By Jonah Goldberg
April 2018
From the time of antiquity until the Enlightenment, trade
and the pursuit of wealth were considered sinful. “In the city that is most
finely governed,” Aristotle wrote, “the citizens should not live a vulgar or a
merchant’s way of life, for this sort of way of life is ignoble and contrary to
virtue.”1 In Plato’s vision of an ideal society (the Republic)
the ruling “guardians” would own no property to avoid tearing “the city in
pieces by differing about ‘mine’ and ‘not mine.’” He added that “all that
relates to retail trade, and merchandise, and the keeping of taverns, is
denounced and numbered among dishonourable things.” Only noncitizens would be
allowed to indulge in commerce. A citizen who defies the natural order and
becomes a merchant should be thrown in jail for “shaming his
family.”
At his website humanprogress.org, Marian L. Tupy quotes
D.C. Earl of the University of Leeds, who wrote that in Ancient Rome, “all
trade was stigmatized as undignified … the word
mercator [merchant] appears as almost a term of abuse.” Cicero
noted in the first century b.c.e. that retail commerce is sordidus (vile) because merchants “would not make any
profit unless they lied constantly.”
Early Christianity expanded this point of view. Jesus
himself was clearly hostile to the pursuit of riches. “For where your treasure
is,” he proclaimed in his Sermon on the Mount, “there will your heart be also.”
And of course he insisted that “it is easier for a camel to go through the eye
of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”
The Catholic Church incorporated this view into its
teachings for centuries, holding that economics was zero-sum. “The Fathers of
the Church adhered to the classical assumption that since the material wealth
of humanity was more or less fixed, the gain of some could only come at a loss
to others,” the economic historian Jerry Muller explains in his book The
Mind and the Market: Capitalism in Western Thought. As St. Augustine put
it, “Si unus non perdit, alter non acquirit”—“If one does not lose, the
other does not gain.”
The most evil form of wealth accumulation was the use of
money to make money—usury. Lending money at interest was unnatural, in this
view, and therefore invidious. “While expertise in exchange is justly blamed
since it is not according to nature but involves taking from others,” Aristotle
insisted, “usury is most reasonably hated because one’s possessions derive from
money itself and not from that for which it was supplied.” In the Christian
tradition, the only noble labor was physical labor, and so earning wealth from
the manipulation of money was seen as inherently ignoble.
In the somewhat more prosperous and market-driven
medieval period, Thomas Aquinas helped make private property and commerce more
acceptable, but he did not fundamentally break with the Aristotelian view that
trade was suspect and the pursuit of wealth was sinful. The merchant’s life was
in conflict with the teachings of Christianity if it led to pride or avarice.
“Echoing Aristotle,” Muller writes, “Aquinas reasserted that justice in the
distribution of material goods was fulfilled when someone received in proportion
to his status, office, and function within the institutions of an existing,
structured community. Hence Aquinas decried as covetousness the accumulation of
wealth to improve one’s place in the social order.”
In the medieval mind, Jews were seen as a kind of
stand-in for mercantile and usurious sinfulness. Living outside the Christian community, but
within the borders of Christendom, they were allowed to commit the sin of usury
on the grounds that their souls were already forfeit. Pope Nicholas V insisted
that it is much better that “this people should perpetrate usury than that
Christians should engage in it with one another.”2 The Jews were
used as a commercial caste the way the untouchables of India were used as a
sanitation caste. As Montesquieu would later observe in the 16th century,
“whenever one prohibits a thing that is naturally permitted or necessary, the
people who engage in it are regarded as dishonest.” Thus, as Muller has argued,
anti-Semitism has its roots in a kind of primitive anti-capitalism.
Early Protestantism did not reject these views. It
amplified them.3 Martin Luther despised commerce. “There is on earth
no greater enemy of man, after the Devil, than a gripe-money and usurer, for he
wants to be God over all men…. Usury
is a great, huge monster, like a werewolf …. And since
we break on the wheel and behead highwaymen, murderers, and housebreakers, how
much more ought we to break on the wheel and kill … hunt down,
curse, and behead all usurers!”4
It should therefore come as no surprise that Luther’s
views of Jews, the living manifestation of usury in the medieval mind, were
just as immodest. In his 1543 treatise On
the Jews and Their Lies, he offers a seven-point plan on how to deal
with them:
·
“First, to set fire to their synagogues or schools .…This is
to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that
we are Christians …”
·
“Second, I advise that their houses also be
razed and destroyed.”
