By Kelly O'Connell ——Bio and Archives--January 19, 2014
Cover Story | CFP Comments | Reader Friendly | Subscribe | Email Us
Marx believed that society is dominated by conflicts between the powerful and the subjugated. The Marxists theorized that throughout history the government, the ruling classes, and the capitalists have oppressed the everyday working people, and that it is only through revolution against these rulers that everyone will enjoy true freedom and equality in a classless society. They believed capitalists (those who owned the farms, factories, and shops) made their fortunes by exploiting the people, whom they called the proletariat. In Marx's ideal world, everyone would work hard to better themselves and would cheerfully provide assistance to those who were unable to work. The Marxists believed that all farms and factories should be owned commonly. This belief in common ownership gave birth to the term "communism" to describe this economic structure. Marx called the idea "economic determinism", because the economic conditions of the people would determine the political and social structures of such a society. The Marxists also believed that organized religion was one of the tools that governments and the ruling classes (also called the bourgeoisie) used to keep the people, or the proletariat, from thinking for themselves and from being aware, or conscious, that they were being exploited.In short, Marx was a total rebel who believed the entirety of society must be uprooted in a "revolution" so that it can all be replaced by socialist and communist institutions. Strangely, while Marx spilled much ink decrying capitalism, he produced no counter-system, just a fevered demand for change. Marx taught that history, as it evolves from capitalism to communism, must pass through a dictatorship. Therefore, he did not believe people had innate rights as distinct from the government, as the Founders taught. Instead, it was up to the elites (technically, the vanguard of the proletariat) to run government and society. And since there was no rightful religious expression, there wasn't a counter-veiling force against the government or political class. Since everything else depended upon revolution, and since this was not a lawfully organized undertaking, there is no shame in doing any conceivable thing to foment revolution. Further, as the communist revolution is fated, all activities to hasten this end are moral since they help augur in the more perfect society.
Few social experiments in history have had the scope and penetration of Chinese socialism. From 1949 to 1979 when Mao died, Mao and the Communist Party sought to reengineer Chinese society by remolding human nature. Less well known is their effort to reshape the nonhuman world, with severe consequences both for human beings and for the natural environment. Numerous campaigns suppressed elite scientific knowledge and traditional grass-roots practice concerning the physical world, stifling dissent through political labels, ostracism and labor-camp sentences..Mao's approach to changing China is reminiscent of the modern liberal and Obama's style and rhetoric. Shapiro lists "four core themes" which could apply today, in everything from economics, global warming, to health care: (1) Political Repression; (2) Utopian Urgency; (3) Dogmatic Uniformity; (4) State-Ordered Relocations. What Mao stood for perhaps more than any other aspect was his commitment to overly dramatic mega-projects with back-of-the-napkin level of sophistication and planning. One of these was his Great Leap Forward. Jasper Becker, in Hungry Ghosts, Mao's Secret Famine, describes how the naïve and ambitious Mao longed for the same kind of agricultural miracle Stalin achieved, and so launched the Great Leap.
To launch the Great Leap Forward, Mao whipped up a fever of expectation all over China that amounted to mass hysteria. Mao the infallible, the 'great leader,' the 'brilliant Marxist,' the outstanding thinker and genius, promised he would create heaven on earth. Even in the 1940s, the Party had encouraged a personality cult around Mao but now this reached new and grotesque heights. Mao was portrayed as infallible, semi-divine. The Party, joined him in proclaiming that utopia was at hand..One can quite easily see the analogy to 2007 when Barack was touted as a breathless genius who was so wise and intelligent, he needed no leadership experience. Writers like presidential historian Michael Beschloss claimed Obama's "IQ was off the charts" and he was simply the smartest man to ever become president. Journalists universally proclaimed Barack a genius, whose past was literally irrelevant. Even today, Barack's slavering lickspittles salute his scandal free reign as breathlessly as a nun on a papal visit. As Mao prepared for the rollout of his signature program which he believe had the potential to end world hunger, his propaganda campaign was ramped up to rival even Stalin's. Beginning in 1957, his portraits began to appear everywhere. Mao was compared to the sun, and much like Obama's press, the age of Mao was declared a success before it began. Why did Mao tout a new utopian age as a result of the Great Leap, and allow his Party to do likewise? He knew nothing of science and therefore had a childish faith in its potential. And the Chinese were promised utopian fool's gold of limitless progress if they only cooperated with the scheme. Much like outdated healthcare plans in 2013, Mao prepared his people for change by destroying their past. This approach encouraged a "casual approach to facts." The Party encouraged a type of reckless faith in advancement, where even children could make extraordinary scientific breakthroughs if they caught the revolutionary zeal and rejected the trite conservatism of experts. Writes Becker,
All over China in 1958, the Party created thousands of new colleges, universities and research institutes, while real scientists were imprisoned or sent to do manual labor. In their place, thousands of untrained peasants carried out "scientific research."
'The framework of the individual family, which has existed for thousands of years, has been shattered for all time. . . We must regard the People's Commune as our family and not pay too much attention to the formation of a separate family of our own. For years motherly love has been glorified. . .but it is wrong to degrade a person from a social to a biological creature. . . the dearest people in the world are our parents, yet they cannot be compared with Chairman Mao and the Communist Party. . . for it is not the family which has given us everything but the Communist Party and the great revolution. . . Personal love is not so important: therefore women should not claim too much of their husbands' energy.'"While the Han peasants eventually regarded the communes as weapons of terror which were assembled sometimes as quickly as 48 hours, the inspiration was clearly ideological. Marx had stressed in the Communist Manifesto the need for peasants to be assembled into industrial armies to service agro-cities. This notion is shockingly close to the UN's plan called Agenda 21! Money was abolished, and Mao became so convinced that his communes were a success that he forbade the reward system for work and employed Marx's cliché, instead: "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." Mao also dictated that the wealthier villagers must begin to redistribute their wealth to their poorer neighbors. Ironically, as famine set in, the cadres began to employ the rule that whoever did not work, would starve. As the famine began to spread across the country, the Party leaders blamed the peasants, claiming they were hiding grain. Tortures and beatings were routinely handed out to the peasants, who driven mad by hunger, yet only had items like tree bark to eat. Ironically, the state granaries were full in 1958, while peasants starved. But by 1960, the entire country of China was in an advanced famine which killed tens of millions of peasants. Much cannibalism was practiced at this time.
View Comments
Kelly O’Connell is an author and attorney. He was born on the West Coast, raised in Las Vegas, and matriculated from the University of Oregon. After laboring for the Reformed Church in Galway, Ireland, he returned to America and attended law school in Virginia, where he earned a JD and a Master’s degree in Government. He spent a stint working as a researcher and writer of academic articles at a Miami law school, focusing on ancient law and society. He has also been employed as a university Speech & Debate professor. He then returned West and worked as an assistant district attorney. Kelly is now is a private practitioner with a small law practice in New Mexico.