Communism? Sure, Why Not?
I read Marx and Engels’ The Communist Manifesto when I was 17, and I got detention for it. Actually, I got the detention for reading it in class, and then got a lecture for being interested in its subversive un-American content by the assistant principal while I was in detention. The details are irrelevant. I didn’t read it because I was a Marx fan, I read it just because I knew it was subversive. I read Mien Kampf a few years later for the same reason. I didn’t become a fan of Hitler as a result, but I did learn a lot about him and National Socialism, and in High School after reading the Manifesto, I learned a bit about communism.
I remember being impressed with the famous quote, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" (a Marx quote but from a different writing). At the time I did not understand its implications. It sounded nice without digging too deep. It seems we are tricked by this idea of “sounding nice” when we first hear of something, like CBDCs, UBIs, or Digital IDs, “sounds pretty good, eh?” No one seems to look at the implications—we do of course, but most sheep do not.
Yeah, nice, steal from the rich and give to the poor. Everyone loved Robin Hood . . . he was one of the good guys. Everyone assumes that anyone with money got it by stealing from the poor! Sure, some do that, but probably not as common in a simple old-world capitalist country (not directly at least), and probably much more common in a communist one (robbing from the poor, robbing from everyone), and certainly the name of the game in the oncoming GloboCap economy (to borrow C.J. Hopkins’ term). “One day you’ll own nothing, and you’ll be happy.” I’m sure about the first part of this sentence, and not so sure about the second part.
Not only does the concept “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” simply not work, but any system based on such things is wide open to corruption. I won’t go into any detail as to why communism as Marx proposed it is a whacked system, there are plenty of books out there on that subject. What I do want to comment on is why so many people don’t believe it is whacked. Show a liberal that Marx sentence, and I will bet you they will say, “sure, why not?” Yeah, sure they like the sound of it, until the state comes along and starts shaving off their opulence and distributing it to the ones they think should get it instead of them, “according to their needs.”
First of all, no one (here in North America at least) is yet suffering in a deep way as we transition to totalitarianism with a communist bent. People think that the loss of freedoms is analogous to removing traffic laws. It isn’t. People say, “well, I don’t have a problem being a law-abiding citizen, I don’t need to have the right ‘to do anything I want’.” That is a naive statement. The rights people lose under a communist-like system is a bit more harsh than that. It is important to note that what we are being led into is not the communism of Marx, Lenin, or Mao. It is a new kind. Exactly what, I am not sure, but it is different. A new system of “collectivization” may not, at least at first, carry any of the stereotypical “communism” oppressions that everyone thinks of when they think of communism. And yes, many people may be tolerant of it, again, at least for a while. Think of Orwell’s 1984, then compare that dismal state to Huxley’s Brave New World, or even Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451. 1984 is an example of the “end term” condition of an oppressed culture.
In 1984, the disease has deeply set in, and the parasite of communism/totalitarianism is about to destroy its host. Brave New World and Fahrenheit 451 are examples of cultures still in the early stages of a structure that is sucking the soul out of people, but the host (the people) are not yet dead. What they all have in common, though, as well as what is in common with today’s dystopia—is a central control of the masses. This is now accomplished differently—cell phone obsession, media take over, social media, the label of misinformation on anything contrary to the narrative. Sure, the old mainstays of propaganda and censoring of speech are still part of it all, but again, it all has a slightly different spin to it.
The goal of the parasite is to keep the host alive as long as possible in order to benefit from it. Certainly, in our case, the masses can be culled, and kept just sick enough that they are compliant and easily manipulated, but, as Schwab says, the intent is to keep what’s left of us happy . . . or so they hope, at least until they are very well ensconced in the “new” culture.
The style of communism that is upon us (and we do have to come up with a better word now that it longer has the intention of making community) is designed to suck just enough out of us that we don’t know we are being depleted of life. The perpetrators know nothing of soul; therefore, they care nothing of it. We will lose our soul quicker than losing our bodies as a result of this slow drain. We will become depressed, despondent, un-empathic, un-loving, anxious, as well as a litany of other mental maladies. Although the intention of our masters will be to keep our body just on the edge of functioning (unless we are one of the unfortunates (or fortunate?) to be culled) in order to return to them what they desire, we will sooner than later collapse internally. The soul will starve. We are already seeing this, at least we are, the people most affected by this Skeksis style of killing are not conscious of the cause of their despair—and this realization is only just now creeping up on them.
