DB5C

9	THE MARXIST ANALYSIS OF HISTORY (1870s–PRESENT)
	“The purpose of my writing … is to convert people from theology to anthropology, from love of god(s) to love of their fellow human beings, from being candidates for life after death to being students of this life; to free them from religious and political servitude to heavenly or earthly monarchies and aristocracies; to make them into self-confident citizens of the Earth.”
	Ludwig Feuerbach1

It is quite obvious that, of all of the expressions of process philosophy to date, the Marxist expression has had the greatest global impact. This is certainly the case in terms of international politics, with which the twentieth and twenty-first centuries have largely been preoccupied. Indeed, it is not possible to understand what transpired during the twentieth century or what is taking place today without an understanding of the Marxist analysis of history, the Marxist-Leninist-Communist faith and vision (1870s-present), and the pervasive influence of Marxism in the intellectual community of the non-communist West and world. Please note that Karl Marx lived from 1818 to 1883 and Vladimir Lenin some fifty years later, from 1870 to 1924.

The following analysis of Marxism owes much to the life and work of the brilliant Australian, Dr. Fred Schwarz. See his excellent, brief volume, You Can Trust the Communists to Be Communists. 2

KARL MARX (1818-1883): HIS PRESUPPOSITIONS AND ANALYSIS OF HISTORY

Karl Marx lived and worked from 1818 to 1883. Marx subscribed to what might be called the “triune doctrines” of 1) atheism, 2) materialism, and 3) economic determinism.

In the first place, Marx, agreeing with most contemporary intellectuals, dispensed with the idea of God and, accordingly, was forced to turn elsewhere to explain the origin and nature of man. Consequently, he adopted materialism, and relative to this second basic doctrine he was equally emphatic: Man is an evolutionary animal, the highest of the animals, and yet an animal and no more; man is, as it were, matter in motion. Finally, and yet more significantly, Marx posited an economic determinism: the view that man is a victim and product of the economic component of his material constituency.

Having said this, however, we have said nothing, for the theoretical essence of Marxism is dialectical materialism, which Marx derived by taking the dialectic from the German philosopher, Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831), and fusing it with the materialism of the German philosopher, Ludwig Feuerbach (1804-1872). To understand Marxism and, even more significantly, to understand the third overpowering revolution in thought forms which has produced the modern world (see box below), we must first understand dialectical materialism.

The Three Revolutions of the Modern West and World

Theocentrism to Anthropocentrism

Absolute to Process Philosophy

Antithetical to Synthetic Mentality

To understand dialectical materialism, we must understand its first vital component: Hegelian dialecticism. This will prove well worth our effort, as it was Hegelian dialecticism which was productive of or, as I have often said, destructive of, the third of the revolutions in thought form. Therefore, it is not possible to understand the modern West and world without understanding the nature of Hegelian dialecticism.

HEGELIAN DIALECTICISM: ADVENT OF THE SYNTHETIC THOUGHT FORM

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich (G.W.F.) Hegel3 (1770-1831) was a very complex individual. He is reputed to have said, “Only one man has understood me, and even he has not.”4 (Marx, however, came along, as we shall see, and said that he understood Hegel whereas Hegel had not understood himself!)

Hegel was simultaneously a philosopher and a historian and, as such, he was interested in the history of philosophy and the philosophy of history. Most people who have studied the history of philosophy have been rather bored. I personally enjoy the study of philosophy, but I can understand why most people do not, because the history of philosophy proceeds something as follows: a given individual will appear and suggest that the answers to the basic questions are to be found within a particular framework or circle; it is not long, however, before another individual or group of individuals will articulate flaws and suggest an alternative framework or circle; in time, yet another individual or group of individuals suggests yet another framework; and on we go ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

Hegel, recognizing this and attempting to solve the dilemma, suggested that the reason we have not “gotten it all together” and, indeed, are not “getting it all together” is that we have not been thinking correctly. Heretofore, we have been thinking Biblically, in so many words (though, of course, Hegel did not say that directly); instead, we need to learn to think historically. Heretofore, we have been thinking linearly, that is, in terms of thesis vs. antithesis. Thus, if “A” is true, “non-A” is false, so it is either “A” or “non-A.” Hence, thinking linearly, we have been thinking absolutistically, “A” vs. “non-A,” antithetically. Biblical or linear thinking is crudely illustrated in the following diagram:

Hegel argued that, if we are to understand existence and the process of history, we must learn to think historically. (Hegel, by the way, is an excellent example of a person who has succumbed to historicism, one who absolutizes history). Therefore, to understand the process of history, Hegel suggested, we need to learn to shift in our thought forms. Instead of thinking linearly, absolutistically, and antithetically, we should think triangularly, relativistically, and synthetically. It is not thesis vs. antithesis; it is not “A” vs. “non-A;” it is not either “A” or “non-A.” It is both “A” and “non-A.”

Thus, it is thesis, antithesis, synthesis. “A” is true in one sense, “non-A” is true in another sense, so the two are fused into a synthesis which enables one to enjoy the best of both. In effect, it is imagined—falsely and, indeed, tragically from the Biblical perspective—that one can “have one’s cake and eat it, too,” as the saying goes.

Hegel’s suggestion effected a revolution in thought form because, prior to Hegel, most intellectuals tended to think linearly, absolutistically, antithetically. That is to say, they thought in terms of truth versus error, good versus evil, righteousness versus unrighteousness, light versus darkness. Subsequent to Hegel, and influenced thereby, intellectuals came increasingly to think in varying shades of gray, in terms of a process of ongoing relativity. They began to think triangularly, relativistically, synthetically.

This revolution in thought form swept through the intellectual community, but did not work its way into the general culture in Europe until the inter-war years between 1919 and 1939, and did not come to influence the United States with full force until after World War II (1939-1945). It became particularly apparent during the 1960s. At that time we were told that Americans were suddenly suffering from a generation gap, because children could no longer communicate with parents and parents could not communicate with children. We were not, however, suffering from a generation gap. We were experiencing and witnessing a revolution in thought form. Parents in the United States born prior to World War II were born into a time in which there was at least a hangover of the antithetical mentality, but children born to parents in the United States subsequent to World War II were born into an era increasingly possessed of a synthetic mentality.

