The Religion of Immoralism

SINCE Stalin's death it has become necessary
to find a new focus for our hostility to the unscrupulous and
inhuman behavior of the Communists. I wish it might be
focused on the real cause of the trouble: Marxism. Much
force of argument is wasted among Western intellectuals
through a wish to exempt Marx from responsibility for this re--
tum to barbarism. Realpolitik in the evil sense was certainly
not born with Marx. But the peculiar thing we are up against,
the casting aside of moral standards by people specializ-
ing in the quest of ideal human relations, was born with
Marx. He is the fountain source of the mores as well as the
economics of the Russian Bolsheviks, and is the godfather of
the delinquent liberals in all lands.

The notion of Marx as a benign and noble brooder over
man's hopes and sorrows, who would be "horrified" at the'
tricks and duplicities of present-day Communists, is as false
as it is widespread. Marx had a bad character. His best
81

eulogists can hardly think up a virtue to ascribe to him-ex-
cept, indeed, tenacity and moral courage. If he ever per-
formed a generous act, it is not to be found in the record. He
was a totally undisciplined, vain, slovenly, and egotistical
spoiled child. He was ready at the drop of a hat with spite-
ful hate. He could be devious, disloyal, snobbish, anti-
democratic, anti-Semitic, anti-Negro. He was by habit a
sponge, an intriguer, a tyrannical bigot who would rather
wreck his party than see it succeed under another leader.
All these traits are clear in the records of his life, and above
all in his private correspondence with his alter ego and in-
exhaustible sugar-daddy, Friedrich Engels. There are bit~ in
this correspondence so revolting to a person of democratic
sensibility that they had to be suppressed to keep the myth
of the great-hearted Karl Marx, champion of the downtrod-
den and of human brotherhood, alive at all. To give one
example: Ferdinand Lassalle, who was eclipsing Marx as
leader of a genuine working class movement in Germany,
they discovered to be not only a Jew whom they called
"Baron Izzy," "oi-oi, the great Lassalle," "the little Jew,"
'''the little kike," "Jew Braun," "Izzy the bounder," etc., but
also "a Jewish ******." "It is perfectly obvious," Marx wrote,
"from the shape of his head and the way his hair grows that
he is descended from the Negroes who joined Moses on the
journey out of Egypt, unless perhaps his mother or his grand-
mother had relations with a ******." Only the Russian Bol-
sheviks, who went in for the religion of immoralism with a
barbaric candor impossible to an urbane European, had the
hardihood to publish these letters unexpurgated.

I use the word religion in a precise sense. Although he
dismissed God as a hoax and the heavenly paradise as a de-
coy, Marx was not by nature skeptical or experimental. His
habits of thought demanded a belief both in paradise and
in a power that would surely lead us to it. He located his
82

Click to expand...

paradise on earth, calling it by such beatific names as the
"Kingdom of Freedom," the "Society of the Free and Equal,'~
the "Classless Society/' etc. Everything would be blissful
and harmonious there to a degree surpassing even the
dreams of the utopian socialists. Not only would all "causes
for contest" disappear, .all caste and class divisions, but
all divisions between city and country, between brain and
manual worker. Men would not even be divided into differ-
ent professions as they are at this low stage of the climb to-
ward paradise.

"Socialism will abolish both architecture and barrow-
pushing as professions," Engels assured the believers, "and
the man who has given haH an hour to architecture will also
push the cart a little until his work as an architect is again
in demand. It would be a pretty sort of socialism which per-
petuated the business of barrow-pushing."

It would seem that only a benign deity could guarantee
such a future to mankind, and only by teaching a higher
morality could He lead us to it. But Marx hated deity, and
regarded high moral aspirations as an obstacle. The power
on which he rested his faith in the coming paradise was the
harsh, fierce, bloody evolution of a "material," and yet mys-
teriously "upward-going," world. And he convinced himself
that, in order to get in step with such a world, we must set
aside moral principles and go in for fratricidal war. Al-
though buried under a mountain of economic rationaliza- .
tions pretending to be science, that mystical and antimoral
faith is the one wholly original contribution of Karl Marx to
man'sheritage of ideas.

