The Allure of Marxism (and Its Collectivist Offspring)

We are all born with this insatiable urge to worship.  It most often manifests itself as an urge to belong:  whether to God or to a group, we all feel a longing to belong.  We also feel a need to surrender our will to that of a higher authority: to feel safe in knowing we do not need to decide, to just do what we’re told.  All of this explained in Nature’s Law as well as Scripture, but many of us rebel and seek to substitute ourselves for God.   Aside from the fact that this is the essence of original sin, it is also the foundation for the allure of many man-made ideas of how society should be organized and controlled.  It is especially so when we’re dealing with Marxism and its many forms of collectivist offspring.  If you understand that we are all made to worship our Creator, and that many of us – in our arrogance and pride – chose instead to rebel, then you will understand how Marxism is nothing more than a substitution for the structure and control of the Church over the masses.

This is actually not that difficult to understand.  You do need to have some knowledge of the world in which Marx lived: how it was shaking itself free from dictatorships where the State and Church were intertwined and God was never really at the center of either’s concern.  You also need to understand that the public sentiment of “enlightenment;” that reason could and would eventually explain everything about our world.  For too many, this gave rise to a belief in materialism, where everything that could be measured was embraced and everything that could not be measured or explained in terms of matter was dismissed as “superstition.”  This was the world in which Marx dreamed up his utopian designs for how society should be organized and, since Marx believed his “enlightenment” did away with the “superstitious need to worship,” he replaced religion with the State.

But here is where things undergo a bit of a change.  Up to this point, power had traditionally lain in the hands of the powerful and ruthless.  The Greek’s notion of the “philosopher kings” had never taken hold – until now.  Now, the self-appointed “enlightened” believed that their “superior” understanding of science, matter and reason made them the proper heir to the reins of power.  This is the appeal in Marxism: it allows the intellectual a path to the seat of power.  Now, instead of being the village nerd and being forced to accept equality with every other member of society, the self-described intellectual could claim he was superior and that his superior understanding made him the proper person to rule society.  Obviously, Marxism wasn’t the only new paradigm that appealed to this new elite, but because Marx stressed “science and reason” as the foundation for his ideas, Marxism held the greatest appeal for these new-found “intelligentsia.”  But in reality, all Marx was doing was looking for a way to replace the leaders of the old State and Church with himself.

So it is that, under Marxism, the leader of the Revolution took the place of the Pope; and his captains, the place of the Cardinals; and his lieutenants, the place of the bishops.  Further down the hierarchical line, the bureaucrats became the new priests and the technocrats became the new scribes.  And thus, the nerds use their claims of science and reason against the public’s embrace of the sentiment of “advancement” under these banners to establish a new form of power and oust the leaders of old: the kings and Church. It was a poisonous promise against which the greed of the people could offer no defense.  Here is a group of supposedly enlightened men telling the masses that they could use “science” to make everyone as rich as a king or leader of the Church, the source of wealth in that time.  How many people who were used to starving would reject such a promise? But, in the end, nothing changed: man is still subservient to tyrants.  The only change is that Marx and his followers took the place of the king and Church, and instead of worshiping God, the State now demanded that it be worshiped instead.  And what could possibly be more alluring to the arrogance and pride of the narcissistic intellectual than using his “command of reason” to exalt himself to the position of god?

41 thoughts on “The Allure of Marxism (and Its Collectivist Offspring)

  1. But in reality, all Marx was doing was looking for a way to replace the leaders of the old State and Church with himself.

    How? By telling people to establish collective power, abolish private property.

    many of us rebel and seek to substitute ourselves for God
    This applies more to individualist, who believe their paradigm of the world is god’s paradigm. The individualist rebels against the collective wishes of society, and justifies his rebellion by quoting god and divine natural laws.

    It is obvious the individualist is the one who has issues with accepting authority and having too big an ego.

  2. Sorry, I don’t know to to start and stop bolding and italics.

    Joe Says
    “But in reality, all Marx was doing was looking for a way to replace the leaders of the old State and Church with himself.”

    How? By telling people to establish COLLECTIVE power, abolish PRIVATE property.

    Joe Says
    “many of us rebel and seek to substitute ourselves for God”

    This applies more to individualist, who believe their paradigm of the world is god’s paradigm. The individualist rebels against the collective wishes of society, and justifies his rebellion by quoting god and divine natural laws.

    It is obvious the individualist is the one who has issues with accepting authority and having too big an ego.

    • Karl,

      If the collective exists, get it on the phone for us. We’ll wait.

      But if you cannot get it on the phone for us, then you have just undermined everything you just said because you are basing your argument on a fiction — something that does not exist.
      ;-)

      • If a god exists, get one on the phone for us. We’ll wait.

        If the collective does not exist who over threw the Tsars, who overthrew the Koumintang and drove the Japanese out of China. Who defeated the americans in Vietnam. Collectives can take many shapes: economics classes, nations, tribes, families.

        About private property, I would not mind working in a shirt factory with you and producing clothes to meet our needs. About the shirt i’m wearing, I guess in the ideal world, the local council would have given it to me at the beginning of the year and permitted me to use it for a year, at the end of which I have to turn it in for recycling, and be given a new shirt.

        • Karl,

          I CAN get God on the line for you — but you will not listen to Him.

          And those wars were fought by MEN and WOMEN — INDIVIDUALS! If they had been fought by the collective, there would have been only 1 gun used against millions and the collective would have lost. You see, you do not understand that the collective is a fiction: it does not exist ANYWHERE in nature — NOWHERE!

