Men are so simple and so much inclined to obey immediate needs that a deceiver will never lack victims for his deceptions.
-Niccolò Machiavelli
There are two distinct ways in the modern world to be a victim. The first is to be an individual who suffers from an act of evil, moral or physical, deliberately inflicted by another individual or individuals. Any outside observer will immediately experience vicariously what it must feel like to succumb to violence, depredation or fraud. A woman raped, a man robbed and beaten, a child sexually molested by an adult, an elderly person defrauded of his life savings by a confidence man – with any of these, one reflexively empathizes with the victim and feels loathing and contempt for the perpetrator. Both the innocence of the victim and the culpability of the aggressor are unassailable. The moral polarity is inescapable and primal.
The second way to be a victim is a more complicated story and requires the mediation of theoretical constructs. In fact, this kind of victim is a theoretical construct of a particular sort that is at once compelling, broadly encompassing and far reaching.
The theoretically-constructed victim sprung from the brain of a German, Jewish theorizer of mythic stature, Karl Marx, in the form of a Manifesto, the intention of which was not only to announce the existence of a historically determined class of victims, but to stir them to action against their victimizers as well.
The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles…. Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes[…]Workers of the world arise and unite. You have nothing to lose but your chains. (The Communist Manifesto, 1848)
Herein lies the theoretical foundation from which emerged the prototype “victim” of the modern age, one identified as member of an oppressed “class,” produced by the “laws of historical necessity.” These “laws” (asserted to be both explanatory and predictive) Marx himself claimed were a momentous discovery, and one cannot but be deeply impressed by the arrogance of his radical reductionism. For all of the richness and complexity in how it might seem to unfold, history, peeled down to its essential core, is for Marx a story of unrelenting oppression, featuring a world of human beings who fall into two conflicting camps, victims and victimizers. “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.”
All social intercourse, however benign or innocent its appearances may present themselves, is about someone using and dominating someone else. The identity of Marx’s victims is not immediately and strikingly apparent as it is with the first kind of victim. It must be discovered by a properly accoutered intellectual class using the hermeneutical lens of “dialectical materialism.” Thus emerges the “theorist,” a privileged “knower,” as we see with Marx himself. But the knower is also a “doer,” a revolutionary destined to take power and complete the destruction of the bourgeois oppressors.
Marx’s formation and family origins were bourgeois, not a trivial detail to note as it points to an insidious element of self-hatred deeply embedded in the dynamics of Marxist theorizing. Theorists of revolution from Marx and Engels in the 1840s to Bill Ayres and many of the U.S. radicals in the 1960s claiming Marx as their inspiration tended to come from affluent, socially advantaged families. The bourgeois ruling class as “an instrument of exploitation” was not just a detached, theoretical act of judgment; it erupted from a deep personal animus as well and as such is suggestive of pathological motivations and implacable hatred. Successful communist revolutions did not merely overthrow the ruling class, they savagely annihilated it. Theorists such as Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, who ruled the masses in large portions of the globe on behalf of the exploited class, turned out to be mass murderers and destroyers of epic proportions.
The role of the theorist is critical because the victims may not know that they are victims and unable even to recognize their oppressors for what they are and what they do. Their consciousness needs to be “raised,” a moral and psychological awakening expertly guided by the theorists. Also, the exploitation is imposed by a rationalization of the oppressive status-quo. Thus, another piece of the theorist’s labor is to expose the rationalization as an elaborate disguise of the identity of the oppressor and to illuminate the façade of his legitimacy. The victim, insofar as he believes the substance of the oppressor’s rationalized version of his oppression, assents to the conditions of his own bondage. The theorist is a “de-legitimizer.” His wreckage of the status-quo will open the path to the victim’s “liberation.”
