront or impediment to the painless existence of men and women is made to seem morally unacceptable -- an outrage. Morality appears self-evident: it is the palliation of what humans themselves regard as the cause of their suffering and deprivation. A set of materialist assumptions about human nature, which comes without an ideology which can be identified and criticised for its actual moral crudity, is plainly persuasive. ...The difference is crucial: when Christians come to regard the service of their brothers and sisters as a response to their demands and rights as humans (commonly part of the vocabulary of secular social service) they are easily drawn into the vortex of materialist interpretations of life itself and become inseparable from the prevalent moral culture of the Humanists.
Sadly, as Norman goes on to argue, no group these days seems more persuaded by a Christianity without the cross and resurrection more so than many leaders of Christian opinion. The crisis of Marxism is the same as the crisis of the West. As Whitaker Chambers put it:
The crisis of Communism exists to the degree in which it has failed to free the peoples that is rules from God...the crisis of the Western world exists to the degree in which it is indifferent to God.
I just happened to read Isaiah Berlin's "Freedom and Its Betrayal: Six Enemies of Human Liberty" this week, and I was struck by the degree to which the philosophy of these six enemies often seemed modeled on Christianity, as with Hegel and Fichte who Berlin says were deeply influence by the Christian tradition. The love and sacrifice for the sake of others, it's all there, except for sin, the cross, and redemption.
I've run into many a progressive at cocktail parties who, upon hearing me let slip my Christian orientation, will make nice and explain that while they aren't believers they too believe in the "teachings" of Christ to feed the poor and all that. And when they are talking I think to myself that they'd probably wake up before they started throwing people in the Gulag. The Gulag, I think, is a safe and reasonable shorthand for a Christianity without the sin, the cross, and the resurrection.
Fr. Richard John Neuhaus described Edward Norman's Secularisation as a "bracing little book," and I can't think of a Christian writer to address the humanization of Christianity:
Once Christ has been represented as primarily concerned with justice and welfare, rather than with sin and corruption, the equation of his religion with the tenets of modern Humanism is easily effected. Humanism, however, in whatever guise it presents itself, is about the sovereignty of humanity and its imagined needs, and not about the demands of God at all. It is not only inherently an enemy of authentic Christianity, but also its probable successor.
And then later...
Once humanity and its needs have been elevated to sovereign determination of public and private action, anything that can be represented as an affront or impediment to the painless existence of men and women is made to seem morally unacceptable -- an outrage. Morality appears self-evident: it is the palliation of what humans themselves regard as the cause of their suffering and deprivation. A set of materialist assumptions about human nature, which comes without an ideology which can be identified and criticised for its actual moral crudity, is plainly persuasive. ...The difference is crucial: when Christians come to regard the service of their brothers and sisters as a response to their demands and rights as humans (commonly part of the vocabulary of secular social service) they are easily drawn into the vortex of materialist interpretations of life itself and become inseparable from the prevalent moral culture of the Humanists.
Sadly, as Norman goes on to argue, no group these days seems more persuaded by a Christianity without the cross and resurrection more so than many leaders of Christian opinion. The crisis of Marxism is the same as the crisis of the West. As Whitaker Chambers put it:
The crisis of Communism exists to the degree in which it has failed to free the peoples that is rules from God...the crisis of the Western world exists to the degree in which it is indifferent to God.
11.16.2010 | 10:56am
Elizabeth Scalia says:
I rarely comment on my columns, but as I think about it, I wish I had made note of this quote from The Right to be Merry by Mother Mary Francis, PCC, written in the first edition (1956) of the book:
The children of light walk heedless of the source of their light. The children of darkness know better. And when the hour of darkness is at hand in any country, the first act of the powers of evil is invariably to throw the switch. They raze the cloisters. They turn the contemplatives out of their monasteries with loud speeches about the good of the state and about contributing to the social need. [...]
By a strange paradox, the persecutors of religion are always far more spiritual-minded than the common run of humanity. It is a perversion of spirituality, but it is a kind of spiritual vision, nonetheless. One has to be very spiritual-minded to grasp the true meaning of the cloistered contemplative vocation, very convinced of the supernatural values to understand its supreme significance for the universal Church. Those who hold power in communist-dominated countries have a very comprehensive grasp of it. They understand its significance quite perfectly. If they sometimes draw red herrings of “national churches” across their atheistic paths, they dare not deal even in half-measures with cloisters. We shall grow old and die waiting for Russia or (Communist) China to set up “national cloisters.”
The children of light walk heedless of the source of their light. The children of darkness know better. And when the hour of darkness is at hand in any country, the first act of the powers of evil is invariably to throw the switch. They raze the cloisters. They turn the contemplatives out of their monasteries with loud speeches about the good of the state and about contributing to the social need. [...]