          You also missed my point about property, so I’ll put it to you this way. Get tot he nearest organ donor location and surrender the organs you’ve been using. “Needier” parts of the collective need them more than the part that has them now. Or do you object to having your organs “redistributed” to other parts of the collective while you are still using them, because you CAN’T object, you know — not if you believe in the collective.

        • Have you ever worked in a shirt factory? I have, made $4.25 an hour, it was 115 degrees, and I definitely was not there so my neighbor could have a shirt. You wouldn’t mind being PERMITTED a shirt on loan for a year as your only shirt? What about the forced labor sentences we will be “permitted” to have? The ones that have occurred (alongside mass graves oddly enough) in EVERY communist iteration in history.
          Read something printed on paper sometime, and not just electrical garbage from HuffPo….

            • LOL, Karl, you do realize that the Capitalist is part of the collective, right? You see, without him, there is no “worker’s Party.” So, as long as the Capitalist is part of the collective, then why are you complaining about “distribution?” It doesn’t matter who has what: if we’re all part of the same collective, then the collective owns everything. The fact that you are insisting on some sort of “equal distribution” proves that you do NOT believe in the collective, that you ARE making a moral claim and that it IS based on personal (i.e. INDIVIDUAL) G-R-E-E-D :-)

              • A classless society is what socialist aim for, the end of class domination of on class by another, there won’t be any bourgeoisie, only worker’s.

                The bourgeoisie are a minority working against the majority working class interest. They are an anti-collective minority.

            • Karl, I can collect my wages from the capitalist shirt factory and go work somewhere else — or start my own shirt factory. Neither of those is an option the worker’s shirt factory. There, I fulfill my assigned role or I cease to breath. That has been the history of worker paradise after worker paradise.

  3. There is nothing attractive about communism to anyone who has ever gone without, because a person who has gone without is thankful for what he has and bears not the guilt of the indolent nay sayers spoiled with surplus.

        • saneromeo,

          Oh, the Marxists want to be rich, too. The difference between you and I and the Marxist is we are willing to let others earn as much as they want to preserve our chances of joining their ranks, while the Marxist wants to be called moral and compassionate for demanding that the property of others be given to them because THEY somehow “earned” it by sitting around and bleating in greed-filled indignation.

          • Eisenhower warned us of the coming academic elite who would try to regulate us out of freedom in the same speech he decried the military industrial complex in. He saw it even back then…

          • Marxist just want to own the means of production and make everyone a worker, except for the retired and disabled. Marxist see no logic in private individuals owning the labor of the working class.

            • Karl,

              How does one own labor? You are using as many different ways to say “I want YOUR stuff, but I do not want to work/sacrifice for it” as you can, but the end result keeps coming back to “You want my stuff, you just don’t want to have to work/sacrifice for it.”

              • This says it ALL…….Communists / Socialists will let you know their Plans for us eventually..

                ” Marxist just want to own the means of production and make everyone a worker ”
                .
                They want to OWN everything….and enforce their will by MAKING EVERYONE a worker or whatever they decide.

                This is Marxism / Progressivism in a nutshell.

            • Karl, I own my own labor. I rent it to my boss. If he doesn’t pay me what I want, I go find another boss. That’s called FREEDOM. I’ve got three friends who have lived in communist countries — the USSR, the Czech Republic (only it was Czechoslovakia then) and Cuba. All three tell me that in the worker paradise they came from, you did what you were told or you quit being. There was no choice in what sort of work you performed or who you performed it for or how much you got paid to do it. You did what you were told or you quit being.

              Is that really how you would prefer to live?

              • should we not own our labors. many capitalist apoligist say that the workers sell their labor to the capitalist, and are still the owners of the fruits of their labor. what a lie, if i sell my truck am i still the owner of the truck, even though someone else owns it, utilizies it and makes profit from it? Of course not, it is clear that the buyer of the truck is the new owner of the truck. why does the same logic not apply to hours of labor.

                • Karl,

                  Fine, own your labor. Just own it WITHOUT working for the Capitalist — then tell us how far that goes to feed your family.

                  What you are doing is showing us that there is no end to the length you will go to justify and moralize your GREED AND ENVY! Labor is NOT property, Karl. If it were, then you could eat it.

                  • Karl,

                    if that worked, you would already be doing it. But it doesn’t work — BECAUSE YOU LACK THE ABILITY TO RUN THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION!!!

                    You also lack the awareness to understand that you lack the ability to do the Capitalist’s job. You even lack the honesty to admit that the Capitalist works as well. All you have in abundance is material greed and envy.

                • the only reason we don’t live in a socialist society is because the worker’s aren’t clas conscious yet. The bourgeoisie are wholly unnecesary.

                • Karl, you’re not getting this!

                  My labor is NEVER owned by my boss. He merely rents it for the price of my wages. If I can find someone else willing to use my labor at a higher price, I am free to go there. I always maintain ownership of my labor.

                  To use your analogy — you’re describing a slavery situation, where by a property is sold and the property has nothing to say about it. I’m describing a liberty situation. I still own the truck, but I rent it to someone willing to pay me for the use.

                  If I choose not to go back to work after my lunch hour, my time becomes my own. I may lose my job for not going back, but my boss cannot call the police and order them to bring me back and chain me to my desk. I own my labor. My boss gets to use my labor so long as he pays me for it.

                  It’s really a very simple concept. You don’t take ownership of a rental car. You rent it for a period of time and give the owner money for that use. Same concept.

  4. When has Collectivism/socialism/Communism, or any variant there of that karl loves so much….
    Not ended in famine/torture/death for a significant part of the population it controls?
    Anyone who would wish for Collectivism/socialism/Communism, would statisticaly speaking, be better off wishing for ebola!

  5. my boss cannot call the police and order them to bring me back and chain me to my desk.

    In karl’s world, we would.

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s