·
“Third, I advise that all their prayer books and
Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing, and blasphemy are
taught, be taken from them.”
·
“Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden
to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb… ”
·
“Fifth, I advise that safe-conduct on the highways
be abolished completely for the Jews. For they have no business in the
countryside … ”
·
“Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to
them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them … ”
·
“Seventh, I recommend putting a flail, an ax, a
hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and
Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow.… But if
we are afraid that they might harm us or our wives, children, servants, cattle,
etc., … then let us
emulate the common sense of other nations such as France, Spain, Bohemia, etc.,
… then eject them forever from the country … ”
Luther agitated against the Jews throughout Europe,
condemning local officials for insufficient anti-Semitism (a word that did not
exist at the time and a sentiment that was not necessarily linked to more
modern biological racism). His demonization of the Jews was derived from more
than anti-capitalism. But his belief that the Jewish spirit of commerce was
corrupting of Christianity was nonetheless central to his indictment. He
sermonized again and again that it must be cleansed from Christendom, either
through conversion, annihilation, or expulsion.
Three centuries later, Karl Marx would blend these ideas
together in a noxious stew.
II
The idea at the center of virtually all of Marx’s
economic writing is the labor theory of value. It holds that all of the value
of any product can be determined by the number of hours it took for a laborer
or laborers to produce it. From the viewpoint of conventional economics—and
elementary logic—this is ludicrous. For example, ingenuity, which may not be
time-consuming, is nonetheless a major source of value. Surely it cannot be
true that someone who works intelligently, and therefore efficiently, provides
less value than someone who works stupidly and slowly. (Marx anticipates some
of these kinds of critiques with a lot of verbiage about the costs of training
and skills.) But the more relevant point is simply this: The determinant of
value in an economic sense is not the labor that went into a product but the
price the consumer is willing to pay for it. Whether it took an hour or a week
to build a mousetrap, the value of the two products is the same to the consumer
if the quality is the same.
Marx had philosophical, metaphysical, and tactical
reasons for holding fast to the labor theory of value. It was essential to his
argument that capitalism—or what we would now call “commerce” plain and
simple—was exploitative by its very nature. In Marx, the term “exploitation”
takes a number of forms. It is not merely evocative of child laborers working
in horrid conditions; it covers virtually all profits. If all value is captured
by labor, any “surplus value” collected by the owners of capital is by definition
exploitative. The businessman who risks his own money to build and staff an
innovative factory is not adding value; rather, he is subtracting value from
the workers. Indeed, the money he used to buy the land and the materials is
really just “dead labor.” For Marx, there was an essentially fixed amount of
“labor-power” in society, and extracting profit from it was akin to
strip-mining a natural resource. Slavery and wage-labor were different forms of
the same exploitation because both involved extracting the common resource. In
fact, while Marx despised slavery, he thought wage-labor was only a tiny improvement because wage-labor reduced costs
for capitalists in that they were not required to feed or clothe wage laborers.
Because Marx preached revolution, we are inclined to
consider him a revolutionary. He was not. None of this was a radical step
forward in economic or political thinking. It was, rather, a reaffirmation of
the disdain of commerce that starts with Plato and Aristotle and found new
footing in Christianity. As Jerry Muller (to whom I am obviously very indebted)
writes:
To a degree rarely appreciated,
[Marx] merely recast the traditional Christian stigmatization of moneymaking
into a new vocabulary and reiterated the ancient suspicion against those who
used money to make money. In his concept of capitalism as “exploitation” Marx
returned to the very old idea that money is fundamentally unproductive, that
only those who live by the sweat of their brow truly produce, and that
therefore not only interest, but profit itself, is always ill-gotten.
In his book Karl Marx: A Nineteenth-Century Life,
Jonathan Sperber suggests that “Marx is more usefully understood as a
backward-looking figure, who took the circumstances of the first half of the
nineteenth century and projected them into the future, than as a surefooted and
foresighted interpreter of historical trends.”5
Marx was a classic bohemian who resented the fact that he
spent his whole life living off the generosity of, first, his parents and then
his collaborator Friedrich Engels. He loathed the way “the system” required
selling out to the demands of the market and a career. The frustrated poet
turned to the embryonic language of social science to express his angry
barbaric yawp at The Man. “His critique of the stultifying effects of labor in
a capitalist society,” Muller writes, “is a direct continuation of the Romantic
conception of the self and its place in society.”
