The Naked Communist

by W. Cleon Skousen

  Marx and Engels were also convinced that the revolution must be international in scope. They knew that all countries would not be ready for the revolution at the same time, but all Marxist writers have emphasized the "impossibility of the complete and final victory of socialism in a single country without the victory of the revolution in other countries."20

  The Dictatorship of the Proletariat

  Since they now believed a revolution was inevitable, the next question Marx and Engels asked was this: Should they wait for it to come in the normal course of events or should they take steps to promote the revolution and speed up the evolution of society toward Communism? Marx and Engels decided that it had become their manifest duty to see that the revolution was vigorously promoted. Why prolong the suffering? The old society was doomed. In the light of the principles discovered by Marx and Engels perhaps the race could be saved a dozen generations of exploitation and injustice simply by compressing this entire phase of social evolution into a single generation of violent readjustment.

  They felt it could be done in three steps: First, by wiping out the old order. "There is but one way of simplifying, shortening, concentrating the death agony of the old society as well as the bloody labor of the new world's birth -- Revolutionary Terror."21 Second, the representatives of the working class must then set up a Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Joseph Stalin described the things which must be accomplished during this period of the dictatorship:

  1. Completely suppress the old capitalist class.

  2. Create a mighty army of "defense" to be used "for the consolidation of the ties with the proletarians of other lands, and for the development and the victory of the revolution in all countries."

  3. Consolidate the unity of the masses in support of the Dictatorship.

  4. Establish universal socialism by eliminating private property and preparing all mankind for the ultimate adoption of full Communism.22

  Third, the final step is the transition from socialism to full Communism. Socialism is characterized by state owner ship of land and all means of production. Marx and Engels believed that after awhile when class consciousness has disappeared and there is no further resistance to be overcome, the state will gradually wither away and then property will automatically belong to all mankind "in common." Later Lenin explained how the Dictatorship of the Proletariat would pave the way for this final phase. He said the dictatorship would be "an organization for the systematic use of violence by one class against the other, by one part of the population against another.... But, striving for Socialism, we are convinced that it will develop further into Communism, and, side by side with this, there will vanish all need for force, for the subjection of one man to another, of one section of society to another, since people will grow accustomed to observing the elementary conditions of social existence without force and without subjection."23

  Even in the latter stages of Socialism, Lenin visualized a world without courts, lawyers, judges, rulers, elected representatives or even policemen. All these would be swept down into the limbo of forgotten and useless appendages which characterized the old order of decadent capitalism. Lenin said the spontaneous homogeneity of the socialized masses would make all the machinery of the old order superfluous. He felt that the new society would even change human nature until resistance to the communal society would become "a rare exception and will probably be accompanied by such swift and severe punishment (for the armed workers are men of practical life, not sentimental intellectuals, and they will scarcely allow anyone to trifle with them), and very soon the necessity of observing the simple, fundamental rules of everyday social life in common will have become a habit. The door will then be open for the transition from the first phase of communism to the higher phase (full Communism)."24

  The Classless, Stateless Society Under Full Communism

  All Marxists fervently hope that the new society will produce the changes in human nature which are necessary before full Communism can become a reality. Individuals must forget that there was ever a time when income could be secured from the mere ownership of property or from productive labor. In other words, wages will be abolished. They must forget that some people once received very large incomes while others received small ones. They must lose any hope of a graduated pay-scale for differences in productivity or service. They must forget all about differences in skill, training, and mental or physical abilities. They must come around to the notion that, if man does the best he can in the best type of work for which he is fitted, he is just as good and just as deserving of income as any other man regardless of differences in productivity and output.

  This is the Communist promise that, "Each will produce according to his ability and each will receive according to his need." He must give up his old profit-motive incentive and become socially minded so that he will work as hard as he can for the benefit of society as a whole and at the same time be content to receive, as a reward for his work, an amount of income based on his needs in consumption.

  Marx and Engels presumed that under such a system the output of production would be so tremendous that they could dispense with markets, money and prices. Commodities would be stockpiled at various central places, and all individuals who worked would be entitled to help themselves on the basis of their needs. Marx and Engels felt there would be no particular incentive to take more than was needed at any one time because, due to the superabundance of commodities, the worker could replenish his desires at will. Services were likewise to be dispensed at convenient places and individuals could call for these services as they felt they were needed.

