The Communist Manifesto: a rebuttal

 Part I... definitions & analysis.

The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.

Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.

In the earlier epochs of history, we find almost everywhere a complicated arrangement of society into various orders, a manifold gradation of social rank. In ancient Rome we have patricians, knights, plebeians, slaves; in the Middle Ages, feudal lords, vassals, guild-masters, journeymen, apprentices, serfs; in almost all of these classes, again, subordinate gradations.

The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society has not done away with class antagonisms. It has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old ones.  from 'The Communist Manifesto'

I'll basically go along with this analysis. For an 1848 world perspective, its ok. It doesn't really apply in the american experiment.. at least after the civil war, when all men were recognized as free. And, it doesn't really work in day to day reality, but only as a general principle to base a philosophy on. I would say the deeper issue is the tendency of man to want to dominate or control others. Some want to live off the labors of others. Lincoln stated it like this:

“It is the eternal struggle between these two principles — right and wrong — throughout the world. They are the two principles that have stood face to face from the beginning of time; and will ever continue to struggle. The one is the common right of humanity, and the other the divine right of kings. It is the same principle in whatever shape it develops itself. It is the same spirit that says, "You toil and work and earn bread, and I'll eat it." No matter in what shape it comes, whether from the mouth of a king who seeks to bestride the people of his own nation and live by the fruit of their labor, or from one race of men as an apology for enslaving another race, it is the same tyrannical principle.” ― Abraham Lincoln

This is the more basic struggle of humanity, not class distinctions. Classes are only the groups of the individuals who either work or exploit.

Most revolutions have been, 'Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss'. Very rarely in the history of mankind has there been true altruism or a recognition of the evil nature of man to dominate his neighbor. So we go from one oppressor to another, each promising to serve & promote our liberty. But all they ever do is dominate & take.

You can label them, 'bourgeois & proletariat', 'worker & moocher', 'noble & serf', or 'rulers & subjects'. The names may change, but they are the same throughout all time.

Collectivism, & especially communism, does nothing to end this struggle. It only changes the ruling elite. The 'party' is the new boss, & the proletariat work for them. All it has ever done is shrink the middle class, & widen the gap between the worker & the ruling elite. ..but i'm sure we'll get more into that, later.

The contest, for ages, has been to rescue Liberty from the grasp of executive power. ~Daniel Webster

Part 2: The Communists & the Proletariat.

The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.

The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.
...
They merely express, in general terms, actual relations springing from an existing class struggle, from a historical movement going on under our very eyes. The abolition of existing property relations is not at all a distinctive feature of communism.

All property relations in the past have continually been subject to historical change consequent upon the change in historical conditions.

The French Revolution, for example, abolished feudal property in favour of bourgeois property.

The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products, that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few.

In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.  from 'The Communist Manifesto'

 Here is where this fails, as a social experiment:

1. The communists are NOT the proletariat, but pretend to 'help' the poor, huddled masses. They want to organize them as pawns, to destroy the bourgeoisie, whom they hate with a greater passion than they do the monarchy or any military dictatorship. They pretend to speak for the worker, but they are not the worker.

2. They attack one of the most basic rights of man for all of history: The right of property. Locke said that govt has no other end, but the preservation of property.

"Property is the fruit of labor...property is desirable...is a positive good in the world. That some should be rich shows that others may become rich, and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise. Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another; but let him labor diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built." ~Abraham Lincoln

The appeal to just 'take' the property of another, that they have not worked for is alluring. It is a shiny lure of free stuff, that attempts to deceive the simple into believing the great fiction, that govt can enable you to live off of everybody else. It is diametrically opposed to the American experiment, that of securing the basic rights of man: life & property.

3. They make the bourgeoisie into a boogey man... a scapegoat to blame all of society's ills upon. That is a typical tactic of looters, who do nothing useful themselves, but only want to ride the gravy train of easy living without work. The 'party' becomes the new bourgeoisie, & the new boss is no better than the old one.. most of the time, the communist boss was MUCH WORSE than any monarch or industrialist that ever lived.

4. The russian revolution traded feudal property for party property.. just another bourgeois robber baron, but instead of merely exploiting the workers with cheap pay, made them slaves.

5. The chinese revolution traded imperial & feudal property for party property.. more slavery for the proletariat.

6. Any movement or group that constantly toots its horn about how sincere & altruistic they are should be viewed with skepticism. They are selling something, & they will not be the ones paying for it. You will.

7. They kill one of the biggest motivating factors for humanity: To get ahead. To improve one's station in life. They offer servitude, not prosperity, to the hard working man. There is no reward for hard work, or smart work, or bettering oneself through innovation & production. They reward party affiliation & political maneuvering. A society full of con men & salesmen cannot sustain itself. But productive work will not improve your lot, only rising in the party hierarchy. So the magnet is not productive work, but looting.

8. Their aim is to overthrow the bourgeois class, & replace it with a new ruling class: The Party. They USE the proletariat to accomplish this, & have continued to use & exploit the working man in EVERY venture that collectivists have done for all of human history. That is why collectivist experiments always fail. They are based on altruistic sacrifice for your fellow man, except for the leaders, who get to mooch off of everybody else & live the high life at your expense.

