Lecture in Stavanger, April 3, 1935: What is Marxism?

Extract from a lecture at a discussion meeting in Folkets Hus in Stavanger April 3, 1935.

By Dr. Gulbrand Lunde.

A critique of the theory of Marxism.

In the introduction to the Norwegian Labor Party’s principle programme, which was adopted unchanged at the Labor Party’s national meeting in 1936, it is stated that the party is based on Marxism and the experiences gained through struggles in Norway and other countries. So what is this Marxism?

Marxist theorists claim that Marxism is exclusively a scientific research method and nothing else. I would argue that it is something more than that. It is a doctrine based on certain assumptions that cannot be proven. But it is more than that. For those who actively and consciously advocate Marxist teachings, it becomes akin to a religious belief.

And when this doctrine is applied and forms the basis of political parties, Marxism also becomes an actively fighting political movement that pursues certain practical goals.

One can judge Marxism either on the basis of its theoretical basic principles, i.e. on the basis of the Marxists' own writings, or one can judge it on the basis of what it has led to in practice, i.e. what effects this teaching has had on the political struggles, in other words, what Marxism has led in practice. I will try to treat Marxism from both these points of view.

The premise: rigorous materialism.

Marxism is based, as the word implies, on the writings of Karl Marx. Karl Marx was the son of a Jewish lawyer, Horschel Mordechai, who called himself Heinrich Marx and who, together with his family, converted to Protestantism. His father was the rabbi of Trier, Mordechai.

The prerequisite for Marxism is a strictly implemented materialism. Matter, substance, is the only real thing. Materialism means the same thing as perceiving the world without preconceived idealism. Engels, who was Marx's collaborator, and together with him authored The Communist Manifesto, stated it thus:

"We will get out of the way everything that is supernatural and superhuman and thus remove the untruth, because the human and natural pretense of wanting to be superhuman and supernatural is the root of all untruth and all lies."

But when material is the only real thing, neither the spirit nor the soul can have any independence or reality.

The spirit and soul become only the brain.

All spiritual currents, all spiritual life become only reflections of the material conditions. The ideas have no real existence. If the body dies, the spirit is also finished.

But this materialism is no stagnant materialism. The world is not a machine that is not subject to change. The material is constantly developing. Out of the old that dies, the new constantly arises, and this development does not take place evenly. It takes place in leaps and bounds, through contradictions, struggle, death and disasters. This materialistic teaching, which therefore does not regard matter as something resting, constant, but which believes that development takes place through catastrophes, is called dialectical materialism. Karl Marx consistently extols this dialectical materialism. And the doctrine that has received his name, Marxism, does likewise.

The spiritual is a reflection of the material.

What characterizes Marxism is, firstly, that everything spiritual is only a reflection of the material, the material. And the so-called Marxist "research" then deals particularly with finding the material causes of all the different ideas and all intellectual life in general.

The forms of government, spiritual science, all human thinking, religion, morality, all have, according to the teachings of the Marxists, no real existence in themselves, but are only reflections, superstructures (überbau) over the material conditions. Starting from these assumptions, Marxists then find that the various ideas that underlie our society: our entire state administration, our laws, etc., are just means for the so-called ruling class to oppress the working people. In the same way, they also claim that religion and moral laws are likewise means for the ruling class to keep the working people oppressed.

"Religion is the opium of the people".

Religion is perceived by Marxists as a kind of soothing poison, which prevents the oppressed from rising up against the oppressors. This Marxist conception received its classical formulation from Marx himself. We find this in Karl Marx: Criticism of the Hegelian legal philosophy:

"Religious misery is on the one hand the expression of real misery, and on the other hand the protest against real misery. Religion is the sigh of the suffering being, the disposition of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of spiritless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of the religion which is the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for a real happiness. — The requirement to give up the illusion of one's condition is the requirement to give up a condition that needs illusions. The criticism of religion is thus in its bud the criticism of the valley of woe whose saintly skin religion is."

Decisive break with the Christian faith.

On this point, Marxism decisively breaks with the Christian faith. Sin is here an expression of economic sorrows. And the thought of a forgiveness of sins becomes an expression of the attempt to abolish the material need.

Lenin, who has carried Marxism forward, expresses this view even more clearly:

Religion belongs to the spiritual chains that bind the masses of people to eternal toil for others, resulting in need and misery. Just as the savage’s powerlessness in the struggle against nature leads to belief in gods, devils, and various supernatural forces, the exploited classes’ powerlessness against their oppressors fosters the belief in a better life beyond this one. Religion instructs those who work for others and endure suffering to exhibit humility and patience in this earthly existence, offering them solace with the promise of a heavenly reward. Simultaneously, it encourages those who profit from the labor of others to engage in charitable acts on Earth, serving as a convenient justification for their gains and a nominal fee for entry into heavenly bliss. In essence, religion acts as an opiate for the people, a spiritual illusion that numbs the capital’s slaves, obscures their humanity, and causes them to forget their right to a somewhat humane existence.

