One of the biggest lies in political theory is that Communism, defined here as any political vision founded upon the theories of Karl Marx, is a defense of the working class. Communism is anything but a defense of the “have-nots” against the “haves.”
If you stop and reflect on Marx’s work, you can tell that he was speaking somewhat cryptically. He lived in an era of rapidly increasing production, where the working class was quickly ascending to (the new) middle class status. Profitability, accordingly, was increasing on the whole ,and that the fruits of labor were at an all time high. Why, then, did Marx speak about the declining rate of profit? He could not have been speaking about workers’ profit, because, as we have just mentioned, production was at all time high and this translated into increased income for the working class. What Marx was speaking about was a potential collapse of the banks. The industrialized people of northern Britain, who were rapidly accumulating savings, starting their own businesses, becoming independently capitalized traders, etc., became less and less depended on usurious predation. Marx was concerned about the declining rate of banks’ profit.
Throughout Marx’s corpus, he continually attacks the “capitalist”, by which he means the factory owner, the farmer who owns his farm, and any other worker who came to own his own business. In Marx’s work, it must be kept in mind, the term “capitalist” did not refer to someone like Jeff Bezos, nor did it refer to the banking class, and it certainly did not mean someone who advocating for a market economy. “Capitalist” is a smear-term used against those workers who, having come out of poverty due to increased production and the corresponding higher incomes, was no longer dependent on predatory lending and usurious banking practices. To illustrate this point, in point one of the proposed polices of The Communist Manifesto, property in land (farms owned by farmers) is to be abolished, in point three inherented property (all family businesses) is to be abolished, in point seven factory ownership is to be transfered to the state (gutting the newly formed middle class), and in point nine the distinction between rural and urban areas is to be eliminated (subjecting the previously independent farmers to the dictates of the city council). Not a single point adresses usury or predatory lending. Point five recommends the centralization of credit in the hands of the state, meaning that the banks would have even more access to credit than they previously had because they are now merged with the nation’s treasury. Intersesting, huh? You would think that a pro-working class man, such as Marx, would be interested in freeing the worker from financial dependence. No. All that Marx advocates for leads to more financial dependence…on the banks.
Every country that has implemented communism, socialism, or Marxism, has seen the middle class disapear due to their capital (read: family businesses, farms owned by the farmer, and every businesses not dependent upon banks for loans) being confiscated. At the same time, every person in a communist society who either works in the banking industry, or is merely adjacent to it, just so happens to become incredibly wealthy. Chase Bank, to name a famous example, was established in Mao’s China by the Rockaffeller’s, and those associated with it became oligarchs, while those not assoicated with it starved. Speaking of starvation, have you noticed that every country, from Russia to Cuba, that has implemented communism experienced a famine? Did you ever notice that those who die in these famines (hint: they are man-made) just so happen to be capitalists? And what did we say a “capitalist” is, just a while ago? A “capitalist” is anyone who is not dependent upon the predatory and usurious banking class, with frequent canidates being the owner of a family business or a farmer owned farm. Dependence on the banking elite was ensured by hook or by crook, even if that meant starving millions to death.
So, dear reader, the next time you see someone advocating for communism, socialism, or the pathetic attempt to repackage it all as “national bolshevism”, know that they are the (un)knowing puppet of the banking regime.