It is common among those who condemn the lowering of
moral standards by Marxists to blame their C:C:materialism"
for it, but that is a crass mistake. Throughout history, from
Democritus to Santayana, men who believed genuinely that
the substance of the world is matter have been among the
83

noblest teachers of morality. Marx's materialism was not gen-
uine. It was the disguise of a mystical faith. The world he
called "material" was mental enough to be forever ascending
"from the lower to the higher" with a determinism that is
hardly distinguishable from determination. Engels, who did
the work and took the risk of actually expounding this naive
philosophy-for Marx played it safe as well as lazy by only
jotting down a few notes-even tells us that "the celestial
bodies like the formation of the organisms . . . arise and
perish and the courses that they run . . . take on eternally
more magnificent dimensions." Remembering that on this
particular planet human society is also rising through suc-
cessive stages to the "more magnificent" goal of the socialist
society, you see what a godlike kind of "matter" it was that
Marx believed in. It differed from Hegel's Divine Spirit
only in agreeing with Marx about what is sublime, and in
mapping out a course of procedure toward it that gave free
exercise to Marx's rebellious andcontumaceous disposition.
The universe of dialectic materialism-to put it briefly-is a
pantheistic God masquerading as matter, and permitting
HimseH under that disguise forms of conduct that no God
honestly named and identified could get away with in a civ-
ilized world.

Whittaker Chambers is very profoundly wrong when he
says in his book, Witness, that the issue between Soviet
Communism and the free world is between religion and ir-
religion, or between belief in man and belief in God. The
Communists believe in man not as an independent power,
but as a constituent part of the superhumanly ordained
movement of the universe. That dialectic movement is their
God, and it is that God who exempts them from the laws of
morality. The difference between Christianity and Commu-
nism-the difference, I mean, that is vital in this connection-
is between a religion which teaches personal salvation
84

Click to expand...

through sympathy and loving-kindness and a religion which
teaches social salvation through bringing the morals of war
into the peacetime relations of men.
Marx was so sure that the world was going to be redeemed
by its own dialectic evolution that he would not permit his
disciples to invoke the guidance of moral ideals. He really
meant it when he said the workers have "no ideal to realize,"
they have only to participate in the contemporary struggle.
He expelled people from his 'Communist party for mention-
ing programmatically such things as "love," "justice," "hu-
manity," even "morality" itself. "Soulful ravings," "sloppy
sentimentality," he called such expressions, and purged the
astonished authors as though they had committed the most
dastardly crimes.
Later in life, when Marx founded the First International,
he felt compelled for the sake of a big membership to soft-
pedal his highbrow insight into the purposes of the universe.
He wrote privately to Engels: «I was obliged to insert in the
preamble two phrases about <duty and right,' ditto <truth,
morality, and justice.'" But these lamentable phrases-he as-
sured his friend-<'are placed in such a way that they can do
no harm."
This mystic faith in evolution set Marx's mind free, and,
alas, his natural disposition, to replace the honest campaign
of public persuasion by which other gospels have been prop-
agated, with schemes for deceiving the public and tricking
his way into positions of power. It was Marx, not Lenin, who
invented the technique of the "front organization," the de-
vice of pretending to be a democrat in order to destroy de-
mocracy, the ruthless purging of dissident party members,
the employment of false personal slander in this task.
It was Marx and Engels who adopted '<scorn and con..
tempt" as the major key in which to attack the opponents of
socialism, introducing a literature of vituperation that has
85

few parallels in history. Even the political masterstroke of
giving the land to the peasants "initially" in order to take it
away from them when the power is secure came from the
same source. The introduction of such unprincipled behav-
ior into a movement toward the highest ends of man was
entirely the work of Marx and Engels. Lenin added nothing
to it but skill, and Stalin nothing but total instinctive indif-
ference to the ends.
So strong a force was set going after his death to sanctify
Marx, and benevolize him, so to speak, that these practices
were largely forgotten among Western Socialists. His religion
of immoralism was smoothed over. But in Lenin's mind this
religion found a perfect home, for Lenin had grown up un-
der the influence of the terrorist wing of the Russian revolu-
tionary movement. Lenin was an ardent admirer of Ne-
chayev, a rabid zealot of the 1870's who drew up a famous
document called "Catechism of a Revolutionist."
"The revolutionist is a doomed man. . . . He has severed every
link with the social order and with the entire civilized world. . . .
He hates and despises the social morality of his time. . . . Every-
thing which promotes the success of the revolution is moral,
everything which hinders it is immoral."
Nechayev was denounced even by his sufficiently violent
colleague, the anarchist Bakunin, as a dangerous fanatic"
who "when it is necessary to render some service to what he
calls 'the cause' . . . stops at nothing-deceit, robbery, even
murder." But Lenin. startled his early friends by defending
this madman and honoring his memory. Thus before he be-
came a Marxist, Lenin had arrived by an emotional road at
that rejection of moral standards which Marx deduced from
a pretended science of history. The confluence of these two
streams of thought is one of the greatest disasters that ever
befell mankind.
86

Click to expand...