9. The theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of human rights. Their promises are lies, & they offer servitude & slavery to the working man. Communism is a step backward in the quest for human freedom. They TAKE from the worker & exploit him for their political agenda, which is the same for all time:

There has never been but one question in all civilization-how to keep a few men from saying to many men: You work and earn bread and we will eat it. ~Abraham Lincoln

Contrast the above with the American ideal:

The working man is the representative... self rule is the goal, not a ruling elite.

"All [reforms] can be... [achieved] peaceably by the people confining their choice of Representatives and Senators to persons attached to republican government and the principles of 1776; not office-hunters, but farmers whose interests are entirely agricultural. Such men are the true representatives of the great American interest and are alone to be relied on for expressing the proper American sentiments." ~Thomas Jefferson

And here an American contemporary of Marx says:
And inasmuch as most good things are produced by labour, it follows that all such things of right belong to those whose labour has produced them. But it has so happened in all ages of the world, that some have labored, and others have, without labour, enjoyed a large proportion of the fruits. This is wrong, and should not continue. To secure to each laborer the whole product of his labour, or as nearly as possible, is a most worthy object of any good government. ~Abraham Lincoln

America is a classless society.. at least that is the mission statement. Aggressive exploiters need classes to compete.. so they can avoid work & live off the labors of others. They need & want a ruling class, & a working class. The modern progressives are just the same old exploiters of old, looking to 'help' the poor huddled working man, when all they really do is exploit him & pick his pockets, all the while giving him soothing words, or boogey men to fear.

Govt, from the American perspective, is not to 'give' us anything, but to merely secure our basic rights, so our labors can be protected & preserved. A massive, bloated bureaucracy is a burden on the working man. It is a magnet for moochers & looters, who see 'public service' as a means to live without work.

But we have strayed from our mission statement. American govt now is indistinguishable from collectivist party politics, or the monarchy, or the bourgeoisie. We do not have citizen representatives, but a horde of moochers... leeches on the working man, sucking him dry.

Is a stable currency impossible?

If there is one thing that 'we the people' should educate ourselves about, it should be the nature & source of wealth, money, & currency. It is too important & too all encompassing in our lives to 'trust' it to con men & scoundrels with an agenda. It is not as complicated as the economists like to make out. Go back a few thousand years, & find the source. All we have done is extend & complicate it, but the same principle is in play. You make something of value.. harvest a crop, raise an animal, build a structure, make a spear or a fighter jet.. these are all 'hard' assets. Human labor produced them. Even mining gold, iron, or oil from the ground requires human labor, & those who labor PRODUCE the increase. Others may profit exorbitantly from their labors, but the labor is where it all begins.

"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." ~Abraham Lincoln

A currency does not have to be tied to gold to be 'hard'. It just has to be backed by something. By tying it to the assets of the producers, you get that. Having a scientific formula, that is not 'tweakable' by politicians & con men would stabilize the currency, slow or end inflation, & make money shuffling as a vocation less lucrative.

The PRIMARY problem is the dilution of the currency by QEs & banker money shuffling. THAT is what saps the value from the currency & 'redistributes' it to the non working, non producing leeches of society.

It would not be that hard to put some ELECTED representatives in charge of currency oversight.. with the EXPRESS goal of stability, transparency, & accountability. A mission statement can be drawn up declaring that purpose, & every congressman elected to that committee sworn to uphold it. Punishment for corruption should be swift & severe, with checks & balances to discourage it. Put term limits on that committee as well, & keep the public service concept fresh.

There are normal economic cycles, & the fiat drivers claim that govt manipulation can soothe & smooth these out. But in fact, the opposite is true. Economic contractions are actually worse, under fiat. The great depression can be explained better with simpler economics.. the 'new' dollar made people nervous, but it was mandated by the govt, & alternatives were forbidden under FDR.

The larger problem is the manipulation of the currency by whatever 'powers that be'. They can do this with gold, too, so a simple formula is not enough. '1 oz silver = $1 still bases valuation on a single marketable commodity: silver. Gold hoarders in the 20's.. especially in france, contributed to the world wide contraction in the 30's. But the statist's solution of fiat is using ponzi scheme dynamics to solve a much simpler problem:

How can we have a stable, simple currency?

Here are some ideals to target:
1. Stability in value over time. Inflation is a great evil & kills thrift. Spending is good for an economy short term, but without real production to back it up, spending leads only to bankruptcy. This is true on any scale, individual or national.
2. The currency should be difficult to manipulate by bankers, politicians, or other leeches on the producers of the nation. The more formulaic & scientific we base our money on, the less ability there is to manipulate it.
3. Money supply HAS to be tied to actual production. Fractional reserve banking does this, as loans are made on things of value.. collateral is give. Fractional reserve banking increases the money supply but it does so using production as the basis. You build a house, plant a crop, etc, you can take a loan out on it.
4. Predatory interest rates are dark ages practices, & are valid regulatory responsibilities of govt. Look at the interest rate chart. Before the major manipulations from politicians & their banker cronies, there were small market cycles.. but the big swings started AFTER fiat was declared. Since WW2, the birth of american big govt, the interest rate has swung wildly up & down, based primarily on banker manipulation, not real demand or supply, & especially not real production.