  Under these pleasant circumstances, the Marxist writers explain, the government machinery of the State will no longer be necessary:

  "Only Communism renders the state absolutely unnecessary, for there is no one to be suppressed -- 'no one' in the sense of a class, in the sense of a systematic struggle with a definite section of the population. We are not Utopians (believing that society can function on a sublime level of perfection), and we do not in the least deny the possibility and inevitability of excesses on the part of individual persons, nor the need to suppress such excesses. But, in the first place, no special machinery, no special apparatus of repression is needed for this: this will be done by the armed people itself, as simply and as readily as any crowd of civilized people, even in modern society, parts a pair of combatants or does not allow a woman to be outraged. And, secondly, we know that the fundamental social cause of excesses ... is the exploitation of the masses, their want and their poverty. With the removal of this chief cause, excesses will inevitably begin to 'wither away.' We do not know how quickly and in what succession, but we know that they will wither away. With their withering away, the state will also wither away."25

  It is significant that Communist theory treats the proletariat as though it were a unique branch of the human race. The proletariat is assumed to be a special breed which would almost automatically blossom into pleasant, efficient social-economic living if it could just be liberated from oppressive government. The government is presumed to be nothing more than the tool of an oppressive class of capitalists and consequently, if the capitalist class were destroyed, the need for any kind of government would be obliterated. The Communist leaders have always felt confident that when the proletariat takes over it will not want to oppress anyone and therefore the need for government will be nonexistent.

  It is also worthy of note that Lenin wanted the proletariat to be an "armed people." This prospect did not frighten Lenin at all. He had unmitigated confidence that the members of the proletariat would never abuse their power as the capitalists had done. Furthermore, Lenin assumed that the proletariat had the instinctive capacity to recognize justice on sight. Not only would they use their weapons to put down any nonsocial acts in the community by spontaneous "mass action," but Lenin believed they would genuinely and heroically suppress any selfish, nonsocial tendencies in themselves. They would have acquired the "habit" of living in a commu
nal social order and would have grown "accustomed to observing the elementary conditions of social existence without force and without subjection."

  Lenin then says that with the machinery of government gone and with the Communist pattern of a classless, stateless society established throughout the world, finally "it becomes possible to speak of freedom!"26

  ____________________

  1. Marx-Engels, Communist Manifesto, p. 39.

  2. Marx-Engels, Communist Manifesto, p. 35.

  3. Karl Marx, Poverty of Philosophy, p. 152.

  4. N. Berdyaev, Vital Realities, p. 175.

  5. Karl Marx, Contribution to Critique of Political Economy, p. 11.

  6. Friedrich Engels, Socialism -- Utopian and Scientific, p. 54.

  7. Marx-Engels, Communist Manifesto, p. 12.

  8. See Friedrich Engels, The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State.

  9. Friedrich Engels, The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, p. 206.

  10. Selected Essays of Marx, p. 16.

  11. Program of the Communist International, International Publishers, New York, 1936, p. 54.

  12. E. Yaroslavsky, Religion in the USSR, p. 59.

  13. Joseph Stalin, Leninism, Vol. 1, p. 387.

  14. V.I. Lenin, Religion, pp. 47-48.

  15. V.I. Lenin, Religion, p. 47.

  16. Friedrich Engels, quoted in the Handbook of Marxism, p. 249.

  17. William Z. Foster, Syndicalism, p. 9.

  18. Quoted from Problems of Leninism, by Joseph Stalin, pp. 16-17.

  19. Karl Marx, The Civil War In France, p. 80.

  20. Program of the Communist International, pp. 34-35.

  21. Quoted from the Neue Rheinische Zeitung, by J.E. LeRossignol in From Marx To Stalin, p. 231.

  22. Joseph Stalin, Problems of Leninism, pp. 26-27.

  23. V.I. Lenin, Imperialism: The State and Revolution, p. 187.

  24. V.I. Lenin, Imperialism: The State and Revolution, p. 759.

  25. E. Burns, Handbook of Marxism, p. 747.

  26. E. Burns, Handbook of Marxism, p. 745.

  Chapter Four

  A Brief Critique of the Communist Approach to World Problems

  The modern student of history and economics will have little difficulty discovering for himself where Communist theory departs from the most elementary aspects of reality.

  Disciples of Marx look upon the theories of Communism as the most penetrating analysis of history ever made by man, but many scholars look upon the whole Communist framework as more or less the product of the times in which Marx and Engels lived. The writings of these men clearly reflect a studied attempt to reconcile the five great influences of their generation, which they tried to bring together in one single pattern of thought. The influences which left their mark on the minds of Marx and Engels were:

  First, the violent economic upheaval of their day. This is believed to have made Marx and Engels over-sensitive to the place of economics in history.