It will be a long time before people notice what’s happening. What will it take? Will it take being restricted from travel internationally? Or being restricted from travelling from city to city, or even within one’s own city? Or will those restrictions be shrouded in the common pretext, “it is for your own good.” Will people notice this oppression when they no longer can use cash at their discretion? Or when they are restricted from buying certain items they want because they are over their quota? Or will they notice when the heat or air conditioning in their home is adjusted beyond their will? Or will they see this too as “for everyone’s benefit due to the dangers of climate change.” Will they finally notice when they are arrested because they mentioned while in line at the grocery store that they were not pleased with the prices of lettuce going up and they blamed the current government for inflation?
It is hard to say when they will notice, if ever, that something just isn’t quite right with the way the world is being handled. Right now, it is all “for the good of mankind and the planet.” They will blame their depression, anxiety, and the deep gnarly sense of helplessness they feel, on nearly everything else other than the real reason—that their soul is being eaten away by the very system that promised to take care of them.
If you would like to support my efforts to write articles that you enjoy, but would rather not at this time commit to a yearly or monthly subscription. Please buy me a cup of coffee! The gesture would be greatly appreciated!!
Morning.
My own "meme" for this 'novel' form of the "C" word, I call "The Dictatorship of the Bureautariat."
That's one thing.
As a teenager, I also read some Marx -- after my dad, affecting a Scottish accent, called me a "bloody little marxist" --including Vol 1 of of Capital. I read Vol 2, as well, and owned Vol 3, but skipped it, each successive volume more and more like a Capitalist accountant's ledger.
Difficult as it was to get into, once it got rolling, I was amazed and impressed, probably more than any book I'd read.
In fact, I was dogmatically affected by it. After reading it, I felt the concealed, true history of western civilization had be revealed, unlike anything I'd taught in public school. I still think it is a remarkable and enlightening book -- if you can even read it. I tried a second time, as an adult, and can't get past a couple pages. Not sure how I managed the first time 'round. However, my view of it changed. Now, I regard it as a work of profound satire. And, I am not alone in that regard. ...in, Edmund Wilson's "To the Finland Station," damned if I can now find the quote... never mind, you'll have to trust me on that until I find and append it.
Fortunately, my high school history teacher nudged me out of my increasingly dogmatic thinking with suggestions of books by William Manchester and Barbara Tuchman, for example.
The only book that affected me mor than Capital, was "The Bible." I read it long after Marx.
Seems to me like Early Christianity strongly resembled communism. A couple Christians, a husband and wife, I believe, found out the hard way, when they held back on sharing. Damn!, can't find that one, either. My recollection is foggy.
Now, I think of anarchy as the best solution -- I define and meme anarchy simply to myself merely as "voluntary cooperation."
My interpretation of recent events is that the Chinese won an unmentionable victory in an unspoken, undeclared war, the new type of war, or newest variation. The victor determines the spoils, owns the past, and writes the future.
However, there was a problem in the transfer of power and administration.
That will all get worked out.
Just a few glitches.
All I can say now, is, it looks to me like China won, like it or not, want it or not.
Another perfectly timed articulation of what many of us are thinking as we see the dark storm brewing just beyond the rainbows and unicorns dancing at the edge of our visibility.
I read of a UK whistleblower just yesterday revealing the plans for near future vehicles; by a date only 10 years from now, the plan is the refusal of insurance and/or registration for any vehicle not chipped with an auto-kill switch. For safety, of course. Alcohol detector monitors would also be installed and if the driver’s exhalations registered outside the approved limits, the car would be automatically set to disable. Addition monitors would detect the newly accepted SADS or medical emergencies, thus preventing the particular vehicle disable so as to minimize other injuries on the roadways. For the common good of all other compliant drivers. Who wouldn’t think this a genius idea?!
The implications include all you mention here and provide the very simple mechanisms for the continued control of our movement. Private business; the insurance sector, would be used by governments, since they it isn’t constitutionally legal for government to simply infringe on our rights.
The masses have already been subtly led into acceptance of state control by the recent collusion of business and government in the tech sector as social media platforms have become the monitors of hate speech and disinformation “policy officers”. It’s good for all who follow the rules and don’t buck the narrative. Why is this a bad thing? It keeps the internet a pleasant and friendly space to converse.
Consider the large masses who will be unable to afford a new, government accepted, chipped car. Will this 10-year plan have effectively created those 15-minute open-air prison cities, thus negating the need for personal transportation? We must lower those carbon footprints for the “good of the planet”.
Not only will our debit card purchase power be curtailed at the grocery store, but any dissidence can also be controlled via disabling of our driving freedom. Just disable our car engines; or have us tracked and stopped by “policy enforcement” officers with the added threat of detainment for our disagreement with the abuse of our constitutional rights. How can any of us be so selfish to expect to do whatever we want?!