[continued from previous message]   
      
   In 1835, at the age of 17, Marx matriculated at the University of Bonn. His   
   choice of studies was exclusively in the field of the humanities. At   
   university, Marx came to accept Hegel's dialectical analysis (thesis,   
   antithesis, and synthesis), while    
   simultaneously rejecting Hegel's conception that human thinking determines the   
   worldly environment. Marx leaned more toward Feuerbach's view that material   
   facts determine the nature of human beings and society. This fusion of Hegel's   
   dialectics with    
   Feuerbach's materialism apparently formed the basis of much of Karl Marx's   
   philosophy; but behind the tenets and terminology of Marxism, there were even   
   more potent subliminal forces at work.   
      
   Marx was not only a philosopher. He was also a social activist and a   
   visionary. In Biblical terms, Marx may be called a prophet. [407] His   
   Communist Manifesto, prepared in collaboration with Engels on behalf of the   
   newly formed Communist League, differs    
   little in substance, and some might say, even in style, from the writings of   
   many of the Old Testament seers. Although Marx criticized Henri de   
   Saint-Simon, Robert Owen and Charles Fourier for conjuring up utopias which   
   were nothing but “duodecimo    
   editions of the New Jerusalem”, Marx himself made only slight variations.   
   [408] Marx's historical analysis was remarkably messianic in nature, and his   
   concept of the ideal economic order was nothing different from those   
   communities previously established    
   by the early Christian apostles and, before them, by the Essene Jews.   
      
   The Judaeo-Christian view of history is linear (i.e. it is non-cyclical and   
   essentially non-repetitive), stretching from the time of creation and the fall   
   from grace in Eden to the coming of the Messiah, and the establishment of a   
   Messianic Era.    
   Christianity inserts a few wrinkles into this historical concept by virtue of   
   the special significance ascribed to the first and second comings of Christ,   
   as well as a prophesied Millennium, in which Christ II and his saints will   
   rule over the planet.    
   Marx's theory of history adheres basically to the Christian format. History,   
   according to Marx, has proceeded through various stages, or ages, and is now   
   on the verge of a final battle that will, ultimately, eliminate the crime of   
   private property and    
   surplus-value capitalism and usher in the perfect classless society founded on   
   communist principles. Though Marx seems to have understood little of human   
   nature, he was still practical enough to realize that the organs of the state   
   would not wither away    
   overnight. Thus, he envisioned an interim rule by the Communist Party to   
   facilitate the big transition. [409] With almost no effort, we can fit Marx's   
   analysis into the Christian historical framework. The proletariat correspond   
   to the elect of God, the    
   revolution to Armageddon, the establishment of communism to the Second Coming,   
   the Communist Party to the Church, and the Communist Commonwealth to the   
   Millennium and, finally, the disappearance of the State to the founding of New   
   Jerusalem. Furthermore,    
   the materialist dialectic, which supposedly controls the entire historical   
   development, may be likened to the workings of God's Grace or, perhaps more   
   appropriately in this case, to the activities of that mysterious Holy Ghost.   
      
   Perhaps it is yet too early to judge whether the organs of the state will   
   wither away. Still, according to Marx's prophecy, England (where Marx lived   
   from 1849 until his death in 1883) should have witnessed the first communist   
   revolution, whereas Russia (   
   the homeland of many of Marx's rivals in communist circles) should have been   
   one of the last countries to establish communism. [410] The proof of the   
   pudding is in the tasting, and the proof of the historical analysis is in the   
   testing. It is the    
   predictive capacity which, more than anything else, lends credence to any   
   analysis of history – by this standard, Marxism is proved to be a colossal   
   failure. Marx's vision of history stands exposed as being highly influenced by   
   subjective and egocentric    
   factors that overshadowed any objective analysis that Marx may have adduced.   
   But Marx's concept of economics, based also on fundamentalist Christian dogma,   
   has proved even more bankrupt than his understanding of history.   
      
   Just as Marx had criticized other social philosophers for constructing utopias   
   which came straight out of the Bible, and then proceeded to do the same thing   
   himself, so also he condemned the economics of capitalism on the basis of its   
   internal    
   contradictions, while founding his own ideal economic order on a still more   
   obvious and more fundamental contradiction. According to Marx, all economics   
   should be based on the principle of “from each according to capacity, to each   
   according to need”.    
   Unfortunately, though these words sound very sweet in the ears, they reap   
   little harvest in the hard earth of the material world. (Hence, one notes that   
   every year Russia is compelled to buy grains from the United States, just to   
   cover the needs of its    
   people.) In effect, economics may be reduced to two basic problems –   
   maximizing production and providing a just distribution. Where Marx's concept   
   of planned economics would undoubtedly provide a more fair distribution than   
   Adam Smith's reliance upon God'   
   s “invisible hand”, all of this comes to naught for the simple reason that one   
   cannot distribute goods that have not been produced. Without question, the   
   capitalist societies surpass the communist ones with respect to maximizing   
   production, and this is    
   quite simply because capitalism provides a better incentive to work than   
   communism. [411] When people know that, at the end of the day, they will   
   receive just what they need no matter how hard they work, then why should they   
   work up to their capacity? In    
   the absence of sufficient material motivation, most people today prefer not to   
   work or, at least, to minimize their work. Clearly, this psychology applies in   
   the communist countries where, ironically, the cult of materialism has indeed   
   been officially    
   and publicly enshrined, and it applies equally in the capitalist countries.   
   [412] This is a major reason why one finds in virtually all of the developed   
   Western countries a growing trend among young people to ignore the low-paying   
   and   
   enerally uninspiring job possibilities which do actually exist, preferring   
   rather to subsist on the unemployment compensation offered by the national or   
   state welfare system. Of course, this is not to deny that still the vast   
   majority of the unemployed    
   are sincerely trying, as best they can, to find a suitable job or, in many   
   cases, just any job.   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)