To illustrate the profundity of this shift, this, indeed, revolution in thought form, one could, as an example, tell a young lady to “be good” and, prior to the revolution in thought form, that conveyed a certain absolute content suggesting that the young lady could do certain things but should refrain from doing certain other things. Subsequent to the revolution in thought form, however, one could, as an example, tell a young lady to “be good,” and that conveyed no absolute content. All that was being suggested was “do what you will.”

The dialectical or synthetic thought form, then, was introduced by Hegel, who attempted to understand all of life beginning with a dialectical philosophy of history.

MARX FUSES THE DIALECTIC WITH A THOROUGH-GOING MATERIALISM

How was it that Marx thought that he understood Hegel whereas Hegel did not understand himself? Hegel was a so-called  idealist  philosopher, believing that the historical dialectical process was driven by “spiritual” forces (to which he referred variously as the World Spirit, or Destiny). Marx, on the other hand, having been liberated from idealism, had become a thorough-going  materialist . Accordingly, Marx believed that, unlike Hegel, he had penetrated to the understanding that the dialectical process is being driven materialistically; he had arrived at materialistic determinism.

How did Marx arrive at a materialistic determinism? He did so by embracing the materialism of Ludwig Feuerbach. As a student of political science at the University of Berlin (1830s), Marx, along with Engels and many other intellectuals, came under the influence of what was known as “left-wing Hegelianism,” which was another name for Feuerbachian Hegelianism. This materialistic view later, a la Marx, resulted in dialectical materialism. (By the way, the University of Berlin was then a global center for the study of political science. Given the shift to the view that the state was sovereign, there was no discipline more significant at that point in time than political science.)

Ludwig Feuerbach (1804-1872), a pupil of Hegel’s, had become an influential German intellectual. In 1841, ten years after Hegel’s death, he published his very influential analysis, The Essence of Christianity, in which he proved to his satisfaction and that of the vast majority of the intellectuals of that day the mythology or non-existence of God and the mythology of Biblical Christianity. Engels later wrote, “We all at once became Feuerbachians.”5

The conclusion that God is mythological left Feuerbach with a vacuum, of course, for how are we to understand the what-is-ness-of-what-is if not on the basis of the existence of the Biblical God? Feuerbach became a thorough-going materialist. Indeed, he finally came to the conclusion that, in effect, man is what he eats. You cannot be much more materialistic than that!

BOTH MARX AND ENGELS FOUND EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANITY WANTING

Before we trace the presuppositions of dialectical materialism and examine their consequences, we must share a very sad story, indeed, a tragic story, which will wrench the heart of any Biblical Christian. Many people do not realize that both Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, his major collaborator, were born and raised in Evangelical Christian homes.

Karl Marx (1818-1883) was born and raised in the city of Trier in the Rhineland of Prussia. Karl’s parents, both descended from lines of rabbinical scholars, had become Evangelical Christians (Lutheran) before he was born.6 The Marx family regularly attended the only Protestant church in Trier, in which Marx was confirmed in 1834. It must be noted, however, that both home and church were significantly influenced by rationalistic elements.

Friedrich Engels (1820-1895), Marx’s supporter, collaborator, and editor, was also raised in a Christian home, and one which was thoroughly Evangelical. He went to the University of Berlin, where he studied political science, as did Marx, and where he also came under the influence of left-wing Hegelianism. Under the influence of rationalism and, in particular, Hegelianism, he began to question sincerely and seriously, not only his Christian faith, but Christianity in general.

During these years, Engels corresponded with two former classmates, brothers, both of whom had become Evangelical pastors. Engels wrote to one on more than one occasion, setting forth that he was beginning to embrace left-wing Hegelianism and pleading with his friend to refute what he was being taught. He was obviously hoping that his pastor friend would be able to convince him that what he was being taught and was coming to believe was wrong. Tragically, however, it appears that the pastor was incapable of rising to the occasion. Not being a Biblical Christian, he would not know how to think Biblically and, therefore, could not understand what was taking place within the intellectual community.

How many people like Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels have we lost in Evangelical Christendom because we have not gone all the way with God, finally becoming Biblical Christians and mastering Biblical Christian thinking, learning to think beginning and ending with God? Indeed, it has been a lamented reality for years in the United States among Evangelical Christians that only a small percentage of youth born into Evangelical Christian families remain Christian into their early twenties.

THREE PRESUPPOSITIONS OF DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM

Marx, then, was thoroughly converted to non-theism at the University of Berlin and embraced left-wing Hegelianism, having come under the influence of Ludwig Feuerbach, who was as thoroughgoing a materialist as one can imagine. Attempting to fashion a worldview consistent with non-theism, Marx took the dialectic from Hegel (one could say that he stole it), fused it with the materialism of Feuerbach, and derived from this his presupposed dialectical materialism.

Inherent in dialectical materialism are three presuppositions, each of which will be examined in turn.

1. Progess is inherent in change

The first presupposition is that progress is inherent within change. All change is progressive. That is, there is no change that occurs that does not constitute progress. This explains why, of course, a person caught up in this mentality always favors change. How many discussions have we had with people who assume for no reason that change will be beneficial? Later we will examine this presupposition with regard to death; what does one who has such a mentality do with the reality of death?

2. Nature acts dialectically

The second presupposition is that nature acts dialectically. Marx, of course, was a thoroughgoing naturalist. He did not believe, however, with the eighteenth century Rationalists, that nature acts mechanistically or statically on the basis of presupposed immutable, indestructible law (the so-called Newtonian universe). Nor did he believe, with the nineteenth century Romanticist-Transcendentalists, that nature acts organologically in the manner of a permanent abode of an all-pervasive cosmic mind. Nor, for Marx, does nature act evolutionarily. Rather, nature acts dialectically.

The dialectical process of nature (and history, which is driven thereby) can be illustrated by considering the manner in which a person might move from one point to another. One would not move in a linear, straight-line fashion, nor would one move in a progressive spiraling fashion, nor would one move in a random, drunken zigzag fashion. One would move in a sequence of forwards, backwards, forwards, backwards motions. Indeed, the Maoist communists of China once taught the children of China the dialectical mentality by having them march three steps forward, two back, three forward, two back. The presupposition is, again, that nature acts dialectically.