By a strange paradox, the persecutors of religion are always far more spiritual-minded than the common run of humanity. It is a perversion of spirituality, but it is a kind of spiritual vision, nonetheless. One has to be very spiritual-minded to grasp the true meaning of the cloistered contemplative vocation, very convinced of the supernatural values to understand its supreme significance for the universal Church. Those who hold power in communist-dominated countries have a very comprehensive grasp of it. They understand its significance quite perfectly. If they sometimes draw red herrings of “national churches” across their atheistic paths, they dare not deal even in half-measures with cloisters. We shall grow old and die waiting for Russia or (Communist) China to set up “national cloisters.”
11.16.2010 | 11:06am
Artaban says:
Jay G, your first point (about the rich becoming richer and the worker poorer) is erroneous. The capitalist reforms of China succeeded in lifting 200-300 million people out of poverty in the last few decades. And most of the wealth creation in America comes from the small business owner (some 52% of this country's GDP). Most of those small business owners are men or women like my parents, who grew up themselves below the poverty line, but now support 14 other families employed by them.
Sure, capitalism isn't a flawless system. Sure, we must strive always toward improvement. But you don't strangle the golden goose with onerous and excessive legislation, as we've been doing in this country for the past two (maybe more) decades.
Sure, capitalism isn't a flawless system. Sure, we must strive always toward improvement. But you don't strangle the golden goose with onerous and excessive legislation, as we've been doing in this country for the past two (maybe more) decades.
11.16.2010 | 11:28am
Sam says:
simply put, with or without the Holy Spirit, in the pursuit of a material paradise on earth, one arrives at hell on earth. why? there's nothing curious about it - we're no darn good.
"...but only when each individual first surrenders them both..." - to finish that thought: this also is a chasing of the wind. no? Is the author suggesting that this is even possible?
The golden rule is the keystone omitted from this discussion - what happens when each individual first follows faithfully the golden rule? Who will care for Karl?
"...but only when each individual first surrenders them both..." - to finish that thought: this also is a chasing of the wind. no? Is the author suggesting that this is even possible?
The golden rule is the keystone omitted from this discussion - what happens when each individual first follows faithfully the golden rule? Who will care for Karl?
11.16.2010 | 12:32pm
Bangwell Putt says:
Thank you to Ryan Haber for his impassioned defense of the Church. I absolutely understand and support his indignation toward who distort history and do great harm to those who might have believed the faith and even to those who do.
In the interest of brevity, I attempted in my post to simplify a much more complicated point. Nevertheless, I do stand by my contention that sinners within the Church did (and are continuing to) provide powerful ammunition for those who would destroy her. Also that the among the "statists" may be those who do believe the lies they have been so carefully taught while attempting to replicate them!
As far as the Spanish Inquisition is concerned, I am of the same opinion as Mr. Haber and am happy and grateful to be better informed about the details.
Pope Benedict referred to this matter of sin within the Church in his closing remarks about "The year of the Priest". He observed that what was intended as celebration turned into an opportunity for prayer and repentance.
It seems imperative - if ever, now - that faithful Catholics have at their disposal (as does Mr. Haber) the facts of the matters which are constantly used to discredit the Church. It does seem that this will be a long, lonely, necessary battle.
In the interest of brevity, I attempted in my post to simplify a much more complicated point. Nevertheless, I do stand by my contention that sinners within the Church did (and are continuing to) provide powerful ammunition for those who would destroy her. Also that the among the "statists" may be those who do believe the lies they have been so carefully taught while attempting to replicate them!
As far as the Spanish Inquisition is concerned, I am of the same opinion as Mr. Haber and am happy and grateful to be better informed about the details.
Pope Benedict referred to this matter of sin within the Church in his closing remarks about "The year of the Priest". He observed that what was intended as celebration turned into an opportunity for prayer and repentance.
It seems imperative - if ever, now - that faithful Catholics have at their disposal (as does Mr. Haber) the facts of the matters which are constantly used to discredit the Church. It does seem that this will be a long, lonely, necessary battle.
11.16.2010 | 2:09pm
Ryan Haber says:
Mr. Putt,
Very well said. I tilt at windmills sometimes, and other times at allies. My apologies for jumping the gun or not giving the benefit of the doubt.
----
Bop,
I don't know of any good world/US/European history textbooks - tertiary sources. There are an increasing number of secondary sources, texts on specific topics, that have in common with relativist/revisionist histories their intention of overturning the received Whig historical narrative. This project is a very good one.
What topic interests you? I might be able to make a recommendation within a particular topic. I have a few favorite authors: Eamon Duffy on the English Reformation, H.F.M. Prescott (also an excellent novelist) and Regine Pernoud on medieval French history, John Tracy Ellis on Catholic history in Anglo-America, Alasdair MacIntyre (a philosopher, really) on the history of Catholic thought, Thomas Woods on the role of the Catholic Church in the West (um, a simplified book) and Rodney Starke (an atheist sociologist who defends the Catholic Church to the teeth) on similar topics. These are some writers who have influenced me with their historical research and thought.
