MARXISM EXPOSES MAJOR MISCONCEPTIONS
 
         One of the most common criticisms lodged against Marxists [and the main reason many refuse to support Marxism] is that Marxists seek to set up a dictatorship.  Interestingly enough, that assertion is true.  They do seek to set up a dictatorship--the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.  The major failing of critics in this regard, however, is that they do not realize they are living under a dictatorship already.  EVERY government is a dictatorship, a dictatorship of one class over others.  There is no such entity as a government for all the people.  A government for all the people does not exist now and never has.   When you say “government” you say “dictatorship.”  They are equal.  So emphasis should not be placed on getting rid of dictatorship but in making sure that the dictatorship in power represents and protects your interests and those of the masses.
         Only during the ultimate stage of communism, which follows socialism, do all dictatorships vanish.
         A second fallacious assertion by Marxist critics is that the working masses can come to power by elections and for that reason revolutions are unnecessary.  This contention has several flaws two of which alone are fatal.
         a.  Those making this claim fail to realize that a socialist revolution--the only revolution worthy of the name in modern society--involves the transfer of the Means of Production, Distribution and Exchange from one class to another.  It involves far more than merely taking over the government.  In order for it to be successful one must take over all aspects of society that produce wealth.  Transportation, communication, industry, tools, equipment, land, forests, mines, lakes, rivers, education, etc. must be taken from the control of a few and given to the masses from whom they were stolen.  Does anyone seriously think millionaires and billionaires will voluntarily surrender this vast wealth without compensation simply because they lost a silly election.  Of course not, at least not anyone who is reasonably intelligent.  Who would voluntarily surrender billions of dollars they stole through exploitation and private ownership merely to better the lives of millions to which they do not belong, and who would agree to such a transfer simply because they lost an election.
         Marxist critics fail to realize that in any society those who run the dough run the show.  The ‘Golden Rule’ is that those who have the gold make the rules.
         b.  Secondly, Marxist critics err tremendously when they fail to see that elections are essentially a joke because there is no real possibility of any transference of power or any grasp of real domination by the masses.  How could you possibly have a democracy that is anything other than a joke, a laugh, a fraud when one person has a buck [a dollar] to his name and another has a billion.  In any election the latter will have the former for lunch and it will not be as a guest.  The billionaire will be able to put vast sums of money into the right places at the right time and exercise far, far greater influence on election officials and government employees, not to mention media propaganda.  The overriding fact is that in ALL elections the dominant principle is not, and never has been, ‘one man one vote’ but ONE BUCK ONE VOTE.  If you have one buck you have one vote; if you have a billion bucks you have a billion votes.  Your political power and influence are directly proportional to the size of your wealth, your pocketbook, the amount of money you have.
 In light of these facts, any kind of democracy worthy of the name is impossible, a charade, without socialism because only under socialism are vast differentials in wealth minimized.  If private ownership of the Means of Prod. Dist. and Exchange disappears, as occurs under socialism, then exploitation will vanish, and without exploitation vast differentials in wealth can never materialize.  No one ever became a multi-millionaire or billionaire by working for a living.  That is impossible.  The only way people amass vast fortunes is by getting others to work for them for a living.  It is done through private ownership and exploitation.
         One of the most common deceptions practiced by bourgeois propagandists is to lure unsuspecting individuals into discussing politics divorced from economics when the former is merely a reflection of the latter.  When discussing conditions within any country, focus should first be directed toward who controls the wealth, the Means of Production, Distribution and Exchange, not how the government is set up or whether elections exist or who is in the government or how many governmental consumer protection agencies exist.  Begin by discovering who controls the Means of Prod. Dist. and Ex. because that will determine the rest.
         In South Africa and Zimbabwe millions of blacks are learning these lessons the hard way.  The ANC [African National Congress} in South Africa led the masses to believe that if blacks could just gain control over the dominant positions in the governments of these countries, their living standards and conditions would improve drastically.  But in fact, after gaining control nothing of the sort has occurred because the white ruling class was careful to make sure that the new constitutions and agreements drawn up as they exited political power specifically stated that the whites would retain possession of that which really mattered, namely, the Means of Production, Distribution and Exchange.  Simply put, the blacks got control of the government but the whites retained control of the money, the wealth of the nation.  Whites retained ownership of everything that really mattered and for that reason millions of blacks are not much better off today than they were 15 years ago.
         The only way you can vastly improve the living conditions of humanity and liberate billions of people is by following the roadmap written by Marx, Lenin, Stalin and Castro.  There is no other.  All else is wishful dreaming.  Fantasia!

for the cause,

Klo

PS.  These topics are discussed much more extensively in my book entitled
THE RELEVANCE OF MARXISM which can be found on my website at:
http://www.geocities.com/klomckin@ameritech.net/ 1