3. Conflict is the essence of change and the dynamic of progress.

The third presupposition, which is without question the most significant, is that conflict is the essence of change and the dynamic of progress. Marx, borrowing from Hegel at this point, held that there is in every situation an established force and direction or thesis which, in turn, generates its interpenetrating opposite, or antithesis. There cannot be in without out, up without down, over without under, wet without dry. As the established force and direction or thesis generates its interpenetrating opposite or antithesis, there is conflict between these two forces. This conflict, then, constitutes the dynamic of progress.

Thus, there is in every situation an established force and direction or thesis which generates its interpenetrating opposite or antithesis; the two conflict with one another giving rise to gradual change, which accelerates to more rapid change, finally reaching a critical nodal point; at this point, the antithesis negates the thesis, there is a transformation from quantity to quality and the emergence of a new force and direction, known as the synthesis. This synthesis then, in turn, becomes the established force and direction or thesis, generates its interpenetrating opposite or antithesis. There is conflict, gradual change, rapid change, acceleration to a critical nodal point, negation of the negation, transformation from quantity to quality, the emergence of a new force and direction or synthesis, which becomes the established force and direction or thesis, and the process is repeated again and again. [See the diagram of Hegelian Dialecticism below.]

THE ESSENCE OF MARXISM: DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM APPLIED TO AN ANALYSIS OF HISTORY

Having said the above, we have said nothing, for if this were the essence of Marxism, it would not have endured to the present day with sufficient significance to be discussed. The essence of Marxism, and this is highly significant, is not in his theoretical abstract construct, but in his meticulous application of dialectical materialism to an understanding of the process of history: the Marxist analysis of history.

So significant was and is the Marxist analysis of history that 99.44 percent of the people who attempt to think today, including most Christians, are Marxist without even being aware of the nature of their thought-forms and conclusions. Indeed, I can tell in five minutes’ time in serious conversation with any person whether that individual is of a Marxist orientation or not, and most are. If a person is not, it is a consequence of deliberately having learned how to think Biblically because, otherwise, if only inadvertently, most people are Marxist. The Marxist analysis of history is so pervasive that it is not possible today to be non-Marxist in one’s thinking simply by default.

Why is this true? It is true for the following reason. Man, unlike any other creature, has been blessed with a memory. Accordingly, this being the case, it is not possible for man as an individual, nation, civilization, or race to think and, accordingly, act without drawing from and interpreting memory. We must employ some analysis of history.

Therefore, the question emerges, “How do we understand and make use of our memory as individuals, nations, civilizations, or a race?” We do so either Biblically, consciously beginning and ending with God, or on the basis of that which is substituted for God as the starting point and the terminal point of our understanding of the what-is-ness-of-what-is.

Now, follow me, because this is so fundamental. When we who have been holding on to what remains of Biblical Christianity in the West abandoned Biblical Christianity as a consequence of the shift to Evangelical Christianity, we also, if only inadvertently, abandoned the Biblical Christian worldview. That is, we no longer recognize God as applicable to all of life, having accepted the dichotomistic mind of sacred and secular. Therefore, we no longer have Biblical Christian thinking and an understanding of history beginning and ending with God! We abandoned a Biblical Christian philosophy, if you will, of history. (We recall that, in the West, it was Augustine who first introduced a Biblical Christian philosophy of history in The City of God.)

This, then, left a vacuum. If there is no Biblical Christian worldview, there can be no Biblical Christian understanding of history. If there is no Biblical Christian understanding of history, there is a vacuum and we must have some other understanding of history substituted for the Biblical Christian understanding of history. Someone’s philosophy of history would come to fill the vacuum. Finally, Karl Marx’s view came to do so with his attempt to understand history on the basis of presupposed dialectical materialism. The vacuum was so effectively filled that, as we have said, almost all people who attempt to think today do so on the basis of the Marxist analysis of history.

The Marxist Analysis of History Described

Let us, then, examine the Marxist analysis of history. How did Marx put flesh and blood on his so-called theoretical framework?

Marx, borrowing from Hegel, believed that history was moving inevitably and inexorably in a dialectical fashion through five stages on its way to ultimate perfection: from, in his terms, primitive communalism, through the ancient slavocracy, through feudalism, into capitalism , and on to socialism, at which point the dialectical process will terminate and, ultimately, history will blossom forth evolutionarily into the utopian society which Marx called communism.

In an effort to summarize these stages, we will begin with feudalism. Marx argued that during every historical stage there is a dominant class. For Marx, we will recall, it is the economic component of the material constituency which is determinative and, therefore, in each historical stage there will be a dominant economic class. What, then, will be the conflict which will bring about change (or “progress”)? It will be that of class warfare.

Thus, during the stage of feudalism, the dominant class according to Marx was the landed aristocracy. Feudalism, as the established force and direction, generated its interpenetrating opposite, there was conflict, gradual change, rapid change, critical nodal point, negation of the thesis by the antithesis, transformation from quantity to quality, and the emergence of a new force and direction or synthesis, which would become the established force and direction or thesis—which Marx argued was capitalism.

The dominant class during the capitalist stage, according to Marx, was the bourgeoisie. In turn, capitalism, as the established force and direction, would generate its interpenetrating opposite; there would be conflict, gradual change, rapid change, a critical nodal point, the negation of the thesis by the antithesis, transformation from quantity to quality, and the emergence of a new force and direction or synthesis which would become the established order, direction, or thesis which, according to Marx, would be socialism. The dominant class during the socialist stage would be the proletariat.

With the advent of socialism on an international scale, however, according to Marx, the dialectical process would terminate. Thereafter, history would not move dialectically by force, violence, and bloodshed, on the basis of conflict; rather, history would simply blossom forth evolutionarily into the utopian society of communism in which there would be no poverty, disease, ignorance, or war. Every person would think first of the other person and would take, accordingly, only to meet his or her own needs. No man would raise his hand against his brother and, hence, there would be no need for the police, no need for the military, even the international state would eventually wither away and die, and we would witness the advent of a utopian classless society.

