Why Did Marxism/Communism Scapegoat the Middle Class?

[truthatallcost]

Every political movement must have it's scapegoat, in order to unite the people in feeling a common loathing for a segment of society, or outsiders. The Nazi's enemy was obviously Jews and capitalists. China's enemy is the West. And neoliberal American's scapegoat is cis gendered white people.

But why did Marxism/Communism demonize the middle classes? They literally bypassed the decadent wealthy class, and the usual object of scorn, the peasant class.

Conversely, how did Marxism/Commusim manage to convince people that the proletariat were the shining city on a hill to be admired, when the proles were such cowards that they refused to fight for their own cause?

So much about the appeal of Marxism/Communism boggles the mind, that you wonder how people fell for this.

 

[swing_voter]

So when the communist took over Russia, the last capitalist holdouts were the farmers. None of the communists could figure out how to convert the farmers to communism.

Stalin said he'd do it.

He had all the farmers vote and pick the most greedy farmer. That greedy farmer, who was the richest, would be stripped of all his worldly possessions and sent to Siberia where farming was extremely difficult. The greedy farmer's land and possessions would be divvied up and handed out to the community.

So one by one, all the capitalist farmers were destroyed by their own community who coveted the rich farmer's property.

Stalin collectivized farming in the Soviet Union. Millions were to die of famine.

 

[AmNat]

Every political movement must have it's scapegoat, in order to unite the people in feeling a common loathing for a segment of society, or outsiders. The Nazi's enemy was obviously Jews and capitalists. China's enemy is the West. And neoliberal American's scapegoat is cis gendered white people.

But why did Marxism/Communism demonize the middle classes? They literally bypassed the decadent wealthy class, and the usual object of scorn, the peasant class.

Conversely, how did Marxism/Commusim manage to convince people that the proletariat were the shining city on a hill to be admired, when the proles were such cowards that they refused to fight for their own cause?

So much about the appeal of Marxism/Communism boggles the mind, that you wonder how people fell for this.

Marxism is and always has been an ideology of the elite for the (purported) benefit of the proles. The middle class is the natural scapegoat of such an ideology. Of course, it tends to liquidate the upper class too when it goes into full revolutionary mode, but most of the fun of being a Marxist can be had before they shoot you.

It spreads for the same reason that all left-wing ideologies do, because its implementation (in any version) creates more work for "enlightened" intellectuals.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

Every political movement must have it's scapegoat, in order to unite the people in feeling a common loathing for a segment of society, or outsiders. The Nazi's enemy was obviously Jews and capitalists. China's enemy is the West. And neoliberal American's scapegoat is cis gendered white people.

But why did Marxism/Communism demonize the middle classes? They literally bypassed the decadent wealthy class, and the usual object of scorn, the peasant class.

Conversely, how did Marxism/Commusim manage to convince people that the proletariat were the shining city on a hill to be admired, when the proles were such cowards that they refused to fight for their own cause?

So much about the appeal of Marxism/Communism boggles the mind, that you wonder how people fell for this.

The 'middle class' as it is understood today wasn't the scapegoat of Marxism. Marx referred to the bourgeoisie as the "middle class" to distinguish them from both the poor labourers and the aristocracy, but in fact, they were just the "new rich" version of the decadent wealthy class. The 'old rich' aristocracy of dukes and earls was essentially eliminated by this 'middle class,' and a 2-class rather than 3-class system emerged. Marxism, in a sense, came about because of the destruction of the middle-class.

"Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! Do you mean the property of petty artisan and of the small peasant, a form of property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no need to abolish that; the development of industry has to a great extent already destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily." -Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto

In the place of this middle class, some of the middle-class artisans ascended to the bourgeoisie upper class, while others descended to the proletariate lower class:

"The genesis of the industrial * capitalist did not proceed in such a gradual way as that of the farmer. Doubtless many small guild-masters, and yet more independent small artisans, or even wage labourers, transformed themselves into small capitalists, and (by gradually extending exploitation of wage labour and corresponding accumulation) into full-blown capitalists. In the infancy of capitalist production, things often happened as in the infancy of medieval towns, where the question, which of the escaped serfs should be master and which servant, was in great part decided by the earlier or later date of their flight. The snail’s pace of this method corresponded in no wise with the commercial requirements of the new world market that the great discoveries of the end of the 15th century created. But the middle ages had handed down two distinct forms of capital, which mature in the most different economic social formations, and which before the era of the capitalist mode of production, are considered as capital quand même — usurer’s capital and merchant’s capital." -Karl Marx , Das Kapital, Vol I

This new division into a bourgeoisie class and a proletariat class is described according to which does the labour and which exploits the labour. The bourgeoisie certainly were not a 'working middle class.' In fact, one of the distinguishing characteristics of the bourgeoisie was that they acquired their wealth through the exploitation of the proletariat, and accordingly did not work themselves:

"Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriations.
It has been objected that upon the abolition of private property, all work will cease, and universal laziness will overtake us.
According to this, bourgeois society ought long ago to have gone to the dogs through sheer idleness; for those of its members who work, acquire nothing, and those who acquire anything do not work." -Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto

To summarize, Marxism is all about the lazy, entitled bourgeoisie class mooching off of the hardworking proletariat class. There isn't really any actual middle class in the equation.

 

[Highlanders]

Every political movement must have it's scapegoat, in order to unite the people in feeling a common loathing for a segment of society, or outsiders. The Nazi's enemy was obviously Jews and capitalists. China's enemy is the West. And neoliberal American's scapegoat is cis gendered white people.

But why did Marxism/Communism demonize the middle classes? They literally bypassed the decadent wealthy class, and the usual object of scorn, the peasant class.

Conversely, how did Marxism/Commusim manage to convince people that the proletariat were the shining city on a hill to be admired, when the proles were such cowards that they refused to fight for their own cause?

So much about the appeal of Marxism/Communism boggles the mind, that you wonder how people fell for this.

Mmmm...... I disagree wil your bias, China wants a multi polar world, inclusive which benefits China.... raising nation standards, education and ethical standards, but more importantly, all humanity, America, and American exceptualism, exposes the very opposite, and detrimental to all humanity apart from the few Hogs at the pinical of the banking sector.
Neither communism nor capitalism works, history has proven conclusively this fact! But having a fair political hand balancing the economy creates an equilibrium better than any dogma!

 

[HK.227]

But why did Marxism/Communism demonize the middle classes?

Because they were smart.
Civil rights don't come from the patron or client classes. The guardians of civil rights are those citizens who just want to mind their own business, are capable enough to take care of themselves, and strong enough to destroy those that would enslave them. Undermining those people lets you institute rapid change, perform purges, and seize power without accountability to any higher authority, so it is basically the prerequisite of any modern revolution or group of would-be tyrants.

 

[Jredbaron96]

But why did Marxism/Communism demonize the middle classes? They literally bypassed the decadent wealthy class, and the usual object of scorn, the peasant class.

In Marx's view the middle class were the wealthy; the bourgeoisie specifically were the ones who benefited from the labor of the working class through exploitative capitalism.

Conversely, how did Marxism/Commusim manage to convince people that the proletariat were the shining city on a hill to be admired, when the proles were such cowards that they refused to fight for their own cause?

In the two largest communist revolutions, Russia and China, the communists were overthrowing a generally unpopular, despotic or inneffective government. I'm not sure where you are getting the claim that the proletariat were cowards in this equation, given that the communists in both Russia and China fielded forces that numbered in the millions.

So much about the appeal of Marxism/Communism boggles the mind, that you wonder how people fell for this.

It's not really hard to grasp at all. Replacing a corrupt, decadent autocracy with a socialist a state that offers general equality in distribution of wealth and goods is an immensely easy proposition to get behind.

How it actually turns out is another thing entirely...

 

[bomberfox]

There were other classes that developed in marxism like the petit bourgeoisie (small business owners and mom and pop stores) and the lumpenproletariat (the destitute poor who were not considered working class.

 

[soylentgreen]

Every political movement must have it's scapegoat, in order to unite the people in feeling a common loathing for a segment of society, or outsiders. The Nazi's enemy was obviously Jews and capitalists. China's enemy is the West. And neoliberal American's scapegoat is cis gendered white people.

But why did Marxism/Communism demonize the middle classes? They literally bypassed the decadent wealthy class, and the usual object of scorn, the peasant class.

Conversely, how did Marxism/Commusim manage to convince people that the proletariat were the shining city on a hill to be admired, when the proles were such cowards that they refused to fight for their own cause?

So much about the appeal of Marxism/Communism boggles the mind, that you wonder how people fell for this.

No one will ever lose money betting on the ignorance of an american.

Take for example here the complete ignorance of the americans who immedeately turn to russia as an example. In there ignorance they do not understand that the whole of europe was undergoing revolution against leaders of countries who were nothing more than dictatorships of the specific class of royalty.

