3. Increased reward for working harder to provide improved services.
4. The right of the worker to buy and develop property with the accumulation of past rewards (profits) over and beyond the needs of consumption and thereby improve the circumstances of himself and his family.
The Communist leaders seem to have misunderstood the universal lesson of life that man's greatest enemy is inertia and that the mainspring of action to combat inertia is not force but the opportunity for self-improvement. Marx and Engels insisted that such an attitude is selfish and "non-social," but the plain fact is that a worker finds it difficult to work harder in order to fill the stomachs of "society" when the fruits of his labor do not first take care of himself and his family.
The Communists thought they could drive out this "non-social" attitude with force, but thirty-five years of Dictatorship in Russia have vividly demonstrated that men will not work according to their ability unless they are compensated according to their ability. Even the Communist leaders know force has failed. Under the whip of the Dictatorship the workers have barely produced enough to survive. The Communist leaders therefore say that the Dictatorship must be continued indefinitely. So long as the workers fail to produce according to their ability there certainly can be no talk of "full Communism" where each will receive according to his need.
Fallacy 23 -- In studying the theories of Marx and Engels the student soon becomes aware that they failed to take into account some of the most elementary facts of life. For example, they assumed that in a stateless society mass-rule (which always turns out to be mob-rule) would be more discriminating and discerning than the executive, legislative and judicial bodies of organized government. To set this up as an expectation under full Communism flies in the face of all past human experience.
Fallacy 24 -- This theory also assumes that under the suppression imposed by the Dictatorship of the Proletariat men will lose or completely smother their instinct of acquisition. Marx and Engels make it clear that they expected the Dictatorship to get people in the "habit" of not owning property or wanting to own it.
But what happens when the stateless society is inaugurated and a whole new generation arrives on the scene which has no memory of the merciless suppression which gave their fathers the habit of observing the "simple, fundamental rules of everyday social life in common"? Suppose large numbers refuse to do the kind of work or the share of work expected of them, so that they are adjudged guilty of not "producing according to their ability"? Or suppose they demand from the classless, stateless society more than is believed to be their share?
What will happen if they organize themselves, secretly equip themselves with weapons, and rise up unexpectedly to seize the wealth which the classless, stateless society refuses to give them? Will it not be necessary to immediately set up the Dictatorship of the Proletariat all over again to suppress this opposition? Perhaps the instinct of acquisition is going to be more difficult to suppress than Marx and Engels thought. In fact, with the knowledge which we already have concerning several thousand years of human behavior, is it likely that Communism will ever get past the Dictatorship of the Proletariat?
Fallacy 25 -- Finally, full Communism promises that even in the absence of ordinary work incentives the classless, stateless society will produce greater quantities of goods than any existing system can produce today. Under this theory it is intended that Communist production will somehow reach a state of absolute saturation where all human needs will be satisfied. Supplies are to be stockpiled and distributed according to the needs of every person. Services are likewise to be made available at central depots and are to be available in such quantity that all elements of competition among consumers will be eliminated. Thus, Communism promises to do away with markets, money and prices.
What happens, then, if the goal of absolute saturation is not reached? Would not the Dictatorship of the Proletariat have to be called into service once more to suppress dissatisfaction? A good example of the problem might be the case of automobiles. How many automobiles would have to be produced to reach absolute saturation for the wants (which must ultimately become synonymous with need if there is to be no state authority) of two billion people? Under capitalism, economic necessity makes a family feel satisfied with one or two cars. What would happen if this economic necessity were removed? Under full Communism a good worker is entitled to all the cars he wants. Unless he gets all he wants the ogre of selfishness will raise its ugly head. Time and again Communist writings promise sufficient production to eliminate the element of selfishness which leads to class struggle.
And what happens when new models come out? Will society automatically scrap all cars every time a new model is developed? Under full Communism who would want an old car? This may seem somewhat preposterous but, as a matter of fact, it would be a most commonplace problem and would arise in connection with all types of production. Someone would have to decide who must keep their old cars for an extra year or two since otherwise every family would most certainly demand a new one. Each family might even demand several new ones.
The problems under such a system obviously assume mountainous proportions and any hope of eliminating money, markets and prices fades into oblivion. Such a system also would require many times more government machinery than free-enterprise capitalism, and the prospect of producing goods and services in such quantities that the state might "wither away" defies both reason and experience.
Communism as a Negative Approach To Problem-Solving
In concluding this discussion of the basic fallacies in Communism we should perhaps make a summary comment on the most significant fallacy of them all. This is the Communist doctrine that problems can be solved by eliminating the institution from which the problems emanate. Even Marx and Engels may have been unaware that this was what they were doing, but the student will note how completely this approach dominates every problem they undertook to solve.