This was the vision of Karl Marx, the Marxist analysis of history. And this is where we are today (evidenced, for example, in the title of a recent American First Lady’s book: It Takes A Village.) Why has the Marxist analysis been so influential? As we have said, it is because of the shift within the intellectual community from the supernatural to the natural, from theism to non-theism. A vacuum resulted, and something had to fill that vacuum, for man must have a faith and a vision, a reason for living and a reason, if necessary, for dying.

MARXISM: SCIENCE OR RELIGION?

Marx believed that he had arrived at his analysis of history rationalistically or scientifically; he considered himself to be a child of the Enlightenment and a scientist. He referred to his system as scientific socialism, and to himself as a scientific socialist. He believed that he had finally unlocked the key to history, i.e., dialectical materialism, and that his work was uniquely scientific whereas all alternative explanations were not.

Was Marxism, indeed, a product of science? The Biblical response is immediate, “Absolutely not!” Marxism was and is a religion. That is what gives it its dynamics. It begins with an article of faith and it ends with an article of faith.

Marxism, however, is more than merely a religion. Indeed, it is a point by point perversion, plagiarism, and parody of Biblical Christianity. It is a standing of Biblical Christianity on its head. Which is to say that there never could have been Marxism as we know it had there not first been Biblical Christianity? This relationship could be explored in depth, which we cannot do here. Marx, rather than anticipating a perfect spiritual kingdom coming, into which man can gain entrance on the basis of the shed blood and finished work of God-in-Christ, anticipated a perfect material kingdom coming, into which man can gain entrance on the basis of the shed blood and the almighty works of collective man in cooperation with the impersonal process of history.

What we have in Marxism is the most intense effort to date to be absolutely consistent with the presuppositions of process philosophy, the religion of non-theism. We have in Marxism the convergence of the inescapable conclusions flowing from the presupposition of the non-existence of God. If we presuppose the non-existence of God, we inescapably end up with naturalism, materialism, historicism, and socialism; this is the pervasive thinking which dominates the West and world today. Marxism is simply a conglomerating of these: naturalism, materialism, historicism, and socialism. Marx, probably more thoroughly than anyone else, welded together the presuppositions and the conclusions of process philosophy, fashioning the most universally applicable statement of process philosophy to date.

Indeed, we can have the greatest respect for Karl Marx in terms of his commitment. Marx was more committed than anyone else; and that is why we have Marxism. Marx was a rather despicable character as a husband and a father, and his wife is to be greatly admired for staying with him. He was so preoccupied with his thoughts that he spent most of his time in the library or writing and working at his desk. Indeed, he died writing at his desk! I have met very few Christians who have had the same level of commitment as did Karl Marx in terms of his having attempted to think through the answers to the basic questions beginning with his presuppositions, in his case, the nonexistence of God. He was attempting to be absolutely consistent with the presuppositions of the religion of non-theism.

First Article of Faith: All change is progressive

Marxism as a religion, then, begins and ends with an article of faith. The point of departure is the presupposition, relative to dialectical materialism, that all change is progressive. One cannot empirically demonstrate that! Moreover, it would appear to be difficult to maintain such in the face of the ultimate reality of this age: death. Nevertheless, if you ever want to be exposed to tortured logic, ask a committed Marxist to explain death as progressive change. They will do so, of course, as long as you will listen. One who is committed to a religion will attempt to force the pieces to fit.

This initial article of the Marxist faith, that all change is progressive, is one reason for the reality that whenever Marxists come to power, there is wholesale destruction of life. Indeed, this is why the Marxists and, particularly, the Marxist-Leninists, put to death during the twentieth century countless millions of people, as we shall see, in the name of applied social science. They really believe that this is progressive change, because we are in the process of eliminating the bourgeoisie mentality. Death is viewed as prerequisite to progressive change and ultimate utopia.

Last Article of Faith: The dialectical process will terminate

The terminal point of dialectical materialism, which is the theoretical essence of the religion of Marxism, is also an article of faith. It is presupposed that with the advent of the presupposed international socialist order, the dialectical process must terminate. Even if one accepts the existence of socialism as defined by Marx, which the Biblical Christian most certainly would not, and accepts the existence of the dialectical process, which the Biblical Christian most certainly would not, the idea that the dialectical process will terminate with internationalized socialism can be nothing more than an article of faith. First of all, there has never been an international socialist order; therefore, how can we empirically demonstrate that, with the advent of a presupposed international socialist order, a presupposed dialectical process must terminate? Again, it is nothing more than an article of faith, but that is what gives Marxism its dynamics. It is a religion.

In all fairness to Marx, however, if he were alive and present with us, we could ask him a very logical question for which he would have an immediate response. The logical question would be, “Why must the presupposed dialectical process terminate with socialism on an international scale?” Marx would propose something along the following lines. The reader will recall that Marx proposed that with each critical nodal point there was a transformation (a word which, by the way, also comes from Biblical Christianity) from quantity to quality. This is more significant than at first appears. Marx was saying that, with every successive historical stage, we are moving from the less perfect toward the more perfect.

This is why, by the time we reach socialism, while we will not yet have arrived at perfection, socialism will contain within itself the seeds of perfection. Therefore, it will not be necessary to move dialectically, i.e., by force, violence, and bloodshed, into the next and final utopian stage. Socialism, containing the seeds of perfection, will simply blossom forth evolutionarily into perfection, in which no man will raise his hand against his brother, etc. Marx was presupposing, as it were, that we have moved from the jungles of savagery to the plains of civilization, that we are moving from the plains of civilization to the plateau of socialism, and that we will move from the plateau of socialism to the pinnacle of communism. That is the Marxist analysis.

Marxism Spawns a Movement of Revolutionaries

Marx believed that this process was inevitable and inexorable. There was nothing that man could do by taking thought or action, individually or collectively, to accelerate the process. Man could only recognize the process, applaud the process, and fall in step with the process, accepting force, violence, and bloodshed as the only means to the next stage. Marx argued that the stage that prevailed in his lifetime was that of capitalism and that we were moving, ultimately, into the next stage of socialism which would blossom forth into the utopian society of communism.

Marxism, however, and this is the important point which we shall discuss in the next chapter, spawned a movement of revolutionaries, the likes of which the world had never seen before. We have already discussed the revolutionaries who emerged out of the rationalist faith and the French Revolution. We have observed how the revolutionaries were given greater impetus as a result of Romanticism-Transcendentalism. However, from the brief analysis above, we can begin to appreciate the reality that, with Marxism, which is the most consistent derivative of process philosophy to date, revolutionaries are given greater impetus than ever before.

There have been many Marxists who, like the right-wing Hegelians, have refused to part with the pattern of limited government and the “democratic procedure” which flowed from Biblical Christianity. An influential group of these individuals organized in England (1883) under the name Fabian socialists, whom we will later discuss. There are other Marxists, however, who have sold themselves completely to the new faith and vision, concluding that no price is too great, including force, violence, and bloodshed, if necessary, to bring in the new age. One of the leading revolutionaries among them was the Russian, Vladimir Ilich Ulyanov (1870-1924), more commonly known as Lenin. As we shall see, it was the Party of Lenin which ultimately came to be known as the Communist Party.

Only in Recent Years Has the Marxist Faith Begun to Be Reexamined

The Marxist faith and analysis of history so completely won over the intellectual community of the modern world (from the mid-nineteenth century onward) that it has only been in very recent years that it has been challenged in the minds of leading intellectuals. Some who are reacting against Marxism are gravitating to the so called New Age movement—which, of course, is not new, being simply the latest restatement of the oldest religion in existence. The New Age Movement, as an expression of irrationalism [or, we could say, anti-rationality], retains elements of Marxism, but with a varied twist. Unlike an earlier expression of irrationalism known as Existentialism, which produced, for the most part, pessimism, the New Age movement is, like Marxism, very optimistic.

Indeed, there is talk in some circles today of re-spiritualizing Marx. That is, some are coming to conclude that Marx did not, after all, understand Hegel. Hegel never anticipated that matter would become perfect, only spirit. To Hegel, the only perfection is in the zeitgeist as it comes to be absolute. Hegel, as we know, drew his views largely from the ancient Greek philosophers (including, for example, Parmenides, from whom he drew his conception of the absolute). Marx had de-spiritualized the Eastern-influenced Hegel. Now, some say, Marxism has failed because it was too materialistic, so the need is to redefine and, as it were, re-spiritualize Marxism.

NOTES

1.Citation: Feuerbach, Ludwig, The Essence of Religion, 1848/49, quoted on the web page of the German Ludwig Feuerbach Society-Nuremburg: http://www.ludwig-feuerbach.de/lfg_eng.htm, last updated July 9, 2002.

2.Author’s Note: Schwarz, Fred, You Can Trust the Communists (to Be Communists). (Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1960). Schwarz, a successful medical doctor, became convinced that Marxism was a greater threat to humanity than any physiological disease and devoted his life to exposing its nature. See his autobiography, Beating the Unbeatable Foe, by Dr. Fred Schwarz, Regnery Publishing, Inc., 1996.

3.Compiler’s Intellectual Background Note: Hegel, of Stuttgart, who had lectured and published his philosophy for many years, taught for the last thirteen years of his life: 1818-1831 at the University of Berlin, then the most highly regarded university in the world. Young people interested in the intellectual challenges of the day devoured his writings and flocked to study with him. By the time of his death, he was the most prominent and influential philosopher in Germany. Marx, who studied at the University of Berlin in the mid-1830s, wrote of being won to Hegelianism in 1837 when he was 19. Engels, who had already become acquainted with Hegel’s writings, became identified with the “Young Hegelians” when he spent a year in Berlin in 1841 at the age of 21.

4.Citation: The quote and summary of Marx’ response is taken from Chapter 10 of Fred Schwarz’ book, You Can Trust the Communists (to Be Communists) (Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1960), 7th paper edition: Christian Anti-Communist Crusade, Longbeach, California, 1972, pp. 149-150.

5.Compiler’s Note: Engels later wrote of Feuerbach’s book, published in 1841: “Then came Feuerbach’s Essence of Christianity. With one blow it pulverized the contradiction, in that without circumlocutions it placed materialism on the throne again… Enthusiasm was general; we all at once became Feuerbachians.” (Engels, quoted in Aikman, David Barrington Thomson, The Role of Atheism in the Marxist Tradition (Diss., Univ. of Washington, 1979), p. 309. Available from University Microfilms International.)

6.Compiler’s Biographical Additions:  Karl Marx  (1818-1883) was descended from lines of rabbinical scholars on both sides. The family regularly attended Trier’s only Protestant church, whose pastor, Johann Kupper (1779-1850), was a personal friend of his father’s. Kupper had been highly influenced by Kantian rationalism in his youth but now propounded what Aikman describes as “a pietism streaked with rationalist elements.” Marx was instructed by Pastor Kupper and confirmed in 1834. There is no question that Marx was instructed in Christian faith, life, and history, but there is not enough evidence to determine with certainty the level of the sincerity of his faith. (Information adapted from Johnson, Paul, Intellectuals, Harper & Row, p. 53, and Aikman, David Barrington Thomson (1944- ), The Role of Atheism in the Marxist Tradition (Diss., Univ. of Washington, 1979), Chapter 2, p. 104.)

After completing his work at the University of Berlin, Marx sought to teach philosophy in a Prussian university, but as a leading member of the revolutionary Young Hegelians, was not allowed to do so by the government. In 1842, he began editing a paper which criticized government suppression of revolutionary ideas. After this was censored in 1843, he married his childhood sweetheart and they moved to Paris. There Marx was exposed to various brands of socialism, became committed to international socialism, and met Engels, with whom he thereafter collaborated. Their writings were noticed by a group of German exiles and emigrants which had branches in many European cities. This organization was renamed “The Communist League” in 1847, and Marx and Engels were invited to write a “statement of faith” for it. The Communist Manifesto was soon translated and distributed into many nations.