However, a slave who recognizes their bondage and fights for liberation has already begun to break free. The modern, class-conscious worker, educated through industry and urban life, rejects religious prejudices with disdain. They leave the concept of heaven to priests and bourgeois religious leaders, instead dedicating themselves to the struggle for a better life on Earth. Today, the working class champions socialism, which, grounded in science, will dispel the fog of religion and unite workers in their pursuit of a more just existence.»

Here we see how this Marxism is not satisfied with so-called research based on its materialistic teachings, but it also gives instructions on how the working people should throw off their chains in order to usurp social power and put down the so-called oppressors.

It's all just financial materialism.

This brings us to another characteristic of Marxism. Namely that the entire historical development is seen as an economic materialism, and that the development is exclusively a result of the economic

production conditions.

"You can separate people from animals by their consciousness, their religion, by whatever you want. They themselves begin to separate themselves from the animals as soon as they begin to produce their food, a step which is conditioned by their bodily constitution," says Marx in "Die deutsehe Ideologie."

The economic conditions of production are therefore the only thing

crucial for the relationship between people. Everything else, such as the structure of our society and everything that we collectively call culture, are only reflections (superstructures).

History is the history of class struggles.

Furthermore, we must remember that Marxism is based on dialectical materialism, on a development that does not take place smoothly, but in leaps and bounds, in catastrophes. These disasters are the result of class struggles and occur whenever the exploited class has become strong enough to beat down the exploiters. The whole of history becomes a history of class struggles, and the cause of all history, all development of human societies, is sought by Marxists in the economic conditions of production. The human ideas, thoughts, the divine spirit, all these have no existence for the Marxists.

Civil criticism.

When one wants to criticize Marxism from a bourgeois point of view, the most common arguments are that Marx's predictions about the development of capitalism and production life have not held true. Thus Marx predicted, based on the assumptions that were present in his time almost a hundred years ago, that capital would accumulate in fewer and fewer hands, and the working people would sink into greater and greater misery. There would be more and more exploited and fewer and fewer exploiters, until finally the exploited would rise up and strike down the few capitalists.

Marx's theories do not hold up.

We know very well that it has not gone that way. On the contrary, there have been more and more small capitalists, and the development has led to a higher standard of living for the working people, who today can hardly be called a propertyless class.

All this shows that Marx was not right on these points. However, these fallacies of Marx are not, in my opinion, an argument against the Marxist doctrine as such. It can at best serve as proof that Marxism can reach erroneous results. I will therefore skip these points without further ado, and move on to a critique of the very starting point for Marxism:

The dialectical materialism.

Marx took over the dialectical method from Hegel. According to Hegel's philosophy, the idea always evokes its own contradiction. These two then merge into a higher unity which in turn evokes its opposite, etc. Hegel saw in his philosophy the absolute philosophy, the last highest truth. However, Hegel’s students apply his own dialectical method to his system. Hegel's student, Feuerbach, turns Hegel's system completely on its head. He says: "It is not the idea, the spiritual, which is the original, it is man." So there is no special spiritual world. — "Der Mensch ist was isst." Man is what he eats. — "Religion is the dream of the human spirit, God, heaven, bliss are human desires realized by the power of imagination. God is nothing but human reason.” God is thus a product of the human spirit. This Feuerbach's view also pays tribute to Marx, but he does not, like Feuerbach, perceive man as the primary, but the whole of human society. Therefore, according to Marx, spiritual matters, including religion, do not merely reflect the human spirit but also the social conditions and production circumstances. —

Marx connects Feuerbach's thoughts with Hegel's dialectic, and applies this method to the conditions of production and in this way lays the foundation for the historical materialism which is based on the doctrine of class struggle.

The postulate of Marxism.

The Marxist doctrine claims to be the only true research method that must lead to a correct result. But we should note that this method is based on an already established opinion. It is based on the basis that all development is due to the conditions of production, and that all spiritual life, all human thoughts and ideas, also about God and religion, are only reflections of these conditions of production.

