Bringing Back the Dark Ages
There is a curious irony that may (or may not) have troubled you: given that the public lands are already communally-owed, that is, communized, why do the Communists wish to destroy said lands?
The Extreme Left is more than fashionably Socialist; they are Marxists, i.e. Communists. Of that there is no doubt. The most Extreme Leftists are Revolutionary Communists. Oh sure, you have your Marxist anarchists who are indeed dangerous crazies, but they are only “scum”, as Marx put it, not the “vanguard of scientific socialism”.
The “dangerous class”, the social scum, that passively rotting mass thrown off by the lowest layers of the old society, may, here and there, be swept into the movement by a proletarian revolution; its conditions of life, however, prepare it far more for the part of a bribed tool of reactionary intrigue. — Karl Marx, in his famous Manifesto [here]
It’s not the dangerous scum anarchists who wish to destroy the public lands (street people couldn’t care less about forests); it is the vanguard of proletarian revolution, the scientific socialists.
Which is ironic. They won the class struggle, at least vis-à-vis public lands. In Oregon fully 60% of the land base, and possibly more, is communally-owned. Ditto many other Western states. Hurrah for Marxism!
But instead of holding up public lands as a shining example of the virtues of Communism, the vanguard of scientific socialism wish to destroy those lands in catastrophic megafires. They oppose any and all nurturing treatments that might mitigate against wholesale destruction, and instead advocate No Touch, Let It Burn, Watch it Rot across vast dehumanized tracts.
So what gives? Why is the vanguard so anxious to wipe out their own holdings?
The answer is: they don’t give a rap about forests or watersheds or whether the land is publicly-owned or not. What true Communists care about is fomenting violent revolutionary war.
More from Karl’s Famous Manifesto:
The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his “natural superiors”, and has left no other nexus between people than naked self-interest, than callous “cash payment”. …
The proletariat goes through various stages of development. With its birth begins its struggle with the bourgeoisie. At first, the contest is carried on by individual laborers, then by the work of people of a factory, then by the operative of one trade, in one locality, against the individual bourgeois who directly exploits them. They direct their attacks not against the bourgeois condition of production, but against the instruments of production themselves; they destroy imported wares that compete with their labor, they smash to pieces machinery, they set factories ablaze, they seek to restore by force the vanished status of the workman of the Middle Ages. …
Finally, in times when the class struggle nears the decisive hour, the progress of dissolution going on within the ruling class, in fact within the whole range of old society, assumes such a violent, glaring character, that a small section of the ruling class cuts itself adrift, and joins the revolutionary class, the class that holds the future in its hands. …
In depicting the most general phases of the development of the proletariat, we traced the more or less veiled civil war, raging within existing society, up to the point where that war breaks out into open revolution, and where the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat. …
In short, the way Communism becomes victorious is through violent revolutionary war in which the proletariat (the peasants and “workers”) overthrow the bourgeoisie (the capitalists).
After the revolution, we will all recover our long-lost status as workmen of the Middle Ages. Then something even more miraculous happens: the State withers away.
Vladimir Lenin wrote, in his also famous The State and Revolution: The Economic Basis of the Withering Away of the State [here]:
After thus ridiculing all talk about a “people’s state”, Marx formulated the question and gave warning, as it were, that those seeking a scientific answer to it should use only firmly-established scientific data.
The first fact that has been established most accurately by the whole theory of development, by science as a whole — a fact that was ignored by the utopians, and is ignored by the present-day opportunists, who are afraid of the socialist revolution — is that, historically, there must undoubtedly be a special stage, or a special phase, of transition from capitalism to communism.
Marx continued:
“Between capitalist and communist society lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.”
Marx bases this conclusion on an analysis of the role played by the proletariat in modern capitalist society, on the data concerning the development of this society, and on the irreconcilability of the antagonistic interests of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie.
Previously the question was put as follows: to achieve its emancipation, the proletariat must overthrow the bourgeoisie, win political power and establish its revolutionary dictatorship.
Now the question is put somewhat differently: the transition from capitalist society — which is developing towards communism — to communist society is impossible without a “political transition period”, and the state in this period can only be the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat. …
Only in communist society, when the resistance of the capitalists have disappeared, when there are no classes (i.e., when there is no distinction between the members of society as regards their relation to the social means of production), only then “the state… ceases to exist”, and “it becomes possible to speak of freedom”. Only then will a truly complete democracy become possible and be realized, a democracy without any exceptions whatever. And only then will democracy begin to wither away, owing to the simple fact that, freed from capitalist slavery, from the untold horrors, savagery, absurdities, and infamies of capitalist exploitation, people will gradually become accustomed to observing the elementary rules of social intercourse that have been known for centuries and repeated for thousands of years in all copy-book maxims. They will become accustomed to observing them without force, without coercion, without subordination, without the special apparatus for coercion called the state.