Take, for example, the problems of government. Marx and Engels would solve these problems by working for the day when they could eliminate government. Problems of morals would be solved by doing away with morals. Problems growing out of religion would be solved by doing away with religion. Problems of marriage, home and family would be eliminated by doing away with marriage, home and family.
The problems arising out of property rights would be resolved by not allowing anyone to have any property rights. The problem of equalizing wages would be solved by abolishing wages. Problems connected with money, markets and prices would be solved by doing away with money, markets and prices. Problems of competition in production and distribution would be solved by forcibly prohibiting competition.
Finally, they would solve all the problems of modern society by using revolution to destroy this society. It seems the phantom of Communist hope can only arise from the bowels of the earth through the ashes of all that now is. Communism must be built for one purpose -- to destroy. Only after the great destruction did the Communist leaders dare to hope that they might offer to their disciples the possibility of freedom, equality and justice.
It is this dismal and nebulous promise for the future which Communism offers the world today. Until such a day comes, the Communist leaders ask humanity to endure the conflagration of revolutionary violence, the suppression and liquidation of resistance groups, the expropriation of property, the Dictatorship of the Proletariat which they themselves describe as "based on force and unrestricted by any laws," the suspension of all civil liberties -- suppression of free press, free speech and assembly, the existence of slave labor camps, the constant observation of all citizens by secret police, the long periods of service in the military, the poverty of collective farming, the risk of being liquidated if discovered associating with deviationists, and finally, the tolerance of an economic order which promises little more than a life of bare subsistence for generations to come.
More than forty years have come and gone since Communist leaders first seized a nation to demonstrate
to a curious world what marvelous wonders might be wrought. From that one nation they have expanded their grip until one-third of the human race now bows to their iron-clad dictates. Those who have escaped their tyranny bear witness that Marxist Man has produced a political monstrosity containing the collected relics of practically every form of human degradation and torture invented by the mind of man since the dawn of history.
While pretending to liberate mankind from the alleged oppression of capitalism Marxist Man has defied the warm, white light of Twentieth Century civilization to introduce slavery on a scale unprecedented in the history of the race. While claiming to foster the "rights of the common man" the Marxist has butchered his fellow citizens from Kulaks to aristocrats in numbers that baffle rational comprehension. And while describing himself as the epitome of the best in nature -- the creature of science, the supreme intelligence of the universe -- Homo-Marxian has exploited his cunning to compound crimes which scarcely would be duplicated by the most predatory tribes of pre-historic times.
It is for this reason that discerning men have described Communism as reversing and negating history. It has turned man against himself. Instead of solving the many complex problems of modern life, Marxism's negative approach has simply resurrected primitive problems which past generations of struggling humanity had already succeeding in solving.
To more fully appreciate precisely what has been happening we shall now examine the circumstances which led to the launching of the first Communist controlled nation in the history of the world.
____________________
1. See Shirokov-Mosley, A Textbook of Marxism, p. 22.
2. Marx-Engels, Communist Manifesto, p. 29.
3. Karl Marx, quoted by J.E. LeRossignol in From Marx to Stalin, p. 321.
4. Karl Marx, Poverty of Philosophy, pp. 152-153.
5. Marx-Engels, Communist Manifesto, p. 15.
6. Isaiah 3:14-15.
7. James 5:1-6.
8. Matthew 19:24.
9. Quoted in Congressional Record, Vol. 77, pp. 1539-1540.
10. Quoted by Gabriel M. Roschini in his article, "Contradictions Concerning the Status of Women in Soviet Russia," which appears in The Philosophy of Communism, by Giorgio La Pira and others, Fordham University Press, New York, 1952, pp. 97-98.
11. Outchit Gazeta, October 10, 1929. Quoted by Charles J. McFadden in The Philosophy of Communism, pp. 292-293 and note.
12. J.E. LeRossignol, From Marx To Stalin, pp. 152-153.
13. Ralph E. Blodgett, Comparative Economic Systems, p, 735.
14. Marx-Engels, Communist Manifesto, p. 58.
15. Marx is quoted by M. D'Arcy in Christian Morals, p. 172.
16. Related by Thomas J. Shelly, instructor in Economics and History, Yonkers High School, Yonkers, New York
Chapter Five
The Rise of the Revolutionary Movement in Russia
The events described in this chapter are intimate facts in the minds of all well-informed Marxists. Communists often base their arguments on their interpretation of these events and therefore the student should find this historical background helpful.
This chapter also includes the biographies of the principal Communist leaders -- Nikolai (V.I.) Lenin, Leon Trotsky and Joseph Stalin.
A review of the following questions will indicate some of the answers which this chapter is designed to provide.