But consider that if this foundation were false, the entire edifice of Marxism would collapse. Let’s assume, as Hegel believed, that the primary force is the idea or spirit, rather than material conditions. In that case, Marxism becomes fundamentally flawed. When challenged, Marxists argue that I cannot definitively prove this Marxist postulate wrong. To that, I would reply that the Marxists can also somewhat prove that it is correct. That the Marxists are right on many points in their criticism of social conditions today is no proof. A large part of the criticism of the liberalist social conditions today that the Marxists come up with is shared by a number of non-Marxists, e.g. a. of the Nasjonal Samling.

Marxism believes it has solved the whole riddle of the development of existence, and it solves it in such a way that it reduces all problems to an impersonal, materialistic plane of production and seeks the solution there. But we must note that this way of reducing the whole problem of existence by making it a problem of economic production is something that the Marxists must build on a priori, something that they must take for granted without being able to prove it.

Marxism, a short epoch.

But what justifies the Marxists to believe that they have found the only great and final truth. By what right should the teaching, which these men invented in the 1840-50s, be made infallible, since according to the teaching of dialectics everything is in development, one teaching arises, perishes and is replaced by a new teaching. The answer is that Karl Marx has picked out exactly this teaching and said that it is absolute and true. But this is of course an absolute human arbitrariness. —

This whole piece of historical development characterized by Marxism and its offshoots communism, social democracy, bolshevism, is only an extremely short epoch in human history, and why should such a small piece of development be absolute and final. Marxism will also perish!

Marxism will disappear.

What entitles the Marxists to believe that Marxism is not also

submitted to the laws of dialectics? The Marxist doctrine is nothing other than a reaction to liberalism, and Marxism, according to its own doctrine, like any other direction, will itself produce its opposite, the ideas which in due course will come to knock it down. Similar to how Hegel's philosophy, after Marx,  considered itself the ultimate true doctrine, Marxism itself can be regarded as some ultimate truth. But according to the teachings of the Marxists, their view is the only true and correct one. The Marxists can explain everything. What they cannot observe with their senses and do not understand is just superstition. The full stop is here. But any teaching that considers itself the absolute truth becomes a religion!

It is characteristic of Marxism that when it removes religion from man, it itself becomes religion.

Any Marxist will contradict me on this point and maintain that Marxism is no religion, and that the moment it becomes a religion for a man, he is no longer a Marxist. The question then becomes whether such a perfect Marxist is even conceivable.

In other words, whether Marxism can fill a person's life, whether the person is thereby perfected as a human being.

To clarify this point, I will once again return to Karl Marx himself.

How does Marx perceive man?

When you criticize Marxism from a bourgeois point of view, you generally hear that man in Marxism is only a link in development, part of the collective mass, and this is correct, but if you want to get full clarity on the question, it is not useful to see man isolated. You have to see it in a specific relationship, in which context the person is placed.

This is also the reason why Marxists are only completely understood by other Marxists. They get a certain way of seeing things. They talk in all seriousness about Marxist science, Marxist art, morality, etc. and thus become a kind of sect.

This relationship in which people stand to each other is, in Marx's opinion, a total social relationship.

"In the real community, the individuals in and through their association simultaneously gain their freedom," says Marx (Die deutsche Ideologie). The fact that man is a total social individual is very important for Marxism. Everything that prevents man from becoming such a total social individual therefore prevents man from fully developing and prevents him from achieving his full freedom. Such things that prevent man from becoming a total social individual are, in Marx's opinion, all the things that tear man out of the social context. It is, among other things, a. property rights, the person's personality, etc., i.e. the things that we generally think our whole society is based on.

But in Marx's opinion, these things are due to the ideas, i.e. the superstructures over the material. When these ideas, such as the idea of private property rights, personal initiative, etc., acquire their own value, they come to set a distinction between people and prevent them from becoming social individuals. Note that Marx never speaks of personalities, always only of individuals. The ideas therefore become the protectors of those in power. They become the opium of the people!

On the other hand, according to Marx, these ideas are not real, but only an abstraction. He therefore turns the relationship upside down and says: "It is not consciousness that determines life. It is life that determines consciousness.” (Die deutsche Ideologie.)

By dissolving this contradictory relationship between idea and reality, Marx believes that he solves the whole riddle of existence. And he resolves this contradiction in the simple way that he denies the ideas of real existence.

For Marx, the real and essential human being is "der vergesellschaftete Mensch", which we can translate as the community human being. Marxists do not perceive this to mean that this person is in some kind of special close relationship with other people, i.e. that this person thinks and acts socially. On the contrary, according to Marx's view, charity, as it is practiced by Christians, is very dangerous, because man acquires a personal value in his relationship with his neighbor, and "the social struggle stagnates in the swamp of charity". In reality, it is very difficult to understand what Marx himself means by this total social individual. We only know that such a person must be freed completely from any antisocial individual attitude.