The expression “the state withers away” is very well-chosen, for it indicates both the gradual and the spontaneous nature of the process. Only habit can, and undoubtedly will, have such an effect; for we see around us on millions of occasions how readily people become accustomed to observing the necessary rules of social intercourse when there is no exploitation, when there is nothing that arouses indignation, evokes protest and revolt, and creates the need for suppression. …
With the removal of this chief cause, excesses will inevitably begin to “wither away”. We do not know how quickly and in what succession, but we do know they will wither away. With their withering away the state will also wither away.
Then the door will be thrown wide open for the transition from the first phase of communist society to its higher phase, and with it to the complete withering away of the state.
In short, Medieval revival or no, after the violent revolution there must be created a Communist dictatorship. Then after we all enjoy that for awhile, the State will spontaneously wither away.
So you see, we can’t just leap from running dog capitalism, in concert with our scummy bribed tools of reactionary intrigue, to the withered State — first we must engage in violent revolutionary war that establishes a Communist dictatorship.
This country is not yet prepared for violent revolutionary war. People, even proletariat types, are too complacent. We have it too good. There is not nearly enough capitalist slavery, untold horrors, savagery, absurdities, and infamies of capitalist exploitation. The proletariat is not going to rise up from their couches, turn off their TV’s, and join in armed struggle unless they suffer some savagery and absurdities first.
If we communally take control of the land in huge proportion, and proceed to destroy natural resources such as water, timber, etc., then the people will suffer. If the national economy is ruined, and people lose their livelihoods and homes, then they will once again yearn for the dignity and wealth of Medieval craft guilds.
There is a reason, you see, for destroying the land, for turning entire regions into moonscapes, and for halting all “exploitation” of fibers, minerals, water, energy, and other economic commodities the land produces. It is not enough to communize the means of production, not at this juncture in history. The means of production must be crippled in order to impoverish the masses, to force us into becoming guerrilla revolutionary soldiers waging war against our running dog reactionary capitalist bosses.
Ever wonder why Obama et al. are opposed to drilling for the abundant oil and gas under our own country? It’s not because the product of combustion is CO2. The entire CO2/global warming hysteria is a hoax. CO2 is not a pollutant; it is the essential nutrient of Life.
No, the goal is to dismantle the U.S. economy in hopes that the oppressed proletariat will take up arms and start a shootin’ war.
We aren’t oppressed enough right now. We need more oppression. And nothing is more oppressing than megafires that burn all the way into towns, killing everything in their paths.
That’s the principal virtue of wildfire. It doesn’t “benefit” resources; it destroys them. Megafires oppress the masses by destroying their means of production, homes, and even lives, which is no great tragedy to Communists who yearn for a shootin’ war where a lot of scum get killed anyway.
Eventually though, and the Communists keep this foremost in their dreams, after a few centuries of a crushing Communist dictatorship, everybody will learn how to get along to such a degree that the government will wither away. It will just disappear. We won’t need it anymore, because we will all be so nice to each other, and share and share alike as we did in the good ol’ Medieval days.
That’s why the Extreme Left is so hot and bothered to set public forests ablaze. If they can collapse the economy and drive people into poverty and savagery, then the door will be opened to violent Communist revolution.
Lest you think all of the above is just plain nuts, let me instruct you. Yes, it is nuts, but it’s what a lot of people think. It’s what Marx considered the one, correct scientific analysis of history and the social order. Lenin was in complete agreement. It’s what a bunch of blood-thirsty Communist dictators believed passionately, from Stalin to Mao to Pol Pot. It’s what has been drilled into billions (with a “B”) of people over their entire lives.
If you think the Extreme Left does not cotton to the Marxist dialectic and his theories, think again. It’s what is taught in American universities today, by adherent professors who have read Marx and Lenin carefully and repeatedly, and swallowed those Communist teachings hook, line, and sinker.
The highest ranking members of our Government were trained and inculcated by those professors. And those professors and their students are the vanguard of scientific socialism who have promoted Let It Burn, the global warming hoax, and various and sundry forms of social and economic debilitation.
There is a method to their madness. They have a goal in mind. It is not the utopian state-withering Lenin promised, not any time soon anyway. First there must be violent revolution. That’s the immediate goal. Just ask Bill Ayers, or any other honest Communist.