Who launched Marxism in Russia in 1868? Why did Marx consider this man his "enemy"? After the assassination of Alexander II what did Marx say about the possibility of a Communist revolution in Russia?
What kind of environment produced Nikolai Lenin? Why was his brother hanged?
Who organized the Bolsheviks? What does the name mean? What did they call their enemies? Was this an accurate designation or a matter of strategy?
What was the background of Leon Trotsky? How did he get this name? How did he escape from Siberia? Why did he oppose Lenin in 1903?
Was the Russian Revolution of 1905 led by a few radicals or was it a general uprising of the whole people? Why did Lenin and the Bolsheviks oppose the "October Manifesto" which promised the people representative government?
From what kind of home did Joseph Stalin come? Why was he expelled from the seminary where he was being trained as a priest? What did the criminal activities of Joseph Stalin during 1907 reveal about his personality? How extensive were Stalin's activities as a union organizer, propagandist and revolutionary leader during this period? What was his relationship to Lenin?
What brought Russia to the brink of another general uprising during the First World War? What was the Tsar's attitude during this crisis?
Marxism Comes to Russia
In 1885 a U.S. citizen, Andrew D. White, returned from a tour of duty as attache in the American Embassy at St. Petersburg and described the Russian situation as follows: "The whole governmental system is the most atrociously barbarous in the world. There is on earth no parallel example of a polite society so degraded, a people so crushed, an official system so unscrupulous."1
When White made this statement, the population of Russia was slightly over 70,000,000. Of these, 46,000,000 were in virtual captivity as serfs.
It will be recalled that Marx and Engels had been aroused to wrathful vehemence when they saw conditions among the industrial workers of England, but the status of life among the English was far above that of the peasants in Russia. The Russian serfs were not only starved, exploited and pauperized, but they were subjected to an iron-clad system of feudal political suppression. Always there was the plague of the secret police, the threat of arrest and sentencing to forced labor camps in Siberia and the cruel indecencies imposed upon them by the Tsar's everpresent military. A Russian serf seemed to enjoy no sacred immunities whatever, neither in his person, his possessions, his children, nor, sometimes, his wife. All were subject to the petty whims of grasping officials in the Tsar's corrupt bureaucracy.
Between 1861 and 1866, Tsar Alexander II sincerely attempted to do away with the institution of serfdom by approving several acts of emancipation. However, for all practical purposes, the impoverished lives of the peasants continued to be insecure, harsh and austere. Circumstances leading to a revolution were in the making.
Marxism came to Russia in 1868 when Bakunin's translation of Capital escaped the Tsar's censors and passed among liberals and radicals like a choice morsel of spiritual meat. For Russia it meant the kindling of the bright red flame in the original Communist Manifesto: "Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains.... Working men of all countries, unite!"
Russian revolutionary movements soon began to take shape and by 1880 Marxism could be described as definitely taking hold. The first significant violence came in 1881 when Tsar Alexander II fell dying beneath the shattering impact of a bomb which was hurled into the royal carriage by Ignatius Grinevitsky, a member of a revolutionary group called "The People's Will."
The successful murder of the Tsar led many Marxists to feel that the hour for unrestricted revolution might be very near. Over in London, the aging Marx began receiving inquiries from his Russian disciples. They wanted to know whether or not it might be possible to have a revolution in Russia even though the Russian economy had never passed through the capitalistic development which Marx had always said was a prerequisite. Marx studied the problem diligently. Finally, he gave it as his opinion that Russia had "the rarest and most suitable opportunity ever offered to any country to avoid (skip) the phase of capitalistic development." In other words, Marx was suggesting the possibility of an early revolution in Russia.
This was a complete theoretical switch for Marx. He was also admitting the error of one of his earlier prophecies; namely, that the revolution would come first among highly developed capitalistic nations such as Germany and England. Among his friends he declared: "It is an irony of fate that the Russians, whom I have fought for twenty-five years, and not only in German (publications), but i
n French and English, have always been my patrons."
It was indeed ironical that the Russian Marxists had remained loyal to Marx and his theories in spite of the verbal and editorial abuse he had heaped upon them. This was never truer than in the case of Bakunin, the first Russian Marxist, who promoted the theories of Marx and Engels with such zeal, that they both feared he might take over the First International. They, therefore, marked him for political liquidation.
Even at the end, however, Bakunin reaffirmed his faith in Marxism, and after referring to the "furious hatred" of Marx toward himself, he concluded: "This has given me an intense loathing of public life. I have bad enough of it, and after devoting all my days to the struggle, I am weary.... Let other and younger persons put their hands to the work. For my own part, I no longer feel strong enough.... I therefore, withdraw from the arena, and ask only one thing of my dear contemporaries -- oblivion."