  Second, the widespread popularity of the German philosopher, Georg Wilhelm Hegel. His theory of "Dialectics" was adopted by Marx and Engels with slight modification to explain all phenomena of nature, the class struggle and the inevitable triumph of a future proletariat society.

  Third, the anti-religious cynicism of Nineteenth Century Materialism. This led them to try to explain everything in existence in terms of one single factor -- matter. They denied intelligent design in the universe, the existence of God, the divinity of religion and the moral precepts of Judaic-Christian teachings.

  Fourth, the social and economic ideals of Utopian Communism. Marx and Engels decided they wanted a communal society, but they felt it had to be a controlled society; they therefore abandoned the brotherhood principle of the Utopians and declared that Communism could only be initiated under a powerful dictatorship.

  Fifth, the revolutionary spirit of the Anarchists. Marx and Engels promised two things which appealed to the Anarchists -- the use of violent revolution to overthrow existing powers, and eventually the creation of a classless, stateless society.

  It is because of these five important influences that the student of Communism will find it to be a vast conglomerate, designed; it would seem, to be all things to all people.

  Communism as a By-Product of the Industrial Revolution

  Marx and Engels were born in the midst of the Industrial Revolution. Before this revolution four out of every five citizens were farmers, but by the time Marx and Engels were ready for college the mass migration of farmers to the industrial centers was reaching the proportions of a flood tide. The resulting concentration of the population created slum-ridden cities which, in turn, contributed to disease, violence and vice. It was a chain-reaction which grew out of the amazing new machine-age. Pioneers of the Industrial Revolution looked upon machines as the pounding, pumping, inanimate monsters that would eventually liberate mankind from the slavery of "bare-subsistence" economics, but the negative critics saw in them only the problems they created -- dislocation of the population, maladjustment for the individual, the family and the community, and finally, the inhuman treatment of the men, women and children who served industry.

  Thus, Marx and Engels, like many others, felt a violent reaction to the times in which they lived. Because it was a period of economic upheaval, perhaps it is understandable that they should have reached the conclusion that economic forces constitute the cruel and ruthless iron hand which has guided the course of all human history. It is at this point that we begin our critique of Communist theory.

  The Communist Interpretation of History

  Fallacy 1 -- The first fallacy of Communism is its attempt to over-simplify history. Marx and Engels attempted to change history from a fluid stream, fed by human activities from millions of tributaries, into a fixed, undeviating, pre-determined course of progress which could be charted in the past and predicted for the future on the basis of a single, simple criterion -- economics. Obviously economics have played a vital and powerful role in human history but so have climate, topography, access to oceans and inland waterways, mechanical inventions, scientific discoveries, national and racial affinities, filial affection, religion, desire for explanatory adventure, sentiments of loyalty, patriotism and a multitude of other factors.

  A number of modern Communists have admitted that history is molded by all of these different influences, but they have insisted that Marx and Engels intended to include all of them in their Economic Determinism; because all of these things directly or indirectly affect the economic life of humanity. However, the writings of Marx and Engels fail to reflect any such interpretation. Even if they did, the modern Marxist would still be in difficulty because if Economic Determinism is intended to include every influence in life then the Communist formula for interpreting history would be: "Everything determines everything." As a basis for interpreting history this would be absurd.

  Another group of modern Communists has tried to extricate Marx and Engels from the narrow confines of Economic Determinism by suggesting that economic circumstances do not absolutely determine the course of human history but merely condition men to follow after a particular trend in social development.1 But this, of course, while coming closer to the truth, presumes a variable element of free will in the making of history which Marx and Engels emphatically denied. In fact, Economic Determinism in the absolute, fixed and undeviating sense is the very foundation for the prediction of Marx and Engels that society must follow an inevitable course of development from capitalism to socialism and from socialism to Communism. This is what they meant when they said of capitalism: "Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable."2

  Furthermore, when any modern Marxist attempts to argue that the course of human progress is not fixed and inevitable he destroys the entire justification for the Communist Revolution -- that violent upheaval which Marx said was the "one way of simplifying, shortening, concentrating the death agony of the old society."3 There is no e
xcuse for the use of lethal violence to concentrate and simplify the death of the old society unless the death of that society is, in fact, inevitable. That was the heart of Marx's argument. His excuse for revolution falters if it is admitted that the death of the old society is merely one of several possibilities and not necessarily inevitable. Likewise, his excuse is exploded if it is shown that the present society is not dying at all but is actually more robust than ever before and seems to be contributing more to the welfare of mankind with each passing generation.