Marxism Unmasked from Delusion to Destruction.pdf 7471KB

the individual played a role in historical evolution. According to them,
history goes its own way. The material productive forces go their own
way, developing independendy of the \s-ills of individuals. And historical
events come with the inevitabiht>' of a law of ruturr. The material
productive forces work like a director in an opera; they must have a
substitute available in case of a problem, as the opera director must have
a substitute if the singer gets sick. According to this idea. Napoleon and
Dante, for insunce, were unimportant—if the>' had not appeared to take
their own special place m history-, someone eke v^-ould havr appeared on
stage to fill their shoes.
To undersund certain \\t)rds. you must understand the German
language. From the se\enteenth century on. considerable efibrt >**as
spent in fighting the use of Laun %%t>rds and m eliminating them from
the German language. In many cases a foreign word remained although
there was also a Gernun expression with the same meaning. The rvkx>
words began as synonyms, but m the course of history. che>' acquired
different nieanuigs. For mstance. take the ux>rd i'mrndzm^, the hteral
German translation of the Latin ^x)rd m\*l»ttioH. In the Latin word there
was no sense of fighting. Thus, there e\x>KTd t>ikx> meaning for the wofd
"revolution"—one b\' violence, and the other meaning a gradual
revolution like the "Industrial Re\x>lution" HauT\Tr. Marx uses the
Ciernun word Rnvluiion not only tor violent revolutions such as
the French or Ku\sian revolutions, but also for the gradual
Industrial Revolution
Incidentally, the term Industrul Ke\'olut>oa was introduced by
Arnold loynbce |1H.S2"IM8.^| Mar\i%ts say thai "What furthers
the overthrow i>t capitalism is not revolution—look at the
Industrial Revolution "
Marx assigned a %pectal meaning to slasxry. tcrfiom. and ochef
systems of bondage It was necessarv. he uid. for the %rarkers to be
free in order for the exploiter to exploit them This idea came horn the
interpretation he gave tt> the situation of the feudal lord who had to care
for hiN workcr% even when the> \%Tren*t %^\)rking Marx tnierpfrted
the liberal cha^ge^ that desrioped a* freeing the exploiter of the
responsibility for the lises of the \%\>rkers Marx didn't see that the hberal
movement was directed at the abolition of inequality under law. as
between serf and lord
Karl Marx believed that capital accumubuon was an obiucle. In llil
eyes, the only explanation for ssralth accumubtion was that socnebody
2i»