Lenin was even more credulous and more specific than
Marx and Engels in describing the beauties of life in the
paradise toward which this dialectic world was traveling. In
his socialism every 'barrow-pusher' and every kitchen maid
was to take part in the function of government. He was also
more specific in describing the kinds of vile conduct which
must be employed to help it along. "We must be ready to
employ trickery, deceit, law-breaking, withholding and con-
cealing truth," he exclaimed. "We can and must write in a
language which sows among the masses hate, revulsion,
scorn, and the like, toward those who disagree with us."
Acting upon such principles, Lenin made use of slander-
ous lies and character-assassinations; he encouraged bank
robberies and armed holdups as a means of replenishing
the funds for the millennium. His disciples have carried the
faith forward, not stopping at any crime, from bodily as-
sassination to state-planned famine and wholesale military
massacre. A chief organizer of those bank robberies and
holdups was the Georgian Djugashvili, who took the party
name of Stalin. The Marx-Leninist belief that such crimes
are methods of progress toward a millennium was instilled
in this youth from the day of his revolt against Christian
theology. He had no other education, touched no other con-
ception of the world. He was once described by Archbishop
Curley as "the greatest murderer of men in history," and the
record when it is calmly written may bear this out. But he
took no step beyond the logical implications of a devout be-
lief in brutal and dishonorable conduct. He merely followed
through on the doctrine invented by Karl Marx, that in order
to enter the"Kingdom of Freedom," we must set aside moral
standards. We must place "duty and right ... truth, mo-
rality, and justice," where "they can do no. harm." Or, in
Lenin's words (spoken to an all-Russian Congress of Youth) :
87

"For us morality is subordinated completely to the interests
of the class struggle of the proletariat."

We have not entered, alas, the Kingdom of Freedom, and
the Classless Society has failed to appear. Everything under
the Communists moves in the opposite direction. But this re-
ligion of immoralism flourishes. The notion of an earthly
paradise in which men shall dwell together in millennial
brotherhood is used to justify crimes and depravities sur-
passing anything the modem world has seen. And this is
true not only in Russia, but wherever the power of the Com-
munistconspiracy extends. In countries beyond the reach of
Moscow the taint is carried by Communist parties to their
fringe of aocomplices, dupes, and fellow travelers; even
the once-honest liberals are not immune to it. More and
more throughout the world those dedicated to an extreme
social ideal, instead of being trained in virtue, are trained
to condone crimes against the elementary principles of social
conduct. Such a disaster never happened to humanity be-
fore. No such religion ever existed. That is why our states-
men have been bewildered and outwitted by it. Even after
thirty years of being assiduously swindled by the Kremlin,
they find it hard to believe that any human animal can be,
on principle and with devout and selfless fervor, a liar, a
murderer, and a cheat.

They are now looking for some. recrudescence of the old
simple decencies in Malenkov and his associates. But they
will look in vain. These men have been brought up in the
same school. They are fanatics of the same antimoral and
antiscientinc religion. Only the disproof and dislodgment of
Marxism will ever cure the world of its present desperate
sickness.
88

Click to expand...

The Horn said:

Once again, socialism and communism are being mistaken for the same thing here. They are not .
The real problem in Russia, China, Cuba, and elsewhere in the 20th century hasn't been socialism . It has been TOTALITARIANISM calling itself communism .
Stalin, Lenin, Mao , Fidel Castro et al were not socialists or communists . They were ruthless totalitarian dictators who called themeless, socialists, Marxists and communists .
their ruthless killed so many millions of people in the 20th century , not communism or socialism . All they wanted was power, and more power , and they did not care who they killed in order to get and maintain power . They set up a pathetically inefficient form of government where there was no private business or industry , no stock market , etc and where the government controlled the entire economy and the availability of goods and services .
But even the totalitarian dictators who succeeded them began to realize how inefficient and counterproductive this kind of economic system is , and they finally allowed some private industries and businesses . China is no longer communist ; it is now a 100 % capitalist economy which is still stuck with a totalitarian dictatorship , and the same is true of Russia .
Both countries now have a fair number of billionaires but still have a lot of poverty and misery .
In America we have the exact opposite . A Republican party which has been trying to destroy our already inadequate social safety net for the poor and those not originally poor but down on their luck . The existence of a safety net is not "socialism ". It is good government . We are headed toward becoming a country where only the rich will be able to afford medical care or be able to live a decent life with a car, home, etc , and jobs do not have any security or good benefits .
And where only the rich will be able to affords to send their children to college, graduate, law,or medical school, because our universities are pricing themselves out of existence .
So instead of having an oppressive government which prevents people from achieving prosperity ,
the big corporations are doing this and are basically the de facto US government with control over congress and controlling the economy , and the biggest industrialists are keeping Americans from becoming prosperous and keep all the wealth to themselves .
Either way , the poor and middle class are helpless .

Click to expand...

Even communists must have been somewhat shaken by such testimonies as that of Max Eastman, Lenin’s old friend, who found himself compelled to admit that “instead of being better, Stalinism is worse than fascism, more ruthless, barbarous, unjust, immoral, anti-democratic, unredeemed by any hope or scruple,” and that it is “better described as superfascist”; and when we find the same author recognizing that “Stalinism is socialism, in the sense of being an inevitable although unforeseen political accompaniment of the nationalization and collectivization which he had relied upon as part of his plan for erecting a classless his conclusion clearly achieves wider significance.

Click to expand...

Mr. Eastman’s case is perhaps the most remarkable, yet he is by no means the first or the only sympathetic observer of the Russian experiment to form similar conclusions. Several years earlier W. H. Chamberlin, who in twelve years in Russia as an American correspondent had seen all his ideals shattered, summed up the conclusions of his studies there and in Germany and Italy in the statement that “socialism is certain to prove, in the beginning at least, the road NOT to freedom, but to dictatorship and counter-dictatorships, to civil war of the fiercest kind. Socialism achieved and maintained by democratic means seems definitely to belong to the world of utopias.” Similarly a British writer, F. A. Voigt, after many years of close observation of developments in Europe as a foreign correspondent, concludes that “Marxism has led to Fascism and National Socialism, because, in all essentials, it is Fascism and National Socialism.”

Click to expand...

The Horn said:

Ffreeloader, I've never been a Marxist or a communist . Yes, communist governments have been totalitarian , but if wrongly handled, CAPITALISM can lead to totalitarian government too . This is exactly what America is heading towers under Trump. Totalitarian government is terrible whether it's totalitarianism of the left or right wing kind .

Click to expand...

The Barbarian said:

The Religion of Immoralism:

"Adultery isn't a sin."
"I don't have to ask God for forgiveness."
"You can ************** and they let you do it."

Click to expand...

ffreeloader said:

LOL. This is one convincing refutation of all I've posted here.

Click to expand...

How do you manage to achieve this level of intellectual excellence?

Click to expand...

The Barbarian said:

Well, not everyone considers adultery to be a sin. So you might take exception to my characterization of that as immoral. I'm just noting selective outrage.



Doesn't take a genius to connect "immoral" and "Trump." He's pretty much the poster boy for the Seven Deadly sins:

1 Gula (gluttony)
2 Luxuria/Fornicatio (lust, fornication)
3 Avaritia (avarice/greed)
4 Superbia (pride, hubris)
5 Tristitia (sorrow/despair/despondency)
6 Ira (wrath)
7 Vanagloria (vainglory)
8 Acedia (sloth)

Click to expand...

The Horn said:

This is exactly what America is heading towers under Trump.

Click to expand...

The Barbarian said:

Well, not everyone considers adultery to be a sin.

Click to expand...

Tambora said:

It is.

Click to expand...

The Barbarian said:

Trump disagrees with you.

Click to expand...

World’s richest 1% get 82% of the wealth, Oxfam says

Approximately 82 percent of the money generated last year went to the richest 1 percent of the global population, the report said, while the poorest half saw no increase at all.

Last year, Oxfam said billionaires would have seen an uptick of $762 billion — enough to end extreme poverty seven times over ...

Just 42 people own the same amount of wealth as the poorest 50 percent worldwide, a new study by global charity Oxfam claimed.

In a report published Monday, Oxfam called for action to tackle the growing gap between the super-rich and the rest of the world. Approximately 82 percent of the money generated last year went to the richest 1 percent of the global population, the report said, while the poorest half saw no increase at all.

The report is timely as the global political and business elite gathers in snow-clad Davos for the World Economic Forum's annual meeting this week, which aims to promote responsive and responsible leadership.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/mark...the-wealth-oxfam-says/ar-AAv0pVP?ocid=msnbcrd

Click to expand...

ffreeloader said:

If you don't know who Hayek was, he was the co-recipient of the Nobel Prize for Economics in 1974 and was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1991...

Click to expand...