As I have already mentioned, Marx finds the connection between

the people by reducing the relationship between people to an economic relationship of production. But the fact that this total social individual that Marx speaks of is only a utopia is best seen from this, that the once-rejected ideas resurface as idealism. The Marxists actively fight for the promised communist state. It becomes a hopeful vision for the future, and it is clear that it must be so. It is also the best proof that Marxism is wrong in its basic idea: to reduce humanity to mere productive components of society. The ideas that Marxism has robbed man of are coming back. The hated religion returns as well. Thus the Marxist Edvard Bull states in his book on Communism and Religion:

"The consciously working communist will be able to find help in his social perception, his social belief; for him it will be enough that the new, socialist society will come and bring happiness to the class he belongs to, even if he does not get to experience it himself."

As you can see, this is faith, religion. The communist future state is what has become the Marxists' heaven, and we then also see how the Russian communists turn to Lenin worship and organize large parties with spectacles that masquerade as religious hymns of praise to the future communist state. From "Arbeider-Ungdommen", no. 1 — 1935, I can quote what a Norwegian "delegate" writes:

"The Soviet Union's biggest holiday is probably the celebration of 7 November, the day the Bolsheviks took full power in 1917. There is hardly any country that can present such demonstration trains or party trains, which is a more appropriate name, as the ones you get be present in Moscow on November 7.–

The tribunes were erected on the same side as Lenin's mausoleum. Atop the mausoleum, we saw Stalin, Kalinin, Voroshilof, Dimitrov, and other leaders.–

Then came the workers' party train. In twelve parallel trains, they marched into the square, with giant pictures of Stalin, Lenin and other of the country's leading men at the head. It was a magnificent sight that will forever be etched in our memories. There were hundreds of thousands with banners, flags and badges.”

Here, we witness how the most fervent opponents of religion are establishing a new religion. Their bible is the works of Karl Marx and Lenin. Its catechism is the Communist Manifesto. Their saints are Marx, Lenin and other great Marxists. Their church festivals are the big Bolshevik parties and pageants on the occasion of the commemoration days of the revolution in Russiad.

And also in their use of language we see how the Marxists have only exchanged the "Christian religion" for a spirit. Expressions such as "poor" and "rich" are called by the Marxists "proletarian" and "capitalist". The tired and worried are called the "exploited" . Church and charity have been replaced by class and class struggle. "Kingdom of God" has become "the classless society". The promised land is the Soviet Union. "Sin" and "grace" have become "capitalism" and "dictatorship of the proletariat".

The Marxists themselves provide the most compelling evidence of Marxism’s fallacies. When man has freed himself from the harmful ideas, he creates new ones. When the Marxists have taken religion away with the help of their enlightenment activities, they create a new one for themselves. In place of the fatherland comes the future Soviet society. Instead of Yes, we love — The International. The "illusionless" Marxists get the biggest illusion of all. On all points, Marxism fails. According to Marx's theory, man's own being is not exhausted by becoming a total social individual. And this lies precisely in Marx's fallacy, when he wants to reduce man's problem to an economic production problem. He denies the most essential thing about man, namely that man is more than a part of the community of production. He solves man's problem by running away from it.

How Marxism manifests itself in practice.

We will then take a look at how Marxism manifests itself in practice, how the Marxist works in the political struggle.

According to Marx, all ideas are superstructures or reflections of the conditions of production and are harmful to the social context. If the Marxists had contented themselves with establishing this, then there was nothing to prevent them from letting them float in this delusion as much as they wanted. But the Marxists are actively involved in seeking to remove these ideas, to neutralize them through so-called "information activities". These ideas which, according to Marx, protect the ruling class are above all the idea of a god, private property rights, family life and the morality that underlies it, the freedom of the individual and the idea of the fatherland and community.

All these harmful ideas must therefore be removed to pave the way for Marxist socialism or communism. The Marxists strive to achieve their goals through political parties, and in Norway they have deliberately tried to imbue the labor movement with Marxist views, so that the Norwegian Workers' Party today has a completely Marxist program. The communists are even more active.

They are based on exactly the same doctrine, and through these political parties, Marxists actively fight against all ideas that, in their opinion, stand in the way and prevent the "liberation" of people.

Religion is undermined.

I have previously explained the Marxist view of religion. Their goal is through "enlightenment" of the true nature of religion as a tool for those in power to undermine belief in God in order to reach the completely godless man. It is necessary to remove all human illusions, and belief in a God is the worst of them all. Even here in Norway, the Marxists work purposefully in this direction.