Early the next year, the revolutions of 1848 took place in Paris and across Europe. Marx and Engels traveled widely to encourage the revolutionaries. He settled in Cologne and began editing a revived paper which, once again, was censored. Marx returned to Paris and, finally, moved to London, where he remained for most of his life. His weekly writings for the NY Tribune provided his only regular income from 1851-1860. He published Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte in 1852, Critique of Political Economy in 1859, and his influential Das Kapital (“Capital”), often called the “bible of socialism,” in 1867. Marx regularly promoted revolutionary activity. In 1864, at a public meeting in London, he proposed an International Workingmen’s Association. He also supported the Social Democratic Labor Party, founded in Germany in 1869. [Above information drawn from Ergang, Robert, Europe Since Waterloo, 3rd ed., Boston: D.C. Heath & Co., 1967, pp. 100-104 and Webster’s Biographical Dictionary, p. 982.]

10	MARXISM-LENINISM: COMMUNISM (1903–PRESENT)
	“Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another… [I]f, by means of a revolution, [the proletariat] makes itself the ruling class and sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then… In place of the old bourgeouise society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.”
	Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto 1

We will now begin our discussion of communism, because communism, understood in connection with the Communist Party, is not only Marxism, it is Marxism plus Leninism.

As we noted in the previous chapter, Karl Marx (1818-1883) believed that the historical process was inevitable; therefore, it was not necessary for men to take thought or action individually or corporately to strive to influence the historical process. Man should simply recognize the process, applaud the process, and fall in step with the process, recognizing that force, violence, and bloodshed were necessary and prerequisite to progress and to ultimate perfection.

There were, however, as would be expected, revolutionaries spawned by the “gospel according to Marx” who came to believe that the historical process could be accelerated; that we could, by taking thought and action individually and corporately, move more rapidly to effect the international socialist order, from which the utopian society of communism could emerge. Foremost among these revolutionary disciples was Lenin.

Vladimir Ilich Ulyanov (1870-1924), more commonly known as Lenin,2 was a Marxist who, believing that man by taking thought and organized action could and should accelerate the process of history, coordinated a group of revolutionaries who convened in Brussels, Belgium, in 1903. They were discovered by the Belgian police and forced to adjourn, after which they relocated and reconvened their meeting in London.

During their three-week-long meeting, the revolutionaries continued to debate, as they had been doing in their numerous underground writings, the best methodology for organizing to accelerate the process of history. Lenin argued that the best method would be on the basis of a disciplined cadre. He said, in so many words, “give me a small number of individuals who are absolutely committed to the enterprise and we will, with them, turn this world upside down.” The opposition argued that anyone should be allowed to participate in the enterprise at will, volunteering, as it were, and drifting in and out on something of a semi-voluntary basis.

At this point a vote, theoretically, was taken and a majority of revolutionaries agreed with Lenin. The Russian word for “majority” is akin to bolshevik and, thus, the so-called Bolshevik Party or “Party of Lenin” was born, later to become known as, simply, the Communist Party. The Russian word for “minority” is akin to menshevik, thus those who opposed the Bolsheviks methodologically became known as the Mensheviks.

THE “PARTY OF LENIN” OR COMMUNIST PARTY: ITS MAKEUP

The makeup of the Communist Party, which came into existence in 1903, can best be visualized as an iceberg. The real work of the movement has not been accomplished by the visible one-eighth of the Party, the so-called card-carrying communists but, rather, has been done by the invisible seven-eighths: the so-called underground. It has not been possible for one to “join” the communist underground; one must be invited in. On what basis has one been invited in? On the basis of having demonstrated an understanding of the process of history and a total commitment thereto.

What has been the cost of being invited into the communist underground? It has been oneself. (In this we see, again, a perversion of Biblical Christianity). The communists have referred to themselves as “dead men on furlough.” When a person has become a member of the underground, that person has ceased to exist as an individual for all intents and purposes and has simply become a cog in the party machinery. This, by the way, is one reason why a communist party line could be completely reversed in a 24-hour period and the whole party would swing from having been moving in one direction to suddenly moving in the opposite direction.

The Communist Party has viewed itself as the “vanguard of history,” the “brain” of the proletariat. It is the “midwife,” destined to deliver the international socialist order from the decadent, dying womb of capitalism.

The Communist Party: Its Objectives

What was the objective of the Party of Lenin, the Communist Party established in 1903? The objective of the party was not and has never been to effect communism. The objective of the Communist Party is to effect the international socialist order, that is, socialism on an international scale. Therefore, the objective is global conquest to smash the remaining bourgeoisie society as Marx defined it and replace it with an international socialist order which, then, it is presupposed, will blossom and flower into the utopian society of communism.

Many people today have proclaimed that communism has failed, that communism is dead; however, can something be said to have failed if it has not even been tried? Can something be said to be dead if it has never yet been brought into existence? On the basis of the Marxist analysis of history, communism has not yet emerged and, therefore, to contemplate the death of communism would be premature until long after all other systems are historical relics. Therefore, when people declare that communism does not work, they are only displaying their own ignorance.

Many people to this day do not understand this reality; they say, “Look at former Soviet Russia, look at Cuba, look at China; communism does not work.” They even go so far as to say that communism has failed. Communism? Again, according to the Marxist analysis, communism has never yet existed. All we have ever had is pockets of socialism. Russia was the U.S.S.R. (the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics); China is the “People’s Republic of China,” the word “people’s” being a euphemism for socialist. Thus, those nations were or are under the control of the Communist Party, but they were or are not communist nations; they are, in the Marxist analysis, socialist nations. For this reason, communists will scoff when a non-communist makes the observation that communism does not work. Communists believe that communism cannot and will not emerge until the entire world is first socialistic.

The objective of the Communist Party, then, was not and is not communism. The objective of the Communist Party was and is global conquest to effect the international socialist order, from which (and from which alone in the Marxist analysis) the presupposed utopian society can emerge.

The Communist Party: Its Phenomenal Success

How successful have the Marxist-Leninist Communists been? The Party of Lenin came into existence in 1903 with approximately seventeen supporters. In 1917 it came into power in Russia (at that time the world’s leading emerging power) with approximately 50,000 supporters. By the 1960s the Party of Lenin had overrun more than 50 percent of the world’s land mass and more than 50 percent of the world’s population! It is not possible to find any other movement in all of recorded history that has enjoyed such phenomenal success. Indeed, the communists overran more people from 1917 to the 1960s than have heard the name of Christ.3 The Party remained in control of Russia for 75 years, when it finally collapsed in 1991. Communist parties continue to prevail today in several nations, most notably, of course, China; other nations have strong communist parties within them vying for control.

The overwhelming success of the communists was recognized by the late Whittaker Chambers (1906-1961), who was for many years (in the 1930s) a member of the Communist underground in the United States. As such, Chambers worked closely with ranking members of the different departments of the United States government. One of his co-workers—and a friend—was Alger Hiss who, during the final years of World War II (1939-45), was probably the most significant advisor of President Franklin Roosevelt relative to international politics. He was certainly the key advisor relative to the advent of the so-called United Nations, as attested by a photograph of Alger Hiss advising Roosevelt at the Yalta Conference. Chambers worked with Hiss in espionage activities.

Chambers describes, in his monumental autobiography, Witness,4 how he became disillusioned with communism. Once, when admiring the intricate design of his daughter’s ear, he was struck by the recognition that there must be a Designer. Gradually, he abandoned atheism and, finally, broke with Communism and became a Biblical Christian. He and his wife immediately went into hiding. Later, in the mid-1950s, he emerged to bear witness to the Truth, standing against the pro-socialist, pro-international socialist spirit of the age, finally having to supply evidence toward convicting his former friend, Hiss, amid a nationally broadcast uproar of offended socialist sensibilities.

Chambers well understood the weakness of the West and the extent to which the disease of Soviet-led communism was infecting the world. He told his wife at the time that he was convinced that, by defecting from communism, he was leaving the winning side for the losing side as far as Western/American Civilization was concerned. Indeed, not long after his death in 1961, the West did come within an eyelash of destruction; however, by the grace of God, the West found the strength to resist and, as a result, the revolutionary effort as led by the Soviet Union collapsed. Whether the West will be able to withstand the next strain of the revolutionary disease remains to be seen.

Witness is a life-changing book. I would urge every person to read it. Indeed, I believe it is the most powerful book that has been written in distilling the conflagration of truth and error in our age. I have read the introduction to Witness more than twenty times and it never fails to move me deeply. Chambers is an extraordinarily gifted writer, a person who is capable of turning himself, as it were, inside out. Yet, he delineates very clearly what is taking place and why it is occurring in the modern world. I have received lengthy letters from individuals around the world who have read Witness informing me how much it has altered their thinking and their living.

In the final analysis, then, Communism is best defined as a movement of atheists organized, for the first time in recorded history, on an international scale conspiratorially to drive the very idea of God from the mind of man. As we know, although Soviet-led communism has collapsed, this continues to be the goal of communist revolutionaries world-wide, and it is presently the goal of the leadership of the most populous nation on earth: communist-controlled China.

THE LENINIST FORMULATION FOR GLOBAL CONQUEST

Who, then, was the architect of the Communist Party strategy and tactics for global conquest? It was, of course, Lenin. Lenin’s formulation for global conquest involved three basic tactics: 1) First, he taught that because the communists think dialectically they should, accordingly, act dialectically. 2) Secondly, he advocated the tactic which became known as ‘peaceful co-existence’. 3) Finally, in the effort to effect global conquest, Lenin came to target the United States specifically as the last great bastion of capitalism.

Tactic 1. Thinking and Acting Dialectically

First of all, Lenin argued that the communists think and, accordingly, should act dialectically, recognizing that one often approaches one’s goal by appearing to move away from it. This dialectical mentality and methodology can be illustrated both analogically and historically.

Probably the best analogy which has been used is that of the driving in of a nail with a hammer. Anyone who is familiar with the process of driving nails will recognize that it would be a very foolish person who would bring a hammer crashing down on a nail and simply continue to push. On the other hand, a person not familiar with the totality of the process of driving nails, happening upon a scene in which a hammer is being withdrawn from a nail might conclude that anyone who believes those two objects have any relationship one with the other is foolish. One who is familiar with the totality of the process, though, recognizes that the withdrawal of the hammer from the nail is just as basic to the ultimate objective as the downward thrust.

Similarly, Lenin proposed that, thinking and acting dialectically, communists should push toward their objective as far as they can go and, when they reach resistance, begin withdrawing. They should withdraw until the time is ripe to push again. Indeed, they employed this strategy with notable success. Time and again, when they were withdrawing, people would conclude, “Oh, they are mellowing, they have changed their mind, they are returning to (so-called) capitalism.” Such, however, was not the case. They were simply thinking and acting dialectically, recognizing that one often approaches one’s goal by appearing to move away from it. Many historical illustrations of the application of this methodology could be cited.

The Magnitude of the Destruction Wreaked by Communism

The statistics relative to the effect of the communists’ coming to power during the twentieth century are mind-boggling. They are so overwhelming that, once a person grasps them, that person will never be the same. As long as I live I will never recover from having heard these statistics, from the magnitude of human suffering they represent. Following are the statistics relative to only three of the many nations which have been taken over by the revolutionaries since 1900.

Since overrunning Russia in 1917 and before the collapse of Soviet Russia in 1991, the communists put to death in that nation between 100-150 million people. Alexander Solzhenitsyn, who spent years of his life in a slave labor camp in Soviet Russia, estimates that between 1917 and 1959 more than 66 million people perished there in slave labor camps alone.

Since overrunning China in the late 1940s, the communists have put to death in that nation, by conservative estimates, a minimum of 150 million people. To bring it closer to where we are chronologically, we are told that before the communists overran the nation of Cambodia in 1975, there were approximately 8 million people in that nation; however, after four years of genocide, starvation, and flight, there were only 6 million people left alive in Cambodia.

Alexander Solzhenitsyn, who was denounced by the Soviet leadership when his book, GULAG 5 Archipelago was published in the West in 1974, said of the communists “… nowhere on the planet, nowhere in history, was there a regime more vicious, more bloodthirsty, and at the same time more cunning … than the Bolshevik; … no other regime on earth could compare with it … in the number of those it had done to death.”6

Can we begin to comprehend these statistics? These are, in reality, not statistics, but [innocent] people—individuals such as ourselves. These are parents, mothers and fathers, sons and daughters, aunts and uncles, grandparents. They are flesh and blood people, just as you and I are.