If you link the money supply to REAL production, you would not get the manipulations. More production would equate to more money. Normal contractions would bring a natural slowdown, without some bankers or politicians getting rich from the dilution of the currency. Then, as demand went up, so would the money supply. Interest rates would swing less wildly, & reflect actual supply & demand.

I'm probably getting too many charts in here, but if we tied money supply to production, there would be a natural buffering of the contractions, & people's savings would be protected. Economics isn't voodoo, or 'feel'. It is simple arithmetic.


The housing crash is a perfect example of currency meddling.. & govt using its power to try to redistribute. 'Everyone should have a home', was dubya & frank's heartfelt cry, & they tried to mandate it by govt decree. The banks were only too happy to go along with it, because it meant they could hand out money with no restraint or fear of default, since the govt promised to cover any deadbeats. That created the bubble, not the inflation of the currency. It was a false bubble, created by demand without ability. It is a side note of sorts, & illustrates the problems with govt meddling with the currency. 

The housing boom of the last decade 'created' a lot of money. It was partially justified, since it coincided with the construction boom, but the artificial inflation of prices caused by the artificial demand created more than was actually justified. The rampant inflation in the 70's caused primarily by opec & the raising of oil prices, along with the complete abandonment of the gold standard by nixon in '73 created a bubble then, too. Everything was inflating, as the dollar diluted. I knew many old folks then who were unsophisticated savers.. they had a savings account in a bank, & their life savings were there. Year after year they watched as the value slowly diluted. Even Reagan spoke against it. And even with the high interest rates of the time, it was not enough to cover the losses of inflation. The bankers & their political puppets got rich off this scheme, & they plundered the savings of hard working people to do it. They produced nothing, they only took the people's money by diluting it.. just like a drug dealer 'cuts' the drugs with sugar or some other cheap filler.

The currency can only survive, as well as the nation, if it is tied to something of real value. Fiat money dooms any system that uses it. Even now, the euro zone is diluting the euro more, to compete globally with other currencies. It is political manipulation, & the only ones who win are the bankers.. the money shufflers, who produce nothing. All involved in the process are merely stealing from those who actually create the wealth. They don't do it directly, like with taxation, but slowly, by diluting & devaluing the currency. It brings temporary relief, by making imports seem cheaper, but then the fiat pendulum swings the other way, & the temporary price cuts of imports are all lost as the inflated currency buys less & less.

Fiat money is a recipe for disaster, & we have been on that road for decades now. With no restraint on the money supply, the currency can & has been constantly diluted, devalued, & manipulated.. all for political & secret board room deals. Tying the money supply to actual production would limit that, & base it on reality, instead of mandate.

Or, we can let the bankers & politicians relax on the train while they crush production & the livelihood of the workers.


The proper course of action would be so detrimental to a large segment of society that it would spark a revolution. The whole system relies on plundering the producers AND borrowing from future producers to support an ever growing entitled class. It is a ponzi scheme, & we are in the middle of it. But the courageous & RIGHT thing to do would be to stop deficit spending, CUT govt, the welfare state, & make all systems solvent. It would cripple the economy for a while, as it will take a long time to get solvent again. That is why all politicians just kick the can down the road, hoping they can get theirs before the house of cards collapses.

Here are the steps it would take to bring us back to fiscal sanity:

1. Commit to a hard currency.. stability & consistency for all the nation.
2. Index the currency to a group of hard assets.. gold, oil, food, construction, whatever.
3. Provide a formula for the currency that prevents swings in value.
4. This currency could be constructed concurrently with the existing dollar, as a transition occurs.
5. Eventually the old fiat dollar would be phased out, like confederate dollars after the civil war, or the Wiemar marks in Germany.
6. Stick to the plan. Don't let moochers or looters get control of the system, to corrupt it & use it to plunder the treasury.
7. Pay off all public debts with the old dollars.. should be plenty of them around, & all the creditors can have them.

In the long run, this is a better system for a society. It rewards thrift, hard work, & minimizes money shuffling as a vocation.

The data clearly shows the direction that inflation & fiat monetary policy have brought us, & we have many examples in different scales of economic collapse to choose from. Rome was large scale, at the time, & it collapsed, primarily because of fiscal mismanagement. Russia, Argentina, England in the 60's.. many examples of corrections & failures to correct bad monetary policy. The US will face this, if we continue down this path. If we can arrest the spending, shore up the dollar, increase production, & revive a strong work ethic, we can have it all.. prosperity, affluence, world hegemony status. But, if we keep running the charge cards, despise production, encourage dependency, dilute the dollar... then we will follow in other footsteps of failed nations.