For a general overview and corrective of the history we learned in high school whose main objective is to teach us that the Enlightenment was good and that the Catholic Church was/is bad, I can recommend nothing better than G. K. Chesterton's The Everlasting Man. He does a very good job over surveying the history and the history of ideas from the cave man to the super man, exposing incoherent contradictions (like the Church both hates art and lavishes too much wealth on it) and suggesting simpler, more honest alternatives.
Very well said. I tilt at windmills sometimes, and other times at allies. My apologies for jumping the gun or not giving the benefit of the doubt.
----
Bop,
I don't know of any good world/US/European history textbooks - tertiary sources. There are an increasing number of secondary sources, texts on specific topics, that have in common with relativist/revisionist histories their intention of overturning the received Whig historical narrative. This project is a very good one.
What topic interests you? I might be able to make a recommendation within a particular topic. I have a few favorite authors: Eamon Duffy on the English Reformation, H.F.M. Prescott (also an excellent novelist) and Regine Pernoud on medieval French history, John Tracy Ellis on Catholic history in Anglo-America, Alasdair MacIntyre (a philosopher, really) on the history of Catholic thought, Thomas Woods on the role of the Catholic Church in the West (um, a simplified book) and Rodney Starke (an atheist sociologist who defends the Catholic Church to the teeth) on similar topics. These are some writers who have influenced me with their historical research and thought.
For a general overview and corrective of the history we learned in high school whose main objective is to teach us that the Enlightenment was good and that the Catholic Church was/is bad, I can recommend nothing better than G. K. Chesterton's The Everlasting Man. He does a very good job over surveying the history and the history of ideas from the cave man to the super man, exposing incoherent contradictions (like the Church both hates art and lavishes too much wealth on it) and suggesting simpler, more honest alternatives.
11.16.2010 | 2:58pm
patricksarsfield says:
I too was very happy to read Ryan Haber's defense of the Church.
One of my own thoughts on the difference between the Church and other Western institutions concerns Clerical Celibacy. My own thought is that Clerical Celibacy has been one of the greatest gifts that our clergy has given us because it has made it possible for so many good priests (and religious) to dedicate themselves to Christ without the distractions that family life necessarily entails.
How often are attacks on the Church framed in terms of the undeniable fact that it has piled up so much property? Well (and putting aside the fact that the Church probably has a lot less wealth than many other institutions), it really should be surprising if it had not put together a lot of wealth over 2000 years, since the Church does not divide up its wealth every generation and parcel it out amongst heirs. Unlike the British Aristocracy that has railed non-stop against the Catholic Church ever since it took part in the plunder of the Church during the reigns of Henry VIII, the regents of his son Edward VI and Elizabeth I, the Catholic Church is run by people who in large measure (despite occasional issues with Nepotism) do not need to provide for spouses and children. Therefore, the Church can preserve its wealth from generation to generation and dedicate it to the common good.
In theri attack on the supposed wealth of the Church, Protestants chide the Church for decorating its sanctuaries. Yet, "survey says" that Protestants give more to their churches than Catholics give to theirs (the figures I remember are 1 1/2% for US Catholics and 2 1/2% for US Protestants). So, if it is not going into the sanctuaries, where is the excess Protestant pelf going?
First, it is going into the fractionated structure of Protestantism. Because of the way the dogma of Private Interpretation has played out in History, US Protestantism is fragmented into literally hundreds of sects. As a result, even though there are only about twice as many Protestants as Catholics in this country, there are 15 times as many Protestant churches as Catholic churches (@300,000 versus @20,000). Supporting all those extra entrepreneurial ministers (and their wives and families) is a pricey endeavor that the Catholic Church does not need to engage in.
Second, to the extent there is any money available for decorating once the minister, the minister's spouse and the minister's children are all fed and given shelter, Protestantism has a distraction that Catholicism, in large measure, doesn't. Priests, of course, spend some money on the upkeep of the rectories as well as on their sanctuaries, but Protestant ministers (influenced by their spouses and children) likely have a far stronger penchant than Catholic priests to prefer decoration of their parsonages rather than their sanctuaries. The precise impact that that reality of human nature has on Protestant Iconoclasm (and the bare nature of most Protestant sanctuaries) is a subject I have never seen discussed. I think we ought to factor it in though.
One of my own thoughts on the difference between the Church and other Western institutions concerns Clerical Celibacy. My own thought is that Clerical Celibacy has been one of the greatest gifts that our clergy has given us because it has made it possible for so many good priests (and religious) to dedicate themselves to Christ without the distractions that family life necessarily entails.
How often are attacks on the Church framed in terms of the undeniable fact that it has piled up so much property? Well (and putting aside the fact that the Church probably has a lot less wealth than many other institutions), it really should be surprising if it had not put together a lot of wealth over 2000 years, since the Church does not divide up its wealth every generation and parcel it out amongst heirs. Unlike the British Aristocracy that has railed non-stop against the Catholic Church ever since it took part in the plunder of the Church during the reigns of Henry VIII, the regents of his son Edward VI and Elizabeth I, the Catholic Church is run by people who in large measure (despite occasional issues with Nepotism) do not need to provide for spouses and children. Therefore, the Church can preserve its wealth from generation to generation and dedicate it to the common good.