Tactic 2. Peaceful Coexistence

The second component of the Leninist formulation for global conquest came to be known as “peaceful coexistence.” Lenin argued that the communist victory to effect the international socialist order, which is historically inevitable, would be all the more rapidly assured if the non-communist-controlled world could be induced into believing that it could indefinitely peacefully co-exist with the communist-controlled world. This was a brilliant strategy.

The drive for peaceful coexistence took many forms and many terms were used to describe it. One expression, in use for a number of years was détente, a French word meaning “relaxation of tensions.”7 The most recent expressions, in use immediately before the collapse of Soviet Russia, were perestroika and glasnost.

Tactic 3. Target the United States, the Last Great Bastion of Capitalism

The third and most significant component of the Leninist formulation for global conquest was Lenin’s targeting of the United States. Lenin referred to the United States as the last great bastion of capitalism. He believed that, were it not for the United States, the communists could, as it were, march across the rest of the world like boy scouts on parade. Consequently, targeting the United States, Lenin devised the following formulation for global conquest (paraphrased):

The external encirclement of the United States, combined with the internal demoralization thereof will produce a gradual or progressive surrender.

He proposed, first, that the United States be externally encircled in every conceivable dimension: geographically, demographically (that is, in terms of population), politically, economically, militarily. He announced, more precisely, that first they would overrun Eastern Europe, then the masses of Asia, then the Southern hemisphere; then, surrounded and isolated, the United States would fall into their hands like an overripe fruit.

The internal demoralization was much more significant. By internal demoralization, he did not mean to propose that the people of the United States be brought to a point of conscious despondency or despair. Rather, he proposed that the communists do everything possible to effect a reduction of the will of the American people to resist communism. He implemented what came to be known as "fourth dimensional warfare,” thinking beyond warfare in its classic military dimensions—which, at that time, involved land, sea, and air. Fourth dimensional warfare was paramilitary warfare, covert, invisible warfare, ranging through an entire spectrum—from economic warfare on the one hand, to psychological cybernetic warfare on the other. (Cybernetic warfare involves the control and/or manipulation of the flow of information, the assumption being that a person's judgment is no better than his or her information.) The objective was to bring about imperceptibly a shift of power from one's opponents to oneself until one enjoyed such a preponderance of power that one could simply assert one's will over one's opponent.

NOTES

1.Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto (1848), New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, 1964, p. 95.

2.Compiler’s Biographical Note: “Lenin” was one of a number of pseudonyms used by Vladimir Ilich Ulyanov (1870-1924) in his published writings from 1901. (Many revolutionaries used pseudonyms to avoid arrest.) All the Ulyanov children were revolutionaries. Lenin’s older brother was hanged in 1887 for conspiring to assassinate the Tsar. Lenin completed a law degree in St. Petersburg (Leningrad) and helped establish a Marxist party in Russia. Leaders were arrested in 1895. While he was in exile, in 1899, a number of secret Marxist groups joined to form the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party; they organized their first congress in Minsk, after which, however, most of the leaders were arrested. In 1900, Lenin moved to Munich, Germany, where, with others, he founded the party newspaper, Iskra, which attracted many more Russians into the party. It was this party which attempted another congress in Brussels in 1903. [Information distilled from www.top-biography.com 3-10-2003.]

3.Citation and Compiler’s Note: This comparison is found in Dr. Fred Schwarz’ You Can Trust the Communists (to be Communists), Prentice Hall, Inc., 1960, Chapter 3, p. 38.

Additional Details Regarding Soviet Expansion: Lenin led the Bolsheviks in 1917 to consolidate their power quickly and more ruthlessly in Russia (a nation of 262 million people). The royal family was put to death in 1918 and, during the civil war 1918-1920, some ten million people were put to death to insure that no enemies of the regime could come to power. Solzhenitsyn estimates that 300 church bishops were killed and 287,000 Orthodox priests died, many murdered in mass shootings. Some 790 monasteries and 53,500 churches were destroyed. An additional eight million people died of privation in civil dislocation. Others, an estimated twelve million people were sent to Russian labor camps, where they died more gradually. Some camps—such as Kami, Karaganda, and Vorkuta—were deliberately designed to kill their laborers.

To provide global Marxist-Leninist leadership, Lenin and the Bolsheviks founded the Communist International or Comintern (1917-1919?) later renamed the Communist Information Bureau or Cominform (1919-1956). The Comintern was intended to be the “iron fist” toward the global implementation of the communist faith. The Lenin School in Moscow attracted communist leaders from many nations who sought to learn Marxist-Leninist objectives and techniques for organizing, carrying out underground and conspiratorial operations, and effecting revolution and civil war. See The Secret World of American Communism, by Harvey Klehr, John Earl Haynes, and Fridrikh Igorevich Firsov, New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1995), and Basic Communism: Its Rise, Spread, and Debacle in the 20th Century, by Clarence B. Carson, American Textbook Committee, P.O. Box 8, Wadley, Alabama 36276, 1990, pp. 1-482.]

4.Bibliographical Note: Witness by Whittaker Chambers, New York: Random House, 1952.

5.The word GULAG, an acronym for the name of Soviet Russia’s prison system, was used by Solzhenitsyn in the title of his 1974 3 vol. book, The GULAG Archipelago 1918-1956: An Experiment in Literary Investigation. The word is introduced at the beginning of his book while referring to Kolyma, “the pole of ferocity of that amazing country of GULAG which, though scattered in an archipelago geographically, was in the psychological sense fused into a continent, an almost invisible, almost imperceptible country inhabited by zek people [prisoners].” The book exposed to the world in agonizing detail the extensive network of slave labor camps in Soviet Russia, several of which were deliberately designed to kill. [See the excellent abridgement of The Gulag Archipelago, approved by Solzhenitsyn, by Edward E. Ericson, Jr. (London: Collins Harvill, 1986).]

6.Alexander Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago, London: Collins Harvill, 1986, p. 219.

7.Author’s Bibliographical Note: An excellent book on this topic, by the Frenchman Jean-Francois Revel, is entitled How Democracies Perish, Harper & Row, 1985.