Communism? Sure, Why Not?

Todd Hayen

I read Marx and Engels’ The Communist Manifesto when I was 17, and I got detention for it. Actually, I got the detention for reading it in class, and then got a lecture for being interested in its subversive un-American content by the assistant principal while I was in detention. The details are irrelevant. I didn’t read it because I was a Marx fan, I read it just because I knew it was subversive. I read Mein Kampf a few years later for the same reason. I didn’t become a fan of Hitler as a result, but I did learn a lot about him and National Socialism, and in High School after reading the Manifesto, I learned a bit about communism.

I remember being impressed with the famous quote, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” (a Marx quote but from a different writing). At the time I did not understand its implications. It sounded nice without digging too deep. It seems we are tricked by this idea of “sounding nice” when we first hear of something, like CBDCs, UBIs, or Digital IDs, “sounds pretty good, eh?” No one seems to look at the implications—we do of course, but most sheep do not.

Yeah, nice, steal from the rich and give to the poor. Everyone loved Robin Hood . . . he was one of the good guys. Everyone assumes that anyone with money got it by stealing from the poor! Sure, some do that, but probably not as common in a simple old-world capitalist country (not directly at least), and probably much more common in a communist one (robbing from the poor, robbing from everyone), and certainly the name of the game in the oncoming GloboCap economy (to borrow C.J. Hopkins’ term). “One day you’ll own nothing, and you’ll be happy.” I’m sure about the first part of this sentence, and not so sure about the second part.

Not only does the concept “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” simply not work but any system based on such things is wide open to corruption. I won’t go into any detail as to why communism as Marx proposed is a whacked system, there are plenty of books out there on that subject. What I do want to comment on is why so many people don’t believe it is whacked. Show a liberal that Marx sentence and I will bet you they will say, “Sure, why not?” Yeah, sure they like the sound of it until the state comes along and starts shaving off their opulence and distributing it to the ones they think should get it instead of them, “according to their needs.”

First of all, no one (here in North America at least) is yet suffering deeply as we transition to totalitarianism with a communist bent. People think that the loss of freedoms is analogous to removing traffic laws. It isn’t. People say, “Well, I don’t have a problem being a law-abiding citizen, I don’t need to have the right ‘to do anything I want’.” That is a naive statement. The rights people lose under a communist-like system is a bit more harsh than that. It is important to note that what we are being led into is not the communism of Marx, Lenin, or Mao. It is a new kind. Exactly what, I am not sure, but it is different. A new system of “collectivization” may not, at least at first, carry any of the stereotypical “communism” oppressions that everyone thinks of when they think of communism. And yes, many people may be tolerant of it, again, at least for a while. Think of Orwell’s 1984, then compare that dismal state to Huxley’s Brave New World, or even Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451. 1984 is an example of the “end-term” condition of an oppressed culture.

In 1984, the disease has deeply set in, and the parasite of communism/totalitarianism is about to destroy its host. Brave New World and Fahrenheit 451 are examples of cultures still in the early stages of a structure that is sucking the soul out of people, but the host (the people) are not yet dead. What they all have in common, though, as well as what is in common with today’s dystopia—is a central control of the masses. This is now accomplished differently—cell phone obsession, media takeover, social media, the label of misinformation on anything contrary to the narrative. Sure, the old mainstays of propaganda and censoring of speech are still part of it all, but again, it all has a slightly different spin to it.

The goal of the parasite is to keep the host alive as long as possible in order to benefit from it. Certainly, in our case, the masses can be culled, and kept just sick enough that they are compliant and easily manipulated, but, as Schwab says, the intent is to keep what’s left of us happy . . . or so they hope, at least until they are very well ensconced in the “new” culture.

The style of communism that is upon us (and we do have to come up with a better word now that it no longer has the intention of making community) is designed to suck just enough out of us that we don’t know we are being depleted of life. The perpetrators know nothing of soul; therefore, they care nothing of it. We will lose our soul quicker than losing our bodies as a result of this slow drain. We will become depressed, despondent, un-empathic, un-loving, and anxious, as well as a litany of other mental and emotional maladies. Although our masters will intend to keep our body just on the edge of functioning (unless we are one of the unfortunate—or fortunate?—to be culled) in order to return to them what they desire, we will sooner than later collapse internally. The soul will starve. We are already seeing this, at least we are, the people most affected by this Skeksis style of killing are not conscious of the cause of their despair—and this realization is only just now creeping up on them.

It will be a long time before people notice what’s happening. What will it take? Will it take being restricted from travelling internationally? Or being restricted from travelling from city to city, or even within one’s own city? Or will those restrictions be shrouded in the common pretext, “it is for your own good.” Will people notice this oppression when they no longer can use cash at their discretion? Or when they are restricted from buying certain items they want because they are over their quota? Or will they notice when the heat or air conditioning in their home is adjusted beyond their will? Or will they see this too as “for everyone’s benefit due to the dangers of climate change?” Will they finally notice when they are arrested because they mentioned while in line at the grocery store that they were not pleased with the prices of lettuce going up and blamed the current government for inflation?

It is hard to say when they will notice, if ever, that something just isn’t quite right with the way the world is being handled. Right now, it is all “for the good of mankind and the planet.” They will blame their depression, anxiety, and the deep gnarly sense of helplessness they feel, on nearly everything else other than the real reason—that their soul is being eaten away by the very system that promised to take care of them.