Marx did nothing more than tap into that revolutionary spirit and resentment against those who abused their privileged class.

Yet their foolish who respond to this thread are so wrapped up in their own propaganda have no clue as to why communism flourished as a force against oppression . All they understand is what they are allowed to know by their masters.

Ironoic that the sheeple on this thread complain about ideas they think will tell them how to live when they are doing nothing more than expressing a view they have been told to give.

 

[Highlanders]

No one will ever lose money betting on the ignorance of an american.

Take for example here the complete ignorance of the americans who immedeately turn to russia as an example. In there ignorance they do not understand that the whole of europe was undergoing revolution against leaders of countries who were nothing more than dictatorships of the specific class of royalty.

Marx did nothing more than tap into that revolutionary spirit and resentment against those who abused their privileged class.

Yet their foolish who respond to this thread are so wrapped up in their own propaganda have no clue as to why communism flourished as a force against oppression . All they understand is what they are allowed to know by their masters.

Ironoic that the sheeple on this thread complain about ideas they think will tell them how to live when they are doing nothing more than expressing a view they have been told to give.

I just love your comments! I'm laughing my head off! Absolutely excellent post!
I concur!

 

[Fledermaus]

No one will ever lose money betting on the ignorance of an american.

Take for example here the complete ignorance of the americans who immedeately turn to russia as an example. In there ignorance they do not understand that the whole of europe was undergoing revolution against leaders of countries who were nothing more than dictatorships of the specific class of royalty.

Marx did nothing more than tap into that revolutionary spirit and resentment against those who abused their privileged class.

Yet their foolish who respond to this thread are so wrapped up in their own propaganda have no clue as to why communism flourished as a force against oppression . All they understand is what they are allowed to know by their masters.

Ironoic that the sheeple on this thread complain about ideas they think will tell them how to live when they are doing nothing more than expressing a view they have been told to give.

Communism promised to do away with the ruling classes while what it did was exchange one form of totalitarian rule with another form of totalitarian rule in nation after nation.

Was the Russian people better served by Lenin/Stalin rather than The Romanov clan?

Was China better under Mao than Chiang Kai shek?

Millions died under both regimes through incompetent management, purges, etc.

Both countries had to embrace Capitalism to some extent to survive.

 

[Highlanders]

Communism promised to do away with the ruling classes while what it did was exchange one form of totalitarian rule with another form of totalitarian rule in nation after nation.

Was the Russian people better served by Lenin/Stalin rather than The Romanov clan?

Was China better under Mao than Chiang Kai shek?

Millions died under both regimes through incompetent management, purges, etc.

Both countries had to embrace Capitalism to some extent to survive.

From a Russian stance, under Stalin, who pray tell were the six in the order of rank under Stalin?

 

[Fledermaus]

From a Russian stance, under Stalin, who pray tell were the six in the order of rank under Stalin?

Let me guess.....

You imagine they were Jews.

 

[Highlanders]

Answe

Let me guess.....

You imagine they were Jews.

Answer the question.....

 

[Highlanders]

Ooops.... still no reply...... I wonder why?

 

[Fishking]

Every political movement must have it's scapegoat, in order to unite the people in feeling a common loathing for a segment of society, or outsiders. The Nazi's enemy was obviously Jews and capitalists. China's enemy is the West. And neoliberal American's scapegoat is cis gendered white people.

But why did Marxism/Communism demonize the middle classes? They literally bypassed the decadent wealthy class, and the usual object of scorn, the peasant class.

Conversely, how did Marxism/Commusim manage to convince people that the proletariat were the shining city on a hill to be admired, when the proles were such cowards that they refused to fight for their own cause?

So much about the appeal of Marxism/Communism boggles the mind, that you wonder how people fell for this.

Because after they ate the rich the middle class was the new rich so they ate them too. That's how communism works. It makes everyone equally poor.

 

[Fledermaus]

Answe

Answer the question.....

State your question.

 

[Fledermaus]

Ooops.... still no reply...... I wonder why?

Because I had better things to do.

And I am still waiting on your to answer a myriad of questions.

You are rather demanding for someone who lacks the spine to answer what you have been asked dozens of times.

 

[soylentgreen]

Communism promised to do away with the ruling classes while what it did was exchange one form of totalitarian rule with another form of totalitarian rule in nation after nation.

Was the Russian people better served by Lenin/Stalin rather than The Romanov clan?

Was China better under Mao than Chiang Kai shek?

Millions died under both regimes through incompetent management, purges, etc.

Both countries had to embrace Capitalism to some extent to survive.

Neither of those two countries are or ever were communist. There has never been a country that has been communist. All that has been is dictators who used the word communist. Just as you are now using the word without any understanding other than the propaganda fed to you.

 

[Fledermaus]

Neither of those two countries are or ever were communist. There has never been a country that has been communist. All that has been is dictators who used the word communist. Just as you are now using the word without any understanding other than the propaganda fed to you.

Well please share what you imagine a communist nation to be like?

 

[truthatallcost]

So when the communist took over Russia, the last capitalist holdouts were the farmers. None of the communists could figure out how to convert the farmers to communism.

Stalin said he'd do it.

He had all the farmers vote and pick the most greedy farmer. That greedy farmer, who was the richest, would be stripped of all his worldly possessions and sent to Siberia where farming was extremely difficult. The greedy farmer's land and possessions would be divvied up and handed out to the community.

So one by one, all the capitalist farmers were destroyed by their own community who coveted the rich farmer's property.

Stalin collectivized farming in the Soviet Union. Millions were to die of famine.

Some definitely choose to place all of the blame on one man, but as the OP title suggested, scapegoating the middle class is a part of Marx' original works. Killing them seems to be a priority for communists, as evidenced by Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, and Mao.

 

[soylentgreen]

Well please share what you imagine a communist nation to be like?

No, i have no need to indulge in your ignorance. It is a philosophy rather than the propaganda you understand.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

Well please share what you imagine a communist nation to be like?

A Communist nation, as defined by Marx is this:

"The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products, that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few." -Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto

Any nation in which the few are exploited by the many is, by definition, not Communist. Or to put it another way, if the workers do not genuinely have control over the means of production, the nation is not, by definition, Communist. The appropriation of the Communist label by a dictatorship of the few is no more meaningful than the appropriation of the Democratic Republic label is in North Korea.

 

[Juks]

Marxism is and always has been an ideology of the elite for the (purported) benefit of the proles. The middle class is the natural scapegoat of such an ideology. Of course, it tends to liquidate the upper class too when it goes into full revolutionary mode, but most of the fun of being a Marxist can be had before they shoot you.

It spreads for the same reason that all left-wing ideologies do, because its implementation (in any version) creates more work for "enlightened" intellectuals.

Just a formality: Stalin was not in favour of Marxism. He was a Leninist but had his own version of that and in fact developed something called Stalinism. Both socialism and communism was developed from Marxism. OBS! This is not the case for social liberalism, which has another philosophy

Every political movement must have it's scapegoat, in order to unite the people in feeling a common loathing for a segment of society, or outsiders. The Nazi's enemy was obviously Jews and capitalists. China's enemy is the West. And neoliberal American's scapegoat is cis gendered white people. But why did Marxism/Communism demonize the middle classes? They literally bypassed the decadent wealthy class, and the usual object of scorn, the peasant class.
Conversely, how did Marxism/Commusim manage to convince people that the proletariat were the shining city on a hill to be admired, when the proles were such cowards that they refused to fight for their own cause?
So much about the appeal of Marxism/Communism boggles the mind, that you wonder how people fell for this.

I thought it was the other way around?

Communism has, in the US, been the scapegoat and the way to alienate the public from any kind of social reforms since the 60th, mainly to do with Cuba and the cold war. Without knowing anything about it, just the word makes you trembling with fear.

 

[Juks]

Marx was more a philosopher( He graduated in philosophy) than a politician and he develop his philosophy in a sort of intellectual brawl with his former friend, the French anarchist Proudhon. The brawl accumulated in the publication “The misery of philosophy” (original title: Misère de la philosophie) that was a answer to Proudhons publication: The philosophy of misery. (original title: Système des Contradictions èconomiques ou Philosophie de la Misère).

It was when he moved to Brüssel he came in contact with the political side He came into contact with the League of the Righteous, which in 1847 changed its name to the League of Communists.

The main political ideologies based on Marx ideas are from the his book “Das Kapital”. Marx describes, for example, how people who perform work are exploited and thereby, among other things, reproduce the social condition which constitutes the 1800s present mode of production and capitalism in Europe. Where the working class and the capitalist class presuppose each other in capitalist production.

The communism has since Marx developed into several branches that are in many ways more detailed on how, why and what than Marx ever expressed himself. He has also influenced both liberal and conservative ideologies even if they don’t like to admit it. He is the BIG enemy for both liberals and conservatives….

Maybe this is the aswer to your original question that you are seeking.