Brulen, I’m past worrying about what something means, what symbols are being used, etc. I spent far too many years caught up in details that didn’t turn out to matter – I’ve got a whole undergrad degree involving that – and it turned out that all but what follows below was almost total distraction. The so-called symbols, explanations of those symbols, the “struggles” behind them all – they are all very intentional smokescreens, and they give the TV and newspaper editorial writers something to go on – and on, and on every day so they can make money. TV and print media serve two purposes, and two purposes only (and one of them is NOT to inform). They are the propaganda for the true masters behind the curtain, and they make money by keeping the masses glued to their every word (doesn’t matter which network it is, including Fox News). Virtually none of the talking heads have any clue just what useful idiots they are – but useful to the cause they most certainly are, because they maintain the distraction(s). Following is what is really going on – and the simplicity of it is what they must keep hidden in plain sight. Yet it was very carefully laid out 169 years ago, and has been playing out ever since. It’s so simple that people don’t want to believe it could be just this simple.
First, here’s the actual most relevant text. It is imperative that readers mentally disregard the terms “Communists,” “working class,” “bourgeoisie,” “proletariat,” and “reactionary classes,” because those tend to draw us back into a discussion of what people generally think of when they hear those terms – the old 60s and 70s discussions of what the Soviets and Red Chinese were doing (along with their satellite actors like N. Vietnam, eastern Europe, Cuba, etc.). We basically have to forget everything we ever thought we knew about “communism” and learn the basic pattern and concepts laid out in the original document (below). The first three (long) chapters of that document were largely just eyewash. The core doctrine is all contained in the final chapter that everybody missed because it was seen as just a little partial-page final commentary on the major work. In fact, the first three chapters were actually intended to BE the distraction – and virtually everybody bit. Now of course, the argument can be (and is being) made by the “left” that communism isn’t even relevant anymore, and through that mockery they immediately shut down any useful discussion. It was very effectively used against Romney in the presidential debates to mock him and make him look stupid (don’t get me started on Romney!) for even bringing up a relic of the long-gone cold war (at least that was what was done to him on stage – Obama understands Saul Alinsky perfectly!). Perfect example:
Anyway, read the following for the concepts, not the specific terms used. Explanation follows further down.
The Communists fight for the attainment of the immediate aims, for the enforcement of the momentary interests of the working class; but in the movement of the present, they also represent and take care of the future of that movement. … But they never cease, for a single instant, to instill into the working class the clearest possible recognition of the hostile antagonism between bourgeoisie and proletariat, in order that the … workers may straightway use, as so many weapons against the bourgeoisie, the social and political conditions that the bourgeoisie must necessarily introduce along with its supremacy, and in order that, after the fall of the reactionary classes …, the fight against the bourgeoisie itself may immediately begin. … In short, the Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things. … Finally, they labour everywhere for the union and agreement of the democratic parties of all countries.
They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions.
That is it, in a nutshell. The revolution is carried out by those seeking ultimate power and control over everything and everyone. The bourgeoisie and reactionary classes are, very simply, any power structure that stands in the way of the revolution attaining its end. And in the end, even the proletariat will find that they are controlled – as have the Chinese people, and as did the Soviet people. They are also just pawns motivated by the promise of power into thinking that they’ll rule over the oppressors, but in the end they get swallowed up as well.
So for me at least, it’s not a matter of worrying about black/white/Muslim/Christian/democrat/republican/immigrant/citizen, or any other false set up of warring factions. Indeed, the concept of the dialectical method of arriving at truth became an absolutely brilliant hijack by Marx. It’s a method of engaging people in an absurd philosophical discussion where people get caught up in seeking “truth” and the discussion goes further and further into a word salad of pseudo-intellectualism (a GREAT means of keeping people distracted from what’s really going on – shell games, smoke and mirrors, and the man behind the curtain). The so-called left (especially of the 60s and 70s) absolutely loved to get university students involved in deep study and discussions of the dialectic, which Marx found exceptionally useful. Whole (totally useless) courses and even degrees were based on that crap! If you ever want to read a truly disturbing piece, emanating from the philosophical capitol of the left (Chicago), try to understand what’s really being said in the University of Chicago’s “Theories of Media.” Keep the intellectuals arguing about the meaning of all things while always seeking ultimate truth, and the revolutionaries get to work their magic in plain sight without being noticed for anything more than just being “radical” and “destructive,” and so forth.
The bottom line is that there are those that truly understand what Marx was aiming at, and they are outstanding organizers (what do we think the term “community organizer” means?!?!?). Most of their actors haven’t a clue what they’re really doing. As Marx and Engels said above in their final chapter, they’re all pawns in a game where the winner takes all the pieces, the board, and even all the players. The bottom line false promise is at the very end of the book: “The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.” But the proletarians aren’t going to even be the ones to win the world. The Soviets and Red Chinese already very clearly demonstrated that – the power goes to the handful that are truly organizing (darn! there’s that term again! LOL) it all.
The proletarians merely carry out the expendable infantry work in the battle, and we end up thinking that’s who we’re fighting (NFL players, blacks, Muslims, La Raza, whoever…). Digest and study the long quote above, understand the very simple principle of how they organize by using whatever organization or group that seems to be most useful at any moment, but always with the aim of destroying the social order and the political order by any means necessary. Is that not exactly what’s happening right before our eyes? The solution is the Constitution. While not absolutely perfect, it is the single most brilliant piece of political organization ever devised on this planet. It’s what must be maintained and preserved if we ever hope to get through this successfully. (I’m intentionally leaving out the spiritual component of the solution because that’s not appropriate for this discussion. It could easily be had in another whole topic suitable for another thread altogether – but not this one. I feel certain that’s why Selco established it separately.)
"Ye hear of wars in far countries, and you say that there will soon be great wars in far countries, but ye know not the hearts of men in your own land."
- This reply was modified 9 months, 4 weeks ago by GeorgiaSaint.