In theri attack on the supposed wealth of the Church, Protestants chide the Church for decorating its sanctuaries. Yet, "survey says" that Protestants give more to their churches than Catholics give to theirs (the figures I remember are 1 1/2% for US Catholics and 2 1/2% for US Protestants). So, if it is not going into the sanctuaries, where is the excess Protestant pelf going?
First, it is going into the fractionated structure of Protestantism. Because of the way the dogma of Private Interpretation has played out in History, US Protestantism is fragmented into literally hundreds of sects. As a result, even though there are only about twice as many Protestants as Catholics in this country, there are 15 times as many Protestant churches as Catholic churches (@300,000 versus @20,000). Supporting all those extra entrepreneurial ministers (and their wives and families) is a pricey endeavor that the Catholic Church does not need to engage in.
Second, to the extent there is any money available for decorating once the minister, the minister's spouse and the minister's children are all fed and given shelter, Protestantism has a distraction that Catholicism, in large measure, doesn't. Priests, of course, spend some money on the upkeep of the rectories as well as on their sanctuaries, but Protestant ministers (influenced by their spouses and children) likely have a far stronger penchant than Catholic priests to prefer decoration of their parsonages rather than their sanctuaries. The precise impact that that reality of human nature has on Protestant Iconoclasm (and the bare nature of most Protestant sanctuaries) is a subject I have never seen discussed. I think we ought to factor it in though.
11.16.2010 | 3:02pm
Patrick says:
The article does well, and I thank you for posting it.
Even so, I believe there is a far deeper problem with Marxism. In order to do so, I must first state the obvious:
Altruism within a community corresponds to the bonds of trust and the relationships within that community.
Humans are tribal creatures, and who a person associates as their tribe is fundamental to the behavior known as "sharing". The Christian ideal is to strengthen these tribal bounds to our neighbors and to expand that tribal instinct to all mankind, while acknowledging that such will not be accomplished until the Second Coming.
The Marxist, however, omits this core understanding of human nature. As such, the Marxist does not see the incoherence of communal sharing with its antithesis, that is "class warfare". The Marxist thus unintentionally severs the bonds of community by which communal sharing is solely possible.
How is this? Simple, for class warfare is simply a euphemism for a combination of jealousy (in this case a form of greed) and envy utilized to combat greed. Of course, these things are themselves cardinal sins, and will only act to perpetuate, if not inflame, the corruption already present. Greed and envy work upon the human perspective of equity, inasmuch as the self is always impoverished and the other is always in excess.
The sole ingenuity of Marxism is that it establishes tribal ties against fellow citizens, who then become "the other". Whether one member of the Marxist-tribe is as rich as creosote and the other destitute matters nothing, so long as they share common contempt for "the other", who is imagined to be far wealthier than either of them, irregardless of the truth. Thus, the wealthy Marxist has no obligation to the poor Marxist, as they both anticipate the spoils of plundering the Bourgeoisie.
As such, trotting out the poor, or even a good play actor of poverty is an internal justification and an excuse for the Marxist's thoughts and actions. It is folly to see this as anything less cynical.
This is why Communist elites lived sumptuously while forcing the broken Kulaks to die of starvation and exposure.
Even so, I believe there is a far deeper problem with Marxism. In order to do so, I must first state the obvious:
Altruism within a community corresponds to the bonds of trust and the relationships within that community.
Humans are tribal creatures, and who a person associates as their tribe is fundamental to the behavior known as "sharing". The Christian ideal is to strengthen these tribal bounds to our neighbors and to expand that tribal instinct to all mankind, while acknowledging that such will not be accomplished until the Second Coming.
The Marxist, however, omits this core understanding of human nature. As such, the Marxist does not see the incoherence of communal sharing with its antithesis, that is "class warfare". The Marxist thus unintentionally severs the bonds of community by which communal sharing is solely possible.
How is this? Simple, for class warfare is simply a euphemism for a combination of jealousy (in this case a form of greed) and envy utilized to combat greed. Of course, these things are themselves cardinal sins, and will only act to perpetuate, if not inflame, the corruption already present. Greed and envy work upon the human perspective of equity, inasmuch as the self is always impoverished and the other is always in excess.
The sole ingenuity of Marxism is that it establishes tribal ties against fellow citizens, who then become "the other". Whether one member of the Marxist-tribe is as rich as creosote and the other destitute matters nothing, so long as they share common contempt for "the other", who is imagined to be far wealthier than either of them, irregardless of the truth. Thus, the wealthy Marxist has no obligation to the poor Marxist, as they both anticipate the spoils of plundering the Bourgeoisie.