In other words, Marx was a romantic, not a scientist.
Romanticism emerged as a rebellion against the Enlightenment, taking many
forms—from romantic poetry to romantic nationalism. But central to all its
forms was the belief that modern, commercial, rational life is inauthentic and
alienating, and cuts us off from our true natures.
As Rousseau, widely seen as the first romantic, explained
in his Discourse on the Moral Effects of the Arts and Sciences,
modernity—specifically the culture of commerce and science—was oppressive. The
baubles of the Enlightenment were mere “garlands of flowers” that concealed
“the chains which weigh [men] down” and led people to “love their own slavery.”
This is a better context for understanding Marx’s and
Engels’s hatred of the division of labor and the division of rights and duties.
Their baseline assumption, like Rousseau’s, is that primitive man lived a freer
and more authentic life before the rise of private property and capitalism.
“Within the tribe there is as yet no difference between rights and duties,”
Engels writes in Origins
of the Family, Private Property, and the State. “The question whether
participation in public affairs, in blood revenge or atonement, is a right or a
duty, does not exist for the Indian; it would seem to him just as absurd as the
question whether it was a right or a duty to sleep, eat, or hunt. A division of
the tribe or of the gens into different classes was equally impossible.”
For Marx, then, the Jew might as well be the real culprit
who told Eve to bite the apple. For the triumph of the Jew and the triumph of
money led to the alienation of man. And in truth, the term “alienation” is
little more than modern-sounding shorthand for exile from Eden. The division of
labor encourages individuality, alienates us from the collective, fosters
specialization and egoism, and dethrones the sanctity of the tribe. “Money is
the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may exist,” Marx writes.
“Money degrades all the gods of man—and turns them into commodities. Money is
the universal self-established value of all things. It has, therefore,
robbed the whole world—both the world of men and nature—of its specific value.
Money is the estranged essence of man’s work and man’s existence, and this
alien essence dominates him, and he worships it.”
Marx’s muse was not analytical reason, but resentment.
That is what fueled his false consciousness. To understand this fully, we
should look at how that most ancient and eternal resentment—Jew-hatred—informed
his worldview.
III
The atheist son of a Jewish convert to Lutheranism and
the grandson of a rabbi, Karl Marx hated capitalism in no small part because he
hated Jews. According to Marx and Engels, Jewish values placed the acquisition
of money above everything else. Marx writes in his infamous essay “On the
Jewish Question”:
Let us consider the actual,
worldly Jew—not the Sabbath Jew … but the
everyday Jew.
Let us not look for the secret of
the Jew in his religion, but let us look for the secret of his religion in the
real Jew.
What is the secular basis of
Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the
Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money [Emphasis in original]
The spread of capitalism, therefore, represented a kind
of conquest for Jewish values. The Jew—at least the one who set up shop in
Marx’s head—makes his money from money. He adds no value. Worse, the Jews
considered themselves to be outside the organic social order, Marx complained,
but then again that is what capitalism encourages—individual independence from
the body politic and the selfish (in Marx’s mind) pursuit of individual success
or happiness. For Marx, individualism was a kind of heresy because it meant
violating the sacred bond of the community. Private property empowered
individuals to live as individuals “without regard to other men,” as Marx put
it.