Unlike the first kind of victim, Marx’s victim plays a starring and triumphal role in a grand historical morality play. (“The arc of the moral universe bends toward justice,” a favored quote of starry-eyed lefties.) By virtue of the part his victim plays and the suffering he endures as a member of an exploited class he becomes endowed with a transcendent moral superiority. This is because he functions at a huge disadvantage within a system that from the beginning is completely rigged against him by powerful forces that not only exploit him but conceal the exploitative relationship from him. Bertrand Russell has called this “the doctrine of the superior virtue of the oppressed”.
Because the system itself and those who run it are thoroughly corrupt, those who are its victims are innocent and even heroic insofar as they struggle against the system. Whatever resistance the victim makes against the exploiters and oppressors justifies his methods. Marx envisioned his oppressed and down trodden proletariat as a force of fury and rectification whose violence in service to a revolution would put a righteous end to the exploitative system that was the cause of their suffering, their victimhood. Stalin wrote to Maxim Gorky in 1930 a letter that captures not only the sense of moral superiority of the forces of liberation, but a seeming eager anticipation of an ensuing season of violence and destruction resembling the fascist affinity for “therapeutic violence”.
We are for a liberating, anti-imperialist, revolutionary war despite the fact that such a war, as is known, not only is not free from the ‘horrors of bloodshed’ but abounds in them. (Stanley Payne, The Spanish Civil War, the Soviet Union and Communism, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT, 2004, 25)
Marx’s concept of “class struggle” is the imbedded premise in all genuine historical understanding and the engine of human progress. It has deeply insinuated itself into our thinking and interpretation of social conflict, reaching far beyond his failed prediction of a titanic clash of the proletariat and the capitalist exploiters that would culminate in a world of material plenty, free of domination and exploitation. The most compelling, enduring feature of Marx’s morality play is the notion of the morally privileged victim. Achieving victim status within this framework entitles one to immunity from the existing order’s norms because they are invented and enforced by the oppressor. They serve only his interest and advantage.
Two key things emerge from this immunity. First, the absence of moral limitations on what the victim can do to engage the oppressor class is greatly empowering, “liberating” to employ a morally charged term from the Marxist Wörterbuch. Whatever he does to bring the system down is permissible because the system is inherently unjust and oppressive. Law is a capitalist tool of domination; morality is a bourgeois fraud, and thus the legal and moral norms of the existing order can have no claim on any of its victims. Lying, theft and murder are permissible if they advance the victim class’s cause and ultimate victory. (See, Charles Mills “The Moral Epistemology of Stalinism,” Politics & Society, V. 22, No. 1, March 1994, 37-51)
Second, the oppressor class for all of its iniquities remains bound to its own bourgeois norms and legal system. Thus, if in its defense its members lie, break promises, suborn and corrupt officials, steal and murder, they betray their own professed principles and demonstrate further their utter corruption, hypocrisy and loss of legitimacy.
With this kind of “differential” in moral boundaries, whatever the outcome of the struggle between the victim and the oppressor, the victim prevails. If he wins, he has heroically participated in the righteous overturning of an unjust order and succeeded in extracting himself and his fellows from the jaws of exploitation. The world thereafter is a more decent, just and happy place. If he loses in the struggle to the lords of reaction, he becomes a tragic hero of resistance, overwhelmed by superior material force. The “struggle” continues. Even his defeat, however, testifies to the raw power, the amoral character, and voracious malevolence of the rigged system he failed to bring down. He forever wears the martyr’s crown.
Consider the Spanish Civil War that ended in 1939. It has been mythologized by the left as democracy’s finest hour of tragic-heroism, one act in a perfect Marxist morality play. The progressive, democratically elected Republican government, struggled valiantly against great odds. It was, alas, abandoned by the Nazi-appeasing British and French, and ultimately crushed by Spanish fascism in collusion with and abetted by Hitler and Mussolini. The history of this civil war, interpreted from this perspective, exonerates the losers in the conflict as innocent victims of fascist aggression and accentuates the brutality and the innate atavism of twentieth-century fascism.
With the struggle of oppressor and oppressed as the core of historical reality, the year 1945 marks a fundamental turning point in the history of theoretical victimhood. WWII was a war of good versus evil in which, unlike the Spanish Civil War, the good guys prevailed. They crushed the bad guys, the fascists, who were so very bad… because?
Well, here is the crux of this “turning point.” It can be captured with a single word, the most prolific, frisson-producing word in our twenty-first century moral vocabulary – “racism.” In the WWII historical “struggle,” the bad guys were “racists.” The good guys were “democrats,” a word that would become a synonym for “anti-fascists.” They were all about “making the world safe for democracy,” as in a world where everyone would be … “equal,” and, as FDR effused in 1944, free from want and fear, a kind of one-upmanship of Marx.”
With the conclusion of the war in 1945, there was good news and bad news.
The good news was that the good guys had won. The Third Reich was in smoking ruins. The most evil man in the world had blown his brains out in a Berlin bunker, and the corpse of a battered Mussolini dangled upside down above a gas station in Milan beside his unfortunate mistress. A more decisive material and symbolic triumph of good over evil could not conceivably be imagined.
The bad news was that the good guys had won. Evil was crushed, but Marx’s reductionist, moral historiography had taken a firm hold in the minds of the triumphalist, western intellectuals. You see, without evil, the arc in “the arc of the moral world bending toward justice” is done bending, and Marx, the head moralist, who was all about the “bending” part, would have to be cashiered. What now, comrades?
In order to make sense of the post WWII world, the good guys needed to keep evil alive and well. It was needed to play a critical role in how the victors would go forward in rationalizing their use of power in service to “democracy.” Good guys aren’t “good” without bad guys.
The military defeat of fascism did not mean that “fascism” was vanquished. The racism that induced the white Germans and Italians to embrace fascism was very much alive. And given that their “whiteness” was shared by all European heritage people, well, “whiteness” was going to turn into a big problem. “Racism” would fill the void as the sociological driving force and, world-wide. “People of color” would emerge as the new theoretical victim, replacing the predominantly white, “racist” proletariat. Since white people are inherently “racist,” they are also, latently, if not openly, “fascist.” Donald Trump, somehow, comes to mind.
Such a theoretical turn could not be more opportune for enthusiasts of Marx’s moral-struggle historiography. The causality of evil is no longer rooted in an economic structure of the unjust ownership of the “means of production” – a structure that could be rectified in a Bolshevik-style “revolution” with a “socialist workers’ paradise” outcome.
The success of twentieth-century communists in overthrowing the capitalist oppressor only further immiserated the victims, the members of the proletariat who were supposed to emerge prosperous, free and equal. The failure of communism to deliver on its promises was confirmed by the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.
The evil of “racism” has a more profound and less “fixable” structure because “racism” is more abstract and protean than “capitalism,” more formidable, and impervious to any forces to arrest it. Which means, practically speaking, that “racism” is a permanent fixture of contemporary society. No dispute about who the “good guys” are, and why they get carte blanche to deal with the “bad guys.”. Worse, “racism” has proved to be so fecund in producing “victims” that it serves as a template for the production of further theoretical victims, while the victimizer remains singular and increasingly wicked. Thus, the multiplier effect: “sexism,” “homophobia,” “Islamophobia,” and of recent vintage, “transphobia,” a cornucopia of victim-classes, and a massive governmental regulatory and legal edifice to remediate the onslaught of grievances and enforce compliance as matter of “civil rights.”
The “civil rights” movement, initiated post WWII, was animated by “the doctrine of the superior virtue of the oppressed,” the moral foundation for the proliferation of theoretical victims. These victims have now swollen into a malignant mass and accorded an impregnable, transcendent moral superiority that puts their oppressors (us) in a permanent bind. These victims, to put it in Marx’s own words, have “expropriated the expropriators.” For those still enjoying their “white privilege,” distracted by the upcoming Superbowl, March Madness, Netflix, CNN and Fox News chatterboxes, Mike Johnson’s fitness (?) as Speaker of the House, I’m sorry: you failed to notice. There’s been a “revolution.” You’ve been “expropriated.”
Time now for the counter-revolution! Time to overthrow the entire wretched Marxist apparatus of theoretical victimhood along with all of its manipulative, phony moralizing and self-serving dishonesty.
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.-
-H.L. Mencken
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
Related
-
Barack Obama, the Dark Side of Black History
-
Who Really Was Obama?
-
The Fake Sainthood of George Floyd
-
Putin, Netanyahu, and Nuremberg
-
The Moral Vocabulary of Progressives
-
Who Is Donald Trump
-
James Edwards and Pat Buchanan Discuss Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War
-
The Spectacular Virulence of Teacher Unions
12 comments
Excellent analysis of how victim culture came to be such a powerful weapon against sanity. Most normie writing on the topic ignores Foster’s crucial fact: that the WW II fascists were essentially standing up to this artificial victim culture, that they were the linchpin that tied together pre-WW II anti-communism and post-WW II “racism.” Standard conservatives have written roughly a bazillion words placing the fascists on the left (they’re socialists, they’re “the real racists”).
Fascists mostly restricted the victimology to its nationalist forms and promoted strength as medicine. Given that even leftism was at its most militant back then (thanks to people like Lenin), this allowed for the combat spirit to retain its vitality in Europe. Unfortunately, after WWII ended with a complete victory of Liberalism and its main champions, the bourgeoisie, this spirit was soon to burn itself out, after a massive industrialized carnage. This left only the communists on the battlefield, as they steadily weakened end eventually subsumed themselves into the system, replacing the revolutionary militancy with victim culture and primitive street violence. It’s been working with the consent of plutocracy for all these years, providing occupation for the activist class and allowing to scoop some political power in the post-liberal order.
A very accurate analogy.
“It’s been working with the consent of plutocracy for all these years,..”
Because it is a control tool of plutocracy ~ allowing it to remain in control.
“They help create the problems and then extract the money from the victims of the same problems to pay to resolve them, conveniently funding state entities and setting an example for all those who would use the system to profit and to all who wish to profit by it,, and as a result it is so designed only to perpetuate this business…etc.”
“Foolish and unrealistic hopes can lead to harmful ambitions, but they can lead to destructive behavior in the opposite way as well—through the nurture of idleness and apathy. To illustrate this, Plato draws a parallel between political and medical hopes. Citizens who are not adequately educated or governed tend to adopt laws which repeatedly need to be amended. Because they avoid addressing the need for more fundamental political improvements, such citizens, live like those sick people who, through licentiousness, aren’t willing to abandon their harmful way of life… . Their medical treatment achieves nothing, except that their illness becomes worse and more complicated, and they’re always hoping [ἐλπίζοντες] that someone will recommend some new medicine to cure them. Plato (Republic 425e–426a) – (Reflection/ Guzziferno)
But Marxism was the foundation of Fascism and a more structured and evolved system of Socialism [Corporatism]. Even Marx who was raised Protestant and professed belief in Christ as a youth (despite being of Jewish descent) expressed repeated hostility to Jewish money lenders and institutions. – (“Marx and Engels and the English workers.” Pages 80-83)
The failures are not always in the ideals and the idealist, but more commonly in those who later use and malpractice it.
Better fascism than communism – especially its current “woke” variant.
Marx truly stands out as an uholy patron saint of all losers and cunning parasites. One could think that a one good reading of his biography would tell all that is needed about the morality of the man and his ideology. One could be right if it weren’t for emergence of mass society and a steady breakdown of traditional social structures, that allowed this posion to thrive among the legions of demagogues. Victimology really gained speed once the traditional Christian virtue of obedience was discarded and hierachy was denounced in favor of equality. Liberalism has been the real aqua regia in dissolving the remnants of traditional order, while spearheading the movement for emancipation. The problem was, that once the old morality thrown out through the window, there was nothing to stop this march towards even more perfect liberation of Man.
The tyranny of post-modernity retains little of original Marxism, but it took its emancipatory morality and lessons on power dynamics to heart. Just like Lenin who crafted Bolshevism with the tools provided by Marx, so did the Western intellectuals with the anti-white Bolshevism to facilitate their own revolution. The only silver lining is that unlike the original Bolshevism that aimed to create a perfect mass-society, the post-modernism is heralding it’s break-down into more primordial forms with the politics of identity. That provides opportunities for optimally cohesive, clannish and tribalistic groups to fight new dominions on the cadaver of the West and restart the cycle.
Great article. Jewish woke-communism rules America today. It was Jewish money that financed the communists in Russia, in 1905 and 1917. We see the same thing in America today.
I like the note of optimism as the end: “Time now for the counter-revolution! Time to overthrow the entire wretched Marxist apparatus of theoretical victimhood along with all of its manipulative, phony moralizing and self-serving dishonesty.”
Very good observations. But there is an elephant in the room, which is never mentioned and which would have greatly completed the scope of the argumentation.
“The theoretically-constructed victim sprung from the brain of a German, Jewish theorizer of mythic stature, Karl Marx”
Maybe cut the “German” from that one.
Oh but it’s hard to understand the origins of Marxism without the German Enlightenment that Marx gorged himself upon. It’s no coincidence that the idea was born into the mind of a deracinated, German jew in a country that became a sort of a Mecca for all socialists/social democrats in Europe at the end of the 19th century.
I don’t care much for either of these gentlemen but the duel between them revealed some valid points.
https://youtu.be/qsHJ3LvUWTs?feature=shared
The point which is being missed is this: perhaps some groups need to be oppressed.
Over the last half century, white nations have bestowed upon the various third world groups residing in their lands full civil rights, benefits like affirmative action, media platforms, special laws to protect them from hurty words, and so forth. And what has been those groups’ response?
Rioting because one of their thugs got offed by a cop. No-go zones staked out in once thriving Western cities. Wrecking of white people’s memorials. Ever expanding rackets like the demands for reparations for slavery. Sex grooming gangs. The non-stop megaphone of “racism, racism, racism.”
Consider Reni Eddo-Lodge, covered in a 12 December 2024 C-C article by Beau Albrecht, who makes it her mission in life to badger white people about “structural racism.” And said structural racism must therefore be “dismantled,” with the mob led by agitators like herself. But what is meant by “structural racism” is all the institutions built up by white people over the millennia: meritocracy, free speech, law enforcement, even history itself. It’s what writers of a century ago referred to as “The Revolt Against Civilization.”
There was a time not too long ago when it would have been considered insanity to hand over a fully functioning country like South Africa to the natives. And even more insane to surrender European cities to the same. We can see the outcome from the farm attacks on the veldt to the predatory gangs of Rotherham.
Time to restore some sanity in the Western world. And a spinal column.
A fine piece of analysis and writing. Especially noting the single word, the most prolific, frisson-producing word in our twenty-first century moral vocabulary – “racism.” That word has been the lethally effective ramming prow of the Bad Ship Equality, brought to you by the Enlightenment’s dark side in the 1789 French Revolution: equality followed by mass bloodshed followed by a tyrant autocrat spreading equality by mass warfare and murder. 1917 etc.
And thanks for putting in a good word for Franco, who saved Spain from Stalinism. During his “oppressive” regime, Spain was its authentic self. Tragic, as is all of human life, but whole. Now, freed from eeeevil fascists, its shares the self-imposed collapse of the West, inviting back the very aliens that their ancestors took 700 years to drive out.
Rabbi Marx’s disfigurement of Hegel is a prime example of his tribe’s penchant for taking any idea and turning it against the people who created it. Despite EM Jones’ reality-denying take on race, his assessment of “the Jewish revolutionary spirit” hits the mark. We have our own Alinsky, Zinn, Chomsky, etc as examples, as well as the Frankfurt cabal and the captivity of US culture and politics (including Trump and MAGA) to the likes of AIPAC and the ADL. Even very Hebrew Dennis Prager is clear that, once emancipated by Napoleon, European Jews have been massively over-represented in every destructive leftist “equality” project since.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.