As such, trotting out the poor, or even a good play actor of poverty is an internal justification and an excuse for the Marxist's thoughts and actions. It is folly to see this as anything less cynical.
This is why Communist elites lived sumptuously while forcing the broken Kulaks to die of starvation and exposure.
11.16.2010 | 5:12pm
Ryan Haber says:
Patricksarsfield,
I hadn't meant to make a defense of the Church as such, much less a criticism of Protestantism. I jumped the gun and misunderstood the intention underlying a previous point, and then intended to show, in opposition to what I took to be the earlier commentator's bias, that history is a complex thing - the Church's no less than anybody else's.
Pretty far afield we've gotten, haven't we?
Much more to Ms. Scalia's point, Marxism always fails because - despite its solid diagnosis of the disease of capitalism, it fails to understand the sick patient. Marxism takes the human person and human society to be purely material things, and being mistaken on that point, cannot hope to prescribe a course of treatment suitable to either the patient or to the true nature of the disease that it has at least correctly identified.
To paraphrase Chesterton, "Those who do not recognize the capitalist problem will certainly fall victim to the bolshevik solution."
Christian Marxism is a contradiction in terms and always disintegrates into outright Marxism, or else ends in conversion and the abandonment of Marxism, precisely because on this point the two diverge irreconcilably: whether there is anything in the universe beyond mere matter. The Christian must say yea and the Marxist must say nay. From there, their roads can never truly reconcile again, even if at some points they head along the same bearing. The fact that they sometimes do head at the same bearing leads careless thinkers to believe they have the same goal. They do not.
I hadn't meant to make a defense of the Church as such, much less a criticism of Protestantism. I jumped the gun and misunderstood the intention underlying a previous point, and then intended to show, in opposition to what I took to be the earlier commentator's bias, that history is a complex thing - the Church's no less than anybody else's.
Pretty far afield we've gotten, haven't we?
Much more to Ms. Scalia's point, Marxism always fails because - despite its solid diagnosis of the disease of capitalism, it fails to understand the sick patient. Marxism takes the human person and human society to be purely material things, and being mistaken on that point, cannot hope to prescribe a course of treatment suitable to either the patient or to the true nature of the disease that it has at least correctly identified.
To paraphrase Chesterton, "Those who do not recognize the capitalist problem will certainly fall victim to the bolshevik solution."
Christian Marxism is a contradiction in terms and always disintegrates into outright Marxism, or else ends in conversion and the abandonment of Marxism, precisely because on this point the two diverge irreconcilably: whether there is anything in the universe beyond mere matter. The Christian must say yea and the Marxist must say nay. From there, their roads can never truly reconcile again, even if at some points they head along the same bearing. The fact that they sometimes do head at the same bearing leads careless thinkers to believe they have the same goal. They do not.
11.16.2010 | 5:17pm
Bop says:
@Ryan Haber
Thanks for your response. I've known of Duffy's Stripping of the Altars and perhaps now I'll try to tackle it. I recently read Hilaire Belloc on Cranmer, and though a great read, I couldn't believe it was accurate somehow.
I was wondering if there is anything on the Spanish Inquisition that is digestible and yet balanced. I guess I want to be reassured!
Thanks for your response. I've known of Duffy's Stripping of the Altars and perhaps now I'll try to tackle it. I recently read Hilaire Belloc on Cranmer, and though a great read, I couldn't believe it was accurate somehow.
I was wondering if there is anything on the Spanish Inquisition that is digestible and yet balanced. I guess I want to be reassured!
11.16.2010 | 5:24pm
Michael says:
Ryan, Bangwell, and Bop,
I can’t get excited about the idea that the Spanish Inquisition killed fewer people than was once thought.
The Inquisition was a centuries-long campaign of thought control and political correctness, lasting from 1478 to 1834. That’s a long time.
The Inquisition suppressed St. Ignatius of Loyola, driving him out of the country, and it persecuted both Sts. Teresa of Avila and John of the Cross after having executed St. Teresa’s grandfather. The Inquisition drove Jewish and Muslim converts to Roman Catholicism out of the country under suspicion that their conversion was not genuine.
And let’s not forget that the Inquisition was a mop-up operation. Spain’s Roman Catholic monarchs had already completed their ethnic cleansing when they expulsed Jews in 1492 and Moors in 1609.
Humans will use whatever ideology is at hand—religious, humanist, Marxist—to brutalize their neighbors.
I can’t get excited about the idea that the Spanish Inquisition killed fewer people than was once thought.
The Inquisition was a centuries-long campaign of thought control and political correctness, lasting from 1478 to 1834. That’s a long time.
The Inquisition suppressed St. Ignatius of Loyola, driving him out of the country, and it persecuted both Sts. Teresa of Avila and John of the Cross after having executed St. Teresa’s grandfather. The Inquisition drove Jewish and Muslim converts to Roman Catholicism out of the country under suspicion that their conversion was not genuine.
And let’s not forget that the Inquisition was a mop-up operation. Spain’s Roman Catholic monarchs had already completed their ethnic cleansing when they expulsed Jews in 1492 and Moors in 1609.
Humans will use whatever ideology is at hand—religious, humanist, Marxist—to brutalize their neighbors.
11.16.2010 | 5:36pm
Carmen San Carlos says:
Stealing a line from Jay G who says....Marxism does succeed at pointing out, in great detail, how capitalist system only serves to make the rich man richer while oppressing the worker...
to whom I add my version:
1.Marxism does succeed at pointing out, in great detail, how the communist system only serves to oppress the worker and force him to live in eternal poverty... 2. Marxism does succeed at pointing out, in great detail, how the communist system only serves to remove the right to change his life and remain an oppressed worker... etc... etc... etc...
Show me Jay G a communist/marxist country or society that has been successful in giving its citizens a life of freedom, choice and comfort???
Answer: 0 Communist/Marxist societies or countries.
Are you aware of the generations of lives lost in the countries behind the Iron Curtain??? The Iron Curtain was Marxist/Communist, in case nobody ever told you...
How anyone can possibly entertain the viability of Marxism is beyond my comprehension. The only reason I can find is because they want to govern, they desire power...their way...
I suggest animal Farm by George Orwell....
.
to whom I add my version:
1.Marxism does succeed at pointing out, in great detail, how the communist system only serves to oppress the worker and force him to live in eternal poverty... 2. Marxism does succeed at pointing out, in great detail, how the communist system only serves to remove the right to change his life and remain an oppressed worker... etc... etc... etc...
Show me Jay G a communist/marxist country or society that has been successful in giving its citizens a life of freedom, choice and comfort???
Answer: 0 Communist/Marxist societies or countries.
Are you aware of the generations of lives lost in the countries behind the Iron Curtain??? The Iron Curtain was Marxist/Communist, in case nobody ever told you...
How anyone can possibly entertain the viability of Marxism is beyond my comprehension. The only reason I can find is because they want to govern, they desire power...their way...
I suggest animal Farm by George Orwell....
.
11.16.2010 | 5:51pm
Jaime Castaneda says:
Don't forget that the Jerusalem church of Acts2-44-45 was a failure and Paul had to collect money from other churches to help it. Luke's tendency in Acts to idealize and simplify the development of the Church is a well-known fact.
11.16.2010 | 6:07pm
GABRIEL says:
It is unbelieveable that no-one has made a political doctrine based on the bibleverse you presented.
That no-one has said: Our party wish to have all things in common BECAUSE the apostles had all things in common.
That no one has said: We will charge taxes, because the bible teaches us to look after the poor.
Instead: The few political parties I know of that in one way or another do refer to Christ, tend to end up with the most idiotic of doctrines. They seem happy as long as they do not have to pay ANY tax and can strike down mercilessly on the use of drugs.
Instead of promoting the use of drugs, as a way to care less about materialism. Drug users allso happen to be very open to christianity.
And they do not consume much of the earths recources, and are therefore eco-friendly. Drugs allso bear close resemblance to the properties of Manna from Heaven, witch made the iseralites feel good,
all the time.
So this is my stance: Drugs, Anti-materilism, God and Taxes to the people. Was that radical enough for you? Cumbaya!
That no-one has said: Our party wish to have all things in common BECAUSE the apostles had all things in common.
That no one has said: We will charge taxes, because the bible teaches us to look after the poor.
Instead: The few political parties I know of that in one way or another do refer to Christ, tend to end up with the most idiotic of doctrines. They seem happy as long as they do not have to pay ANY tax and can strike down mercilessly on the use of drugs.
Instead of promoting the use of drugs, as a way to care less about materialism. Drug users allso happen to be very open to christianity.
And they do not consume much of the earths recources, and are therefore eco-friendly. Drugs allso bear close resemblance to the properties of Manna from Heaven, witch made the iseralites feel good,
all the time.
So this is my stance: Drugs, Anti-materilism, God and Taxes to the people. Was that radical enough for you? Cumbaya!
11.16.2010 | 8:05pm
JGeorge says:
The problem I see with Marxism and other progressive philosophies is that they try to eliminate external problems like war and poverty without addressing the root cause, which is personal sin and willingness to accept suffering. CS Lewis addresses this issue in his book Mere Christianity.
Christianity (especially Catholicism) is a religion that encourages its followers to accept, and even embrace, suffering. Buddha said that "Life is suffering". It’s when we fail to accept this truth (when we expect life to be pleasurable and happy all the time) that we become miserable and fall into sin.
Marxism’s attitude towards suffering is exactly the opposite of Catholicism and Buddhism. It does not advocate the embrace of suffering (like Jesus did the cross). Instead, it encourages its followers to see themselves as the victims of a cruel world that forces them suffer when they don’t have to.