This is the essence of Marx’s view of alienation. Marx
believed that people were free, creative beings but were chained to their role
as laborers in the industrial machine. The division of labor inherent to
capitalist society was alienating and inauthentic, pulling us out of the
communitarian natural General Will. The Jew was both an emblem of this
alienation and a primary author of it:
The Jew has emancipated himself
in a Jewish manner, not only because he has acquired financial power, but also
because, through him and also apart from him, money has become a world
power and the practical Jewish spirit has become the practical spirit of the
Christian nations. The Jews have emancipated themselves insofar as the
Christians have become Jews. [Emphasis in original]
He adds, “The god of the Jews has become secularized and
has become the god of the world. The bill of exchange is the real god of the
Jew. His god is only an illusory bill of exchange.” And he concludes: “In the
final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind
from Judaism.” [Emphasis in original]
In The Holy Family, written with Engels, he argues
that the most pressing imperative is to transcend “the Jewishness of
bourgeois society, the inhumanity of present existence, which finds its
highest embodiment in the system of money.” [Emphasis in original]
In his “Theories of Surplus Value,” he praises Luther’s
indictment of usury. Luther “has really caught the character of old-fashioned
usury, and that of capital as a whole.” Marx and Engels insist that the
capitalist ruling classes, whether or not they claim to be Jewish, are
nonetheless Jewish in spirit. “In their description of the confrontation of
capital and labor, Marx and Engels resurrected the traditional critique of
usury,” Muller observes. Or, as Deirdre McCloskey notes, “the history that Marx
thought he perceived went with his erroneous logic that capitalism—drawing on
an anticommercial theme as old as commerce—just is the same thing as
greed.”6 Paul Johnson is pithier: Marx’s “explanation of what was
wrong with the world was a combination of student-café anti-Semitism and
Rousseau.”7
For Marx, capital and the Jew are different faces of the
same monster: “The capitalist knows that all commodities—however shabby they
may look or bad they may smell—are in faith and in fact money, internally
circumcised Jews, and in addition magical means by which to make more money out
of money.”
Marx’s writing, particularly on surplus value, is
drenched with references to capital as parasitic and vampiric: “Capital is dead
labor which, vampire-like, lives only by sucking living labor, and lives the
more, the more labor it sucks. The time during which the worker works is the
time during which the capitalist consumes the labor-power he has bought from
him.” The constant allusions to the eternal wickedness of the Jew combined with
his constant references to blood make it hard to avoid concluding that Marx had
simply updated the blood libel and applied it to his own atheistic doctrine.
His writing is replete with references to the “bloodsucking” nature of
capitalism. He likens both Jews and capitalists (the same thing in his mind) to
life-draining exploiters of the proletariat.
Marx writes how the extension of the workday into the
night “only slightly quenches the vampire thirst for the living blood of
labor,” resulting in the fact that “the vampire will not let go ‘while there
remains a single muscle, sinew or drop of blood to be exploited.’” As Mark
Neocleous of Brunel University documents in his brilliant essay, “The Political
Economy of the Dead: Marx’s Vampires,” the images of blood and bloodsucking
capital in Das Kapital are even more prominent motifs: “Capital ‘sucks
up the worker’s value-creating power’ and is dripping with blood. Lacemaking
institutions exploiting children are described as ‘blood-sucking,’ while U.S.
capital is said to be financed by the ‘capitalized blood of children.’ The
appropriation of labor is described as the ‘life-blood of capitalism,’ while
the state is said to have here and there interposed itself ‘as a barrier to the
transformation of children’s blood into capital.’”
Marx’s vision of exploitative, Jewish, bloodsucking
capital was an expression of romantic superstition and tribal hatred. Borrowing
from the medieval tradition of both Catholics as well as Luther himself, not to
mention a certain folkloric poetic tradition, Marx invented a modern-sounding
“scientific” theory that was in fact reactionary in every sense of the word. “If Marx’s vision was forward-looking, its
premises were curiously archaic,” Muller writes. “As in the civic republican
and Christian traditions, self-interest is the enemy of social cohesion and of
morality. In that sense, Marx’s thought is a reversion to the time before
Hegel, Smith, or Voltaire.”
In fairness to Marx, he does not claim that he wants to
return to a feudal society marked by inherited social status and aristocracy.
He is more reactionary than that. The Marxist
final fantasy holds that at the end of history, when
the state “withers away,” man is liberated from all exploitation and returns to
the tribal state in which there is no division of labor, no dichotomy of rights
and duties.
Marx’s “social science” was swept into history’s dustbin
long ago. What endured was the romantic appeal of Marxism, because that appeal
speaks to our tribal minds in ways we struggle to recognize, even though it
never stops whispering in our ears.
IV
It is an old conservative habit—one I’ve been guilty of
myself—of looking around society and politics, finding things we don’t like or
disagree with, and then running through an old trunk of Marxist bric-a-brac to
spruce up our objections. It is undeniably true that the influence of Marx,
particularly in the academy, remains staggering. Moreover, his indirect
influence is as hard to measure as it is extensive. How many novels, plays, and
movies have been shaped by Marx or informed by people shaped by Marx? It’s
unknowable.
And yet, this is overdone. The truth is that Marx’s ideas
were sticky for several reasons. First, they conformed to older, traditional
ways of seeing the world—far more than Marxist zealots have ever realized. The
idea that there are malevolent forces above and around us, manipulating our
lives and exploiting the fruits of our labors, was hardly invented by him. In a
sense, it wasn’t invented by anybody. Conspiracy theories are as old as
mankind, stretching back to prehistory.
There’s ample reason—with ample research to back it up—to
believe that there is a natural and universal human appetite for conspiracy
theories. It is a by-product of our adapted ability to detect patterns,
particularly patterns that may help us anticipate a threat—and, as Mark van
Vugt has written,
“the biggest threat facing humans throughout history has been other people,
particularly when they teamed up against you.”8
To a very large extent, this is what Marxism is —an
extravagant conspiracy theory in which the ruling classes, the industrialists,
and/or the Jews arrange affairs for their own benefit and against the interests
of the masses. Marx himself was an avid conspiracy theorist, as so many
brilliant bohemian misfits tend to be, believing that the English deliberately
orchestrated the Irish potato famine to “carry
out the agricultural revolution and to thin the population of Ireland down to
the proportion satisfactory to the landlords.” He even argued that the Crimean War was a kind of false-flag operation to hide
the true nature of Russian-English collusion.
Contemporary political figures on the left and the right
routinely employ the language of exploitation and conspiracy. They do so not
because they’ve internalized Marx, but because of their own internal
psychological architecture. In Rolling Stone, Matt Taibbi, the talented
left-wing writer, describes Goldman Sachs (the subject of quite a few conspiracy theories)
thus:
The first thing you need to know
about Goldman Sachs is that it’s everywhere. The world’s most powerful
investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity,
relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money. In
fact, the history of the recent financial crisis, which doubles as a history of
the rapid decline and fall of the suddenly swindled dry American empire, reads
like a Who’s Who of Goldman Sachs graduates.
Marx would be jealous that he didn’t think of the phrase
“the great vampire squid.”
Meanwhile, Donald Trump has occasionally traded in the
same kind of language, even evoking some ancient anti-Semitic tropes. “Hillary
Clinton meets in secret with international banks to plot the destruction of
U.S. sovereignty in order to enrich these global financial powers, her
special-interest friends, and her donors,” Trump said in one campaign speech.
“This election will determine if we are a free nation or whether we have only
the illusion of democracy, but are in fact controlled by a small handful of
global special interests rigging the system, and our system is rigged.” He added:
“Our corrupt political establishment, that is the greatest power behind the
efforts at radical globalization and the disenfranchisement of working people.
Their financial resources are virtually unlimited, their political resources
are unlimited, their media resources are unmatched.”
A second reason Marxism is so successful at fixing itself
to the human mind is that it offers—to some—a palatable substitute for the lost
certainty of religious faith. Marxism helped to restore certainty and meaning
for huge numbers of people who, having lost traditional religion, had not lost
their religious instinct. One can see evidence of this in the rhetoric used by
Marxist and other socialist revolutionaries who promised to deliver a “Kingdom
of Heaven on Earth.”
The 20th-century philosopher Eric Voegelin argued that
Enlightenment thinkers like Voltaire had stripped the transcendent from its
central place in human affairs. God had been dethroned and “We the People”—and
our things—had taken His place. “When God is invisible behind the world,”
Voegelin writes, “the contents of the world will become new gods; when the
symbols of transcendent religiosity are banned, new symbols develop from the
inner-worldly language of science to take their place.”9
The religious views of the Romantic writers and artists
Marx was raised on (and whom he had once hoped to emulate) ran the gamut from
atheism to heartfelt devotion, but they shared an anger and frustration with
the way the new order had banished the richness of faith from the land. “Now we
have got the freedom of believing in public nothing but what can be rationally
demonstrated,” the writer Johann Heinrich Merck complained. “They have deprived
religion of all its sensuous elements, that is, of all its relish. They have
carved it up into its parts and reduced it to a skeleton without color and
light…. And now it’s put in a jar and nobody wants to taste it.”10
When God became sidelined as the source of ultimate
meaning, “the people” became both the new deity and the new messianic force of
the new order. In other words, instead of worshipping some unseen force
residing in Heaven, people started worshipping themselves. This is what gave
nationalism its spiritual power, as the volksgeist, people’s spirit,
replaced the Holy Spirit. The tribal instinct to belong to a sacralized group
took over. In this light, we can see how romantic nationalism and “globalist”
Marxism are closely related. They are both “re-enchantment creeds,” as the
philosopher-historian Ernest Gellner put it. They fill up the holes in our
souls and give us a sense of belonging and meaning.
For Marx, the inevitable victory of Communism would
arrive when the people, collectively, seized their rightful place on the Throne
of History.11 The cult of unity found a new home in countless
ideologies, each of which determined, in accord with their own dogma, to, in
Voegelin’s words, “build the corpus mysticum of the collectivity and bind the
members to form the oneness of the body.” Or, to borrow a phrase from Barack
Obama, “we are the ones we’ve been waiting for.”
In practice, Marxist doctrine is more alienating and
dehumanizing than capitalism will ever be. But in theory, it conforms to the
way our minds wish to see the world. There’s a reason why so many populist
movements have been so easily herded into Marxism. It’s not that the mobs in
Venezuela or Cuba started reading The Eighteenth Brumaire and suddenly
became Marxists. The peasants of North Vietnam did not need to read the Critique
of the Gotha Program to become convinced that they were being exploited.
The angry populace is always already convinced. The people have usually reached
the conclusion long ago. They have the faith; what they need is the dogma. They
need experts and authority figures—priests!—with ready-made theories
about why the masses’ gut feelings were right all along. They don’t need
Marx or anybody else to tell them they feel ripped off, disrespected,
exploited. They know that already. The story Marxists tell doesn’t have to be
true. It has to be affirming. And it has to have a villain. The villain, then
and now, is the Jew.
1 Muller, Jerry
Z.. The Mind and the Market: Capitalism in Western Thought (p. 5). Knopf
Doubleday Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
2 Muller, Jerry Z. Capitalism and the Jews (pp.
23-24). Princeton University Press. Kindle Edition.
3 Luther’s economic thought, reflected in his “Long
Sermon on Usury of 1520” and his tract On Trade and Usury of 1524, was
hostile to commerce in general and to international trade in particular, and
stricter than the canonists in its condemnation of moneylending. Muller, Jerry Z.. Capitalism and the Jews
(p. 26). Princeton University Press. Kindle Edition.
4 Quoted
approvingly in Marx, Karl and Engels, Friedrich. “Capitalist Production.” Capital:
Critical Analysis of Production, Volume II. Samuel Moore and Edward
Aveling, trans. London: Swan Sonnenschein, Lowrey, & Co. 1887. p. 604
5 Sperber,
Jonathan. “Introduction.” Karl Marx: A Nineteenth-Century Life. New
York: Liverwright Publishing Corporation. 2013. xiii.
6 McCloskey,
Deirdre. Bourgeois Dignity: Why Economics Can’t Explain the Modern World. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press. p. 142
7 Johnson, Paul. Intellectuals
(Kindle Locations 1325-1326). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.
8 See also: Sunstain, Cass R. and Vermeule, Adrian.
“Syposium on Conspiracy Theories: Causes and Cures.” The Journal of Political
Philosophy: Volume 17, Number 2, 2009, pp. 202-227. http://www.ask-force.org/web/Discourse/Sunstein-Conspiracy-Theories-2009.pdf
9 Think of the story of the Golden Calf. Moses departs
for Mt. Sinai to talk with God and receive the Ten Commandments. No sooner had
he left did the Israelites switch their allegiance to false idol, the Golden
Calf, treating a worldly inanimate object as their deity. So it is with modern
man. Hence, Voegelin’s quip that for the Marxist “Christ the Redeemer is
replaced by the steam engine as the promise of the realm to come.”
10 Blanning, Tim. The Romantic Revolution: A History
(Modern Library Chronicles Series Book 34) (Kindle Locations 445-450). Random
House Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
11 Marx: “Along with the constant decrease in the
number of capitalist magnates, who usurp and monopolize all the advantages of
this process of transformation, the mass of misery, oppression, slavery,
degradation and exploitation grows; but with this there also grows the revolt
of the working class, a class constantly increasing in numbers, and trained,
united and organized by the very mechanism of the capitalist process of
production.”
No comments:
Post a Comment