An answer to Marx over the centuries
Or how Marx’s atheism on personal freedom cost millions of lives….
….For he is eluding in his writings one big question : personal salvation. I lay it as the cornerstone
Of personal freedom.
Just for the reminder , Marx’s position on personal freedom is clear: he thinks it is illegal and that it should be banned to the profit of an imposition by force of a total communitarization, from the means of production ( infrastructure) to the laws ( superstructure).
We see there the seed of the communist violence and tyranny. What he wrote was in a sense diametrically opposed to the capitalism : total personnal freedom, at the expense of the « lesser » individuals and classes. What he conceived was the imposition of community at the expense of personal freedom, that he wanted to see completely abolished. This is what sprang the opinion I’m writing : is Marx right? Should we totally suppress it, as well as private and personal property ( according to Marx , personal ( individual) freedom lead to property)? Is there a weakness in his reasoning , which says that in order to make everyone equal, to suppress inequalities and gaps between classes, we have to abolish indivual fredom leading to property?
This is a crucial issue to answer to in order to truly understand Marx’s philosophy and it’s fallibility, As well as the many victims of communism that his philosophy brought later on under Stalinism.
As said in the beginning, I think that suppressing personal freedom is totally unnatural, for it supresses the greatest question of all : personal salvation.
I don’t know what led Marx to create this system of excessive communitarization. The system in itself led to millions of victims later on, and it was not a misuse of his philosophy. The simple fact of imposing ( in other words, tyranny) by force the idea of community contains the seed of an extreme anti-natural violence.
Maybe I can venture in saying that his « tyranical » system already laid in his writings was in response to the extreme violence of the worker’s conditions at his time. But still, I think it is not acceptable.
The first weakness of his reasoning is that there is no prospect for a nation without personal salvation and initiative.
Adding to that, mankind will always create a political and financial elite who will take profit from the system, whatever it may be.
The real selfish passion is to give in excess and neglect oneself.
On the day of Judgement, we are alone with no family, nothing, facing the Lord only with our personal actions. To neglect personal freedom such as he Marx did, is to deny the very truth of the personal salvation of the soul, fate, and destiny.
There needs to be a balance, a middle point between what we give to ourselves, and what we give to other people.
I think that Marx’s philosophy, in the end, in the light of some of the elements brought out, did cost million of lives, because his theoretical basis is according to me and my truth, totally wrong. His system is anti-Natural, his ideas represents a tyranny where personal freedom and property are totally suppressed, at the opposite of capitalism which is in excess of it. Plus, what is a nation without personal freedom and initiative? What is a person without its individual freedom? Nothing, absolutely nothing. By suppressing that, and imposing it, it only leads to individuals crumbling on themselves, unable to do the right thing, to do good ( what are we without freedom?), living in slavery ( who wants that for himself?) to a system that doesn’t feed the bright humanity we are capable of, the one that achieves greatness with simple pleaures of life and happiness ( the one that comes from personal freedom, and only from there). It also leads to a new form of tyranny as shown a bit before.
As for charity for the weak, the sick, the disabled, the poor, the orphan, the widow,… it doesn’t come without welfare, defined as the following : a right balance between what we give to Him, to the people, and to ourselves.
The last dimension is absent in Marx’s writings. He denies it totally. Perhaps he hated himself, perhaps the horror of the worker’s conditions of his time blurred his judgement on this one.
What happened later on with communist’s violence is unforgivable. It is important to remind ourselves of that as far left populistic movement ( undercover communism) are slowling rising again in some european countries ( France, Belgium,…).
In the end, I think that Marx didn’t measure the impact he would have later on in history, therefore, I try to think and thoroughly examine my opinion before I write, and sometimes publish.
To conclude, as nothing is black or white in my opinion, here are some nonetheless good points
of Marxism, as well as less good points following.
1. He contributed to raise awareness and take arms against the horrible worker’s conditions of his time, mostly in the factories of the industrial revolution.
2. Long after his death, he contributed in giving birth to socialism, which is good, because it gave effectively more rights for the worker, like holidays, less work hours, and more leasure time.
3. His notion of « value of work » is very interesting, because he thinks it is not proportional to the salary but to the energy and investment you put in something. He calls « exploitation » the fact that it is not proportional, and he calls « Alienation » the diverting of a worker’s force into exploitation.
The less good points :
1.Communist’s revolutionnary violence.
2. Later on, Stalinism.
3.Tyranny of the community.
4. Abolition of property and personal freedom.
5. Theoretically laid mass respression, and later on the reality of it : victims.
I hope that you enjoyed this article. Leave comment, like share.
All rights reserved. 2018.