Of course, embracing suffering does not mean we fail to help the poor. The problem with Marxism is that it rejects the spiritual understanding and insight on suffering that religion has been preaching for centuries. Any philosophy that preaches rebellion against suffering, and tries to eliminate the external sources of suffering by ordinary human means, is doomed to fail.
Christianity (especially Catholicism) is a religion that encourages its followers to accept, and even embrace, suffering. Buddha said that "Life is suffering". It’s when we fail to accept this truth (when we expect life to be pleasurable and happy all the time) that we become miserable and fall into sin.
Marxism’s attitude towards suffering is exactly the opposite of Catholicism and Buddhism. It does not advocate the embrace of suffering (like Jesus did the cross). Instead, it encourages its followers to see themselves as the victims of a cruel world that forces them suffer when they don’t have to.
Of course, embracing suffering does not mean we fail to help the poor. The problem with Marxism is that it rejects the spiritual understanding and insight on suffering that religion has been preaching for centuries. Any philosophy that preaches rebellion against suffering, and tries to eliminate the external sources of suffering by ordinary human means, is doomed to fail.
11.16.2010 | 8:24pm
donald todd says:
The Church of Acts 2 in its effort toward charity was met with Ananias and Sapphira.
The kibbitzum of Israel in the middle of the previous century now appears to have been terminated as unworkable.
If I, a convert and practicing Catholic, understand correctly, a wonderful creation, humanity, is afflicted by original sin and its outworking. That affliction degrades that wonderful eation and makes it untrustworthy and, barring salvation, damnable.
American capitalism has permitted people to combine people with ideas and money to create jobs worth working, permitting people to support themselves and their families, at least in the current era until the recent past.
Anyone who has read about the wonders of Soviet life, such as experienced by the Ukrainians of the forced famine, would have to wonder if someone has been on a mental holiday from the facts. There is no reasonable comparison with the American experiment and the Gulag Archipelago.
Last item: I am a Roman Catholic. I was an evangelical Pentecostal. The Roman Catholic Church appears to me much the same as Israel of the Old Testament in that its history is open to everyone. Unfortunately the Church's history is often marred by lies by those who want to make the real or presumed failures of its children even worse than they really are. The lies about the history of the Inquisition has been made much worse than it is but is consistent with both the idea of the fall and of our Lord's opponent, the father of lies, and his minions.
The kibbitzum of Israel in the middle of the previous century now appears to have been terminated as unworkable.
If I, a convert and practicing Catholic, understand correctly, a wonderful creation, humanity, is afflicted by original sin and its outworking. That affliction degrades that wonderful eation and makes it untrustworthy and, barring salvation, damnable.
American capitalism has permitted people to combine people with ideas and money to create jobs worth working, permitting people to support themselves and their families, at least in the current era until the recent past.
Anyone who has read about the wonders of Soviet life, such as experienced by the Ukrainians of the forced famine, would have to wonder if someone has been on a mental holiday from the facts. There is no reasonable comparison with the American experiment and the Gulag Archipelago.
Last item: I am a Roman Catholic. I was an evangelical Pentecostal. The Roman Catholic Church appears to me much the same as Israel of the Old Testament in that its history is open to everyone. Unfortunately the Church's history is often marred by lies by those who want to make the real or presumed failures of its children even worse than they really are. The lies about the history of the Inquisition has been made much worse than it is but is consistent with both the idea of the fall and of our Lord's opponent, the father of lies, and his minions.
11.16.2010 | 8:48pm
Edward Alleyn says:
"Sometimes a sympathizer with classical Marxist ideology will write to me expounding on the compassionate and generous instincts that he believes are at the heart of Marxism, and reminding me that the Acts of the Apostles describes “wealth distribution” as a social good."
Marxists wish to create a form of government based in "compassionate and generous instincts." One problem is that their primary concern have proven to be with government, not with compassion or generosity. Another problem is that Marxist rob the individual of his or her instincts for compassion and generosity — the state appropriates responsibility for compassion and generosity.
Marxists wish to create a form of government based in "compassionate and generous instincts." One problem is that their primary concern have proven to be with government, not with compassion or generosity. Another problem is that Marxist rob the individual of his or her instincts for compassion and generosity — the state appropriates responsibility for compassion and generosity.
11.16.2010 | 9:51pm
Mark VA says:
Elizabeth Scalia wrote:
"But it is only by way of the church, in service to the God who instituted her, that anything approaching a Classical Marxist ideal can ever succeed..."
God forbid. Marxism is not predominantly concerned with the redistribution of wealth - rather, it's a by-product of its more fundamental misconception of what the person is.
Marxism from the beginning denied the existence of God and the human soul. Thus man, embodiment of and subject to material forces only, is to be refashioned into a "new man", one completely separated from any memory of the transcendent. As it proceeds along this path, Marxism is not concerned with the fate of individuals, but only with the "masses".
Marxism is not predominantly concerned with repossessing an individual's wealth - to accomplish that is a mere trifle, once the conditions are set. What it is concerned with, is taking possession of his thoughts, emotions, and ultimately his will.