Private property rights are also one of the "ideas" that must be abolished. In the society that is perfect according to Marxist principles, there is no private property. It is clear that all the worst individuals in society feel accused by such a thought and join Marxism under the motto: "Steal what has been stolen!"

Family life and morality are also harmful ideas.

Family life and morality are also among the harmful ideas in society. In the family, the individuals come into personal relationships with each other, and this is harmful to the social context. Therefore, we see how Marxism systematically tries to undermine the prevailing morality and family life. Planned work is carried out for the "liberation" of women. The greatest possible freedom and independence in sexual relations between people.

And here we witness how the most unrestrained and rootless individuals join forces with Marxism.

Norwegian society, our fatherland, is also such a harmful idea. Instead, Marxists must unite with Marxists in other countries to work for their social freedom. State authority is sought to be undermined on all fronts. The police and the defense are made suspect and portrayed as anti-worker state bodies.

The fight against everything that holds society together.

In this way, Marxists wage a systematic struggle against everything that holds society together, a systematic work of disintegration. There is no doubt that many Marxists do this from idealistic motives, but on the other hand we see how they also receive support from the very worst part of society, and how Marxism in less capable individuals awakens animal instincts, how these individuals hope that Marxism will give them unlimited space for their operations.

The animal in man.

We also see how these society's most worthless individuals plunder and destroy at the forefront of Marxist revolutions in all countries. The animal in man is brought to life, the limitless, soulless man.

It is these unrestrained, wild, fanatical people who are the spearhead of every revolution. We also recognize them from demonstration trains here in Norway. We recognize them from riots. It is the frenzied, shouting and hurling mob capable of committing anything in the direction of murder and plunder. I do not mean that these are typical Marxists; but it is Marxist doctrine that must take responsibility if these hordes are unleashed on society. It is Marxists who, by their agitation for "liberation" from everything possible, have created their mentality and freed them from all the inhibitions that normally prevent them from attacking everything that holds an orderly society together.

Marxism is, according to its nature, dissolving and demolishing. Now, it can be argued that Marxism has not been given the opportunity to be constructive. It is still carrying out its demolition work everywhere, except in the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union is by far the only country where Marxism is consistently sought to be put into practice. Therefore, we must be allowed to examine the results that Marxism has yielded.

Firstly, it turned out that transforming people into completely social individuals, as envisioned by Marx—the so-called ‘socialization’ of people, especially peasants—was anything but easy. People wanted to retain their right to property, family life, and faith. They clung to these ideas. When benevolent persuasion failed to remove these “ideas,” the Marxists resorted to force. This aligns with the Norwegian Workers’ Party’s program, which states that they would use force if Norwegians did not willingly allow themselves to be socialized:

“The workers’ organizations must position themselves to protect their interests, and the labor movement must prepare to wield its organizational power to counter the reaction’s attacks.​"

This power struggle, which even Marxists here in Norway expect will come, has cost Russia an infinite amount of suffering and misery. In addition to all the people killed during the civil war and the millions who died of starvation and are still suffering under the misrule, according to Russian sources over 1 million people have been executed, including 6,000 teachers and professors, 8,800 doctors, 54,000 officers, 8,000 priests, 260 000 soldiers, 105,000 policemen, 48,000 constables, 13,000 civil servants and 355,000 other intellectuals, 192,000 workers and 815,000 peasants.

And one should not think that this terror has diminished. Recently we saw how the Bolsheviks took bloody revenge for the murder of Kirov, who was a member of the Politburo, and how thousands of so-called counter-revolutionary or questionable individuals were deported. The peasants are deported, forcibly relocated and shot on a large scale if they do not want to accept collectivization.

A number of our native Marxists definitely distance themselves from these Bolshevik methods; but that Russia still stands as the ideal is clear from the sunshine narratives that the Marxist Norwegian press constantly presents.

When I showed pictures of Lenin, Stalin and other Bolsheviks in a lecture on Soviet Norway here in Stavanger, the Marxists present applauded as best they could.

After 17 years of Marxist rule, this ideal country is still under the most unrestricted dictatorship and virtually culturally isolated from the outside world. The goal of Marxists is to make Norway a Soviet Norway, as part of the United Soviet Republic.

It is difficult to say anything definitive about the conditions in Russia today. In any case, the reports of delegations who are led around like a herd of sheep by the Bolsheviks and shown all the magnificent new buildings cannot be trusted. Of course they don't get to see any of the workers' plight. But from the Soviet Russian papers it is quite clear about the difficulties one has to contend with. It is also characteristic that all the things which Marxists were supposed to abolish, and which Marxists in our country are still anxious to abolish, have again had to be introduced into Russia. So there is hardly any country where there is such a wide variation in wