Comm5-RNE2: Men are selfish by nature; Fourier's Phalanxes

 

    This continues from Part 4 (Table of Contents in Part 1), a series presenting a new translation of C.F.W. Walther's Communism and Socialism from 1878. — Walther keeps his narrative simple – no academic terms – he just speaks to the heart when he says that we are selfish. If people are honest with themselves, they must admit this. But in so admitting, the wishful thinking of Communists falls to the ground. We see the first of Walther's many examples of this in this installment. I made a note in red below where the Wikipedia article was deficient on the history of Charles Fourier's Communist experiment. [Continued in Part 6]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Translation of Walther's 1878 Communismus und Socialismus by BackToLuther primarily using DeepL online translation service; highlighting and bolding are my emphases, red text within square brackets [] are my comments, underlining is Walther's emphasis. Red highlight indicates omitted in 1947 translation.

C.F.W. Walther's Communism and Socialism, (Part 5, p. 16-20)

That is why it says here in the second place: [1947-28]

2. It is a fact that people are selfish by nature.

The Communists will have to admit: Yes, it is true, people will never agree to be made equal, they will have to be forced. But that would be completely against their own principle if they were to constantly force people to conform to these new conditions. Then the paradise which they pretend to want to build would be a true hell; the conditions would then become worse than they were before. No, man is selfish by nature. He who has not yet received a changed heart [page 17] thinks of himself first. Such a one says all the time: First I come, and then I come again, and then, at best, my neighbor comes a little bit. Man is full of envy by nature, he is full of ambition, full of greed. These are all wild beasts, which are natural in man, and which the Communist will therefore never be able to tame by reorganizing the social conditions. People do not merely want to have as much as they need — for the Socialists would not get any further than that every man has as much as he needs — no, most people want to have more, they want to have much, and the more they get, the greater their lust for riches becomes. The one who has acquired only a little wealth is as if he had drunk seawater, which does not quench his thirst, but only makes it greater, only more burning.

As terrible as the truth is, no man can deny it: Man is selfish by nature, and the selfish man does not want to be like another unless the other is far above him. All those who respond to the new Communist social constitution do so because they hope to get better. It is just that each one, when he considers the experience he has had with people, asks himself whether he believes that many people would be comfortable with the new order of things, if they knew that they would have less there. No, with the exception of a few enthusiasts, only those who think they will improve their situation will want to accept it. Therefore there is no other way that the Communists can achieve their ends, and even then only for a short time, but by bloody violence, by murder and fire.

They still did it that way when they wanted to achieve something. Those who really wanted to introduce these ideas into the world immediately realized that there was no other way than to knock the heads of the opponents off. [1947-29] But this is admittedly the greatest nonsense; and when they knock off thousands and millions of heads, new opponents of this system grow up again and again.

How much blood has been shed in France because of this, even during the first revolution in the nineties of the last century! Streams of blood flow. They started with the king: his head had to come off, his wife's head as well, and the heads of the princesses. Then it went to the bishops, to the priests, to the rich, to the distinguished ministers who had previously been at the helm. But what helps? No matter how much blood might be shed, there were still many thousands and thousands of secret enemies who were just waiting for the hour of redemption from this reign of terror. But is it not frightening that the people who want to make the whole world happy with the establishment of a paradisiacal state should begin to shed rivers of blood? Anyone who disagrees with them will be put to [page 18] death, often under terrible torture and torment!

No, it is a fact that men are selfish by nature, and this too proves that it is foolishness to want to help human society by outwardly making it the same. If one wants to help it, one gets rid of selfishness. Then it works. If the whole world were made up of true Christians, then it could easily introduce a certain Communism. But it would also have to be made up of strong Christians, because weak Christians can't bear it either. But so long as man remains in his selfishness, it is the greatest folly of the world to set the goal that all should become equal to each other, equally rich, equally honored. — Yes, in France, they went so far that they even said: “In education, too, no one may be higher than another;” and to show that equality alone is valid, all tall, slender trees must be cut down. Yes, it was already determined that the steeples should also be knocked down. These, of course, had another meaning because the steeples point up to heaven, and no one wanted to know anything more about it, but wanted to have it already here on earth. —