If one's treasure is in one's wallet, then it is easy to miss the true aim of Marxism. It aims much higher - it aims at possessing your soul (and only incidentally your wallet).
"But it is only by way of the church, in service to the God who instituted her, that anything approaching a Classical Marxist ideal can ever succeed..."
God forbid. Marxism is not predominantly concerned with the redistribution of wealth - rather, it's a by-product of its more fundamental misconception of what the person is.
Marxism from the beginning denied the existence of God and the human soul. Thus man, embodiment of and subject to material forces only, is to be refashioned into a "new man", one completely separated from any memory of the transcendent. As it proceeds along this path, Marxism is not concerned with the fate of individuals, but only with the "masses".
Marxism is not predominantly concerned with repossessing an individual's wealth - to accomplish that is a mere trifle, once the conditions are set. What it is concerned with, is taking possession of his thoughts, emotions, and ultimately his will.
If one's treasure is in one's wallet, then it is easy to miss the true aim of Marxism. It aims much higher - it aims at possessing your soul (and only incidentally your wallet).
11.17.2010 | 5:20am
Wayne Huber says:
Elizabeth may be a good conservative but she gets a D on Marxism as do most conservatives.
I'm a conservative and ex Trotskyist many years ago. Elizabeth is attacking a strong man with simplistic arguements easily refuted by all but those already in agreement with her.
The counter arguement is not that Marxism failed because the wrong person or party took power but rather that it was established in countries that had not yet achieved the capitalist revolution. This is an essential pre condition for the start of the elimination of scarcity for communism. Communist dictatorships in poor countries inevitably lead to dictatorships and bureaucracy.
I'm no longer a Marxist but am pointing out the shallowness of most conservative arguements who consider Marxism as some variety of left liberalism.
I'm a conservative and ex Trotskyist many years ago. Elizabeth is attacking a strong man with simplistic arguements easily refuted by all but those already in agreement with her.
The counter arguement is not that Marxism failed because the wrong person or party took power but rather that it was established in countries that had not yet achieved the capitalist revolution. This is an essential pre condition for the start of the elimination of scarcity for communism. Communist dictatorships in poor countries inevitably lead to dictatorships and bureaucracy.
I'm no longer a Marxist but am pointing out the shallowness of most conservative arguements who consider Marxism as some variety of left liberalism.
11.17.2010 | 5:32pm
John Matits Jr. says:
Please do not equate Capitalism wiyh the other two evil, Godless isms. Capitalism ios the only one that allows for the dignity of man. If you work hard you can be rewarded [your own FREE will]. This is evident millions of times over in our history. Thast the rich get richer and the poor get poorer is leftist gibberish. You have to use qualifiers, since man is imperfect, to despoil Capitalism. The other isms need no qualifiers they are intrinsicly evil. In them man is god. [Pope Leo XIII and subsequent popes have said as much.]
And, as for religious communitie they operate on God's terms. Other non-religious comunities have always failed.
And, as for religious communitie they operate on God's terms. Other non-religious comunities have always failed.
11.17.2010 | 8:04pm
sdfasdf says:
There's no such thing as capitalism; Marx made that up. It's called freedom. It's what we do when we're left to our own devices. The problem with Marxism is that God gave Man free will. He also made us unique; we are not equal. Were equality desirable, God would have made us look and think all the same, but He didn't, did he? Obviously, He loves us. Otherwise, we'd all be identical and all bored to death. Life would be meaningless.
We are equal only under the law. And Marxc has no concept of human nature. He's an automaton.
We are equal only under the law. And Marxc has no concept of human nature. He's an automaton.
11.17.2010 | 8:55pm
Mark VA says:
Wayne Huber:
Do you really believe that scarcity in communism would be eliminated if communism was established in countries that "achieved the capitalist revolution", or are you just illustrating a counter argument?
True Marxists are mostly concerned with gaining control over people's wills. The material scarcity they wilfully generate is just another useful and necessary tool towards that end, just as is the promotion of fear, terror, suspicion, uncertainty, and hate. Marxism (the real, applied kind, not the various academic pretenders) finds scarcity useful, just as fish find water useful.
Do you really believe that scarcity in communism would be eliminated if communism was established in countries that "achieved the capitalist revolution", or are you just illustrating a counter argument?
True Marxists are mostly concerned with gaining control over people's wills. The material scarcity they wilfully generate is just another useful and necessary tool towards that end, just as is the promotion of fear, terror, suspicion, uncertainty, and hate. Marxism (the real, applied kind, not the various academic pretenders) finds scarcity useful, just as fish find water useful.
11.23.2010 | 4:23pm
Tony says:
Ms. Scalia,
Marxism didn't work to well for the early Christians either. St. Paul still had to admonish them: "Those who don't work, don't eat."
Marxism didn't work to well for the early Christians either. St. Paul still had to admonish them: "Those who don't work, don't eat."