If, for example, someone has first put a great deal of effort into learning the profession or the art he practices, and now should not get more for his work than the other, who can do nothing more than move his healthy hands, then he will soon say: “I have no intention whatsoever of joining Communist society.” The mere manual worker, on the other hand, will say: “Yes, I want to put myself on an equal footing with the one who has had to prepare himself for many years in order [1947-30] to acquire his artistry.” If, of course, all were true Christians, they would say, “I do not work at all to gain money, but because God has commanded me to do so; but I expect my bread from God, because He has promised that if I worked faithfully He would not leave me or fail to do so.” But only a true Christian thinks like this. The natural man, on the other hand, thinks: “Why shall I work if it brings me nothing?” How many merchants are there who say, “Why should I stock this or that article?” They don't ask whether the public needs the goods, because they serve only themselves, and so it goes through all relations. One does not do only what serves one's neighbor, but that by which one can gain the most. That is the selfish principle of a natural man, as he is born into the world.

So if the poor world is to be helped, then, as I said, people must become Christians. That is the only way. Now, however, there are so many thousands who are called Christians, but they are not. Now the Communists see that and say: “What Christians! They are the greatest scoundrels in the world. And we must admit to them, [page 19] yes, indeed; among those who call themselves Christians there are many scoundrels who are not worthy to bear the Christian name. But when we talk about Christians, we are not talking about Christians by name, but about those who not only believe the Bible, but who also show, represent and carry out the principles contained in the Bible through their lives. These alone are Christians, and if all were such Christians, then heaven would already be on earth, and the cross, which of course is not absent, would be easy to bear. But of course no Communist believes this, because he does not know what it means to be a Christian. He is only interested in the mistakes and sins of those who call themselves Christians and perhaps also go to church, and now thinks: “What? Christianity should help the world? Aren't Christians worse than us?” And unfortunately one has to say: “Oh, you poor Communists! You are indeed fearfully offended, and woe unto him through whom this offense comes, for he makes you so stubborn that you now believe all the more firmly that Christianity is nothing. But it is still true: Men are selfish by nature, and they remain so as long as they do not become true Christians; therefore it is senseless to want to create a world in which every one is satisfied that he has no more than the other. [1947-31] 

One should not think that someone who has a lot does not want to have more than the other. One could make the case that there is a man who has $10,000, $100,000, $500,000, or even $1,000,000 in his fortune. Will he be comfortable to enter such a Communist society? The Communist [Charles] Fourier (died 1837) [not mathematician Joseph Fourier] wanted to establish his Communism in France and he got together here and there small Communist communities, which he then called Phalanstères. [Wikipedia] From 1800 to 2000 people had to live there together and had everything in common. There were no authorities, except the so-called “distributors”. For one had to have someone who said: “You get so much and you get so much; there you are to work and here you are to work.” But unfortunately there was only a lack of money. Fourier now announced in all the newspapers that a rich man should give away a million dollars for this purpose out of philanthropy. He (Fourier) wanted to go to a certain place every day and see if such a good man would come. He went there every day for 12 years, — but nobody came. And all his Phalanstères, without exception, have been bankrupted. [This was not reported in Wikipedia article. See also later pages 36-38, Part 10.]

Either these Communists, like Fourier, are enthusiasts, or they are swindlers. Now we would like to believe that those who stand at the top are mostly enthusiasts. Because they do not want to know anything more about Christianity, they have rather been thinking every day: “How do we begin to rebuild the failing world, to make it happy again?” — these are the things they have now thought about. But of course, what does it help? People won't be made happy by this means, but rather [page 20] only unhappy, and, just as the Communists go on and on telling people how terrible the conditions in the world are, so much the more firmly the thoughts set in all men, “How wretched is the world! how unhappy! we should strive for another goal.” This is the poison that the Communists feed the poor people. This is the poison that works all the more terribly, because we know that it will not change. There may be a thousand more Communist newspapers, but they will not turn the world upside down, they will not change it. So what do they gain? Nothing more than to make people feel unhappy. If the poor man thinks, “Well, I am poor, I cannot have it as the rich man can; but I will not worry, but surrender to it, if only I get through the world honestly,” — such a man is a very [1947-32] happy man, however poor he may be. Let us therefore hear now, as it says in the third proposition:

- - - - - - - - - - - - -  Continued in Part 6  - - - - - - - - - - - -

Comm4: Reason, Nature, Experience 1: Men are not equal

      This continues from Part 3 (Table of Contents in Part 1), a series presenting a new translation of C.F.W. Walther's Communism and Socialism from 1878. — Walther now presents an outline for the points he will cover in the body of his lectures. He begins then using reason, nature, and experience to convince even non-Christians against Communism and Socialism. Even before he uses the Scriptures he uses convincing logical arguments to bring people to their senses in these matters. What makes him so convincing is that he does not mis-state or exaggerate the goals of Communism, he uses their own arguments. — I had to laugh at Walther when he jokingly said, after stating his enjoyment at being a theologian, that others might consider it "a dog's life"! Thank God! for the "dog's life" of Walther!

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Translation of Walther's 1878 Communismus und Socialismus by BackToLuther primarily using DeepL online translation service; highlighting and bolding are my emphases, red text within square brackets [] are my comments, underlining is Walther's emphasis.

C.F.W. Walther's Communism and Socialism, (Part 4, p. 12-16)

Why should and can no reasonable man, let alone a Christian, take part in the efforts of the Communists and Socialists?

I. Because they are against reason, nature and experience, for

1. it is a fact that men are not equal to each other;

2. it is a fact that men are selfish by nature;

3. it is a fact that happiness does not consist in earthly advantages;

4. it is a matter of experience that the Communists never achieved their goal and caused only misery and heartache. [page 13]

II. Because they are against Christianity, for:

1. What is cited from God's Word by them proves nothing, or proves the opposite. — It is urged:

a) that according to the Scriptures, God gave the whole earth and what is in it to man;

b) that the first Jerusalem congregation had practised a certain community of property;

c) that Christ not only warned against seeking riches, but also commanded: “Sell that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have [1947-24] treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.” Luke 18:22;

d) that according to Christ's teaching the workers in the vineyard should receive equal wages.

2. The aspirations of the Socialists and Communists are also contrary to specific doctrines of Christianity:

a) the doctrine of personal property contained in the seventh commandment and elsewhere in Scripture;

b) the teaching contained in the fifth commandment and elsewhere in Scripture that only the authorities have the power of the sword;

c) the teaching of the sanctity of marriage contained in the sixth commandment and elsewhere in Scripture;

d) the difference among people, as confirmed in Scripture, not only

a. between parents and children, man and woman, master and servant, housefather and day laborer or worker, but also

b. between rich and poor;

e) the doctrine of the Scripture that God wants to draw man to Himself through all kinds of adversity, test him and prepare him for eternity;

f) the doctrine of Scripture that man should eat his bread in the sweat of his brow;

g) the doctrine of Scripture that man should seek his happiness not in this world but in God and in the hope of retribution and reconciliation beyond and for eternal life; and finally

h) the doctrine of Scripture that the source of all misery in this world is sin.

III. Because the accusation of Communism against the Christian religion and Church, that these hinder rather than promote the material well-being of man, is unfounded and unjust: [page 14] 

1. the accusation that she is the ally of wealth, oppression and tyranny, and

2. the charge that she is incapable of relieving the suffering of mankind.

So this is what is important if we [1947-25] want to get a clear picture of our position as Christians towards Communism and Socialism. — We are against the efforts of the Socialists:

I. Because they are against reason, nature and experience.

It is indeed madness to want to carry out something that is against reason, nature and experience. Already the old pagans said: “You can drive out Nature with a pitchfork, but she keeps on coming back.” *) Nature cannot be driven out, it has become identical with us, so to speak, i.e. we ourselves are our embodied nature.

Now, the first thing to consider here is this:

1. It is a fact that people are not equal with each other.

There are no two things in the whole world that are the same. These Communists, of course, do not believe in any god, but they have not yet abolished Him. And this great, almighty, all-wise God has even proved that He does nothing twice in the world. He did not do two identical things. There is not one leaf of a tree equal to another; indeed, there is not one dust particle [Stäublein] equal to another dust particle. Of all that exist, one is different from the other. God is therefore not a maker of things equal, but a maker of things different. Man cannot, to save his life, make two things equal. The principle that everything should be made equal is not founded in nature. We see this also in man himself. The one has a sharp mind, but he has no wealth of ideas, or a fruitful ingenuity; the one is healthy and strong, the other is a weakling; the one has special gifts for spiritual work, the other for mechanical work; the one has inclination for this, the other for a quite completely different thing; One is innately economical, the other innately extravagant; one is inclined to anger, the other to equanimity in all things; one must go a long way before he is angry, the other is angry at the slightest irritation. These are but a few examples; but now let us go through what we ourselves have experienced about the diversity of men, and we [1947-26] will be able to multiply it in terms of the most diverse mutual relations. It is therefore quite unnatural

——————

*) Naturam expellas furca, tamen usque recurret. (Horatio, Epistles I, x, 24) [page 15]

——————

to want to create such a human society in which all would be equal. 

The Communists will not deny that, if they want to establish a Communist state, they may do so in one way or another, but they must establish something that will organize the community of people into a whole. But there must be governors and governed people. Therefore, as soon as they want to begin to realize their ideas, they must begin with the opposite, i.e. they must appoint rulers, and say: “You others must let yourselves be governed by these.”

But, the Communists might object, this is a consequence that is forced on us. We do not want to make people all the same, we just want to have equal wealth, equal pleasure and so on. Otherwise, we want to let people be as they are.

This objection is void. For equality in these things presupposes mental equality. For as soon as this is not the case, the Communists cannot achieve equality in ability and, above all, in joy. For they want equality of property in order to spread equal happiness in the world; but happiness is brought about in quite different ways in the immense diversity of men. The one needs this for his happiness, the other that. Some people think: “if I were in this or that situation, that would be something terrible for me”; and others think: “Well, I don’t want to be in your situation”. I, for example, feel quite happy that I am a theologian; another thinks that if I had to sit over the books from morning to night every day, that would be a dog's life. (Walther’s joke!! ;-)) He doesn't want to be lazy, but he doesn't like this kind of occupation. There are, however, Communists who say: “Yes, if we establish such a Communist state, we would ask everyone what they want to do and what they have gifts for.” Then we would also say: You should tailor for all of us, you should make shoes, you should trade, and the like.” Who's going to say: “I want to sweep the sewers!” Who will say: “I have a special inclination for that!” No one will be able to find such an occupation. Or suppose we have a large hospital in this Communist state. [1947-27] Unfortunately the Communists cannot make people have the same in health. Above all, they should be able to do so, for that is primarily part of the happiness of the community, that one is as healthy as the other. So just imagine: A hospital where sick people are lying in bed suffering from the most disgusting illnesses. Day and night there is a terrible stench. One must fear that if one breathes in this air for only one hour, one will be infected. Now the Communist ruler will say: Who wants [page 16] to go and nurse the sick? Silence will be the answer. Everyone will say: “Why should it be me? There must be equality!” — and no one does anything about equality. Is that not quite foolish? It is easy to write and print on paper what a paradise it will be when everything is equal. That is what the Socialists believe; but only so long as they do not imagine what conditions would arise if their principle were to be carried out. What they imagine is nothing but fantasy.

Communism is nothing other than what Millennialism [Chiliasmus] in the Church. Communism is the Millennialism of the world. It imagines such a land of milk and honey, and thinks: Yes, if property will be common, then everyone has equal right to it, then it will be wonderful in this world. But one does not even consider that many other things are added which do not burden it at all. The Communists want all property to be distributed. But if today, through distribution, all are equal to each other, what will it be like tomorrow? One person locks the money in his dresser, another goes to the grocery store and drinks it, a third person might go to an even worse place and squander the money. Tomorrow, all equality ends.

The poor Communists! They well see that they are unhappy men; they feel vividly the misery of this world, especially now, in this terrible time, when thousands and thousands of people, however faithful they may be to their work, are unable to feed themselves and their own righteousness. They feel this, but they do not think about where it comes from. They have lost God, and with God the highest good, and therefore they have no consolation. Now people want to help the world, and they think that they will be helped by such institutions that all will be made equal, for they think that there is still so much wealth in the world that each one can enjoy life to his heart's content. But what folly! And even if all men were now willing, one would soon see that they would tire of being made equal with others. That is why it says here in the second place: [1947-28]

- - - - - - - - - - - - -  Continued in Part 5: The Third Proposition  - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Comm3: no personal property?; Unions–preschool for Socialism; Karl Marx in England (Prologue 2)

 

    This continues from Part 2 (Table of Contents in Part 1), a series presenting a new translation of C.F.W. Walther's Communism and Socialism from 1878. — Newspapers promoting Communism, labor unions acting as "pre-schools" for Socialism, and the famous Karl Marx – all these are introduced in this installment.  [Continued in Part 4]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Translation of Walther's 1878 Communismus und Socialismus by BackToLuther primarily using DeepL online translation service; highlighting and bolding are my emphases, red text within square brackets [] are my comments, underlining is Walther's emphasis. Red highlight indicates omitted in 1947 translation.

C.F.W. Walther's Communism and Socialism, (Part 3, p. 8-12)

As far as the workers’ party is concerned, of which all the labor unions are part, its program can be found in the November 30 issue. In this program it says right at the beginning:

“Since political freedom without economic independence is only an empty phrase, the party fights in the economic sphere for the time being, and demands that all means of work become the property of society, in order to replace wage labor with cooperative production, with a just distribution of the labor yield.”

When the Communists say that production should become the property of society, they do not mean by the latter only their own circle. For if a number of people wanted to realize this idea among themselves, [1947-19] as far as they were able, then one could quite calmly watch. Everyone has that freedom to exercise certain rights and to contract with others. There have already been enough such Communist societies. No, they say this of society in general, that is, of all humanity, because they want to embrace it, and they want to bring these ideas to bear in it.They want to overthrow the present social relations, and they want to order them [page 9] order according to their principles. And among these principles are the following:

“No one should own land personally any more, but it should become common property and only be worked by certain people”, although in this respect the proposals are quite different, as we will soon hear. It then goes on to say: “Machines, traffic routes, etc.” They now leave it to the reader to put whatever he likes into the words “etc.”. Of course, it contains a great deal. The dear brethren who join with these labor unions certainly do not suspect what lies in “etc.”. Indeed, they also do not suspect what lies in it, if property is no longer to be private property, but the property of the community of men who live somewhere. They do not suspect what tremendous upheavals this requires before it can be realized. This is also part of their demands: “The introduction of a normal working day of 8 hours for the time being and punishment of all violators.” Whether a Christian can join such a labor union is something I'd like to leave up to any Christian reader. I don't think he can, in good conscience. He cannot become a member of a community whose purpose is to overthrow the whole world, either in peace or, if that is not possible, by bloody violence. Nor can he possibly join an association that says: “Man shall work only eight hours”, which is undoubtedly a principle of the lazy. On the whole, there will be few people who could survive if they only wanted to work eight hours. If we go to the Scriptures, we see that the average time of work is represented as a time of twelve hours. But how many people have to work more than twelve hours! And often just those who are despised by the workers as lazy bums often have to work much, much more than eight hours.

What is important, however, is what Mr. Walster himself reveals in his newspaper of November 30, 1877, about his actual relationship with the labor unions in America. He was attacked by the editor of a Milwaukee newspaper, the Milwaukee Socialist. The editor said that he would limit himself to the political field, because there alone the worker can finally fight for his freedom. He just had to get the legislation under his control, then he could easily rearrange all present conditions. But the fact that labor unions were founded would only hinder the good cause. Before a change could be made in this way, with labor unions, the workers would have starved to death. To this Mr Walster and others now answer the following:

“We are certainly not among those who [1947-20] want to solve the social question through trade associations (even through labor unions); except the value of the unions, which is agitational and spreads Socialist  [page 10] propaganda, must be recognized unreservedly.”

He wants to say that he hopes very little from the organization of such labor unions, he knows how little power they could develop. But one should consider that the unions were only the means to work for Socialism and Communism, they were only a pre-school for Socialism. One should only try to gather together the ignorant people and organize them into labor unions, then one could best sow the seeds of Socialism and Communism in such associations, and when these have been sown, then one has enough fists to be able to reach the goal by force, if it cannot be achieved peacefully. For it is true that there are more poor people who have to earn a living from their work than those who live from the use of their capital, whether from interest or from the speculations they make with it, with the undertakings they organize with it; and if the people were really won over to Socialist ideology, the Communists certainly would have to win the day, that is beyond question. Certainly they could then turn the world upside down and drown all their opponents in their own blood. So the idea is not stupid at all. But whether it will be carried out, that is another question. — Walster continues:

“Here in St. Louis, for example, there is a section of the Cabinet-Maker’s Union. It is made up of Socialists and non-Socialists. By extending their propaganda to this section, the Socialists have succeeded in gaining a large majority for Socialism there; as a result, this section debates the social question in every assembly, maintains well-organized labor statistics, and thus contributes to the expansion of our agitation in a manner not to be underestimated.”

So what Mr. Walster means to say is: Look, I'll do it even smarter than you. You just want to work in Milwaukee through political agitation and gain support for our Communism and Socialism. You do that; but if you do that alone, you're a fool. Our method is much more successful. We gather the people who don't want to be Socialists and make them Socialists. Our labor unions, he wants to say, [1947-21] are just a pre-school for Socialism and Communism. — Now I ask: What Christian wants to join such a labor union, wants to become a willing tool for such a revolution? No Christian can do it with a clear conscience; only he who believes there is no God belongs in it.

Another proof that the labor unions are nothing but institutions of the Communists who use them for their purposes is the following: English Communists have made a lottery for the good of the [French] political prisoners in New Caledonia; but not for the good of all political prisoners, but only for those who [page 11] were transported from France because they carried out those well-known horrible Communist atrocities in 1871 [Paris Commune]. When the Prussians made peace outside Paris, they allowed the French to keep their firearms [2020-10-23 added link] with the entire [French] National Guard. This was done by Germany out of humanitarian considerations, for they feared, because all sorts of people had gathered in Paris, that it would be a revolution. But they had reckoned wrongly. For these weapons mostly fell into the hands of the Communists, and they used the violence they had been given and caused a terrible bloodbath. They set up a so-called Commune and took possession of the city, and immediately shot several generals loyal to the government, the archbishop and other prelates and priests, erected barricades and from there fired into the crowd facing them, declaring also that if they should win, they would raze Paris to the ground. “War on the palaces!” — that was their slogan. And they carried that out honestly. In March the terrible catastrophe began, and at the end of May it was over: rivers of blood had flowed, the most magnificent buildings of the city lay in ashes. Woe to the city if the Communists had won! And for those who had committed the most terrible atrocities at that time, a lottery is now being held, and the local labor unions and branches of the same are also being approached, giving the following reasons for this:

“Workers! The revolution of March 18 has been shamefully slandered by the exploiters of both worlds. This revolution belongs to you too: for you have excluded the principles for which it fought from all your platforms. You are all responsible for them; to [1947-22] deny them would be treason. You are intimately linked to those who suffer the crime of having been defeated in a struggle conducted for the assertion of rights that we ourselves demand.”

Karl Marx

This explains, however, that even the local labor unions are basically only branches of the labor union which has its center in England. The latter was founded in 1869 [International Workingmen's Association], and then the conducting committee of this association, which had been founded by the Jew [Karl] Marx, issued the following declaration: “The association declares itself to be an atheistic one,” that is, one that declares that there is no God, for an atheist is a denier of God. “It demands the abolition of all religion, the replacement of faith by science, human justice for divine justice, the abolition and suppression of marriage.… We demand direct legislation for the people by the people themselves, the abolition of inheritance and the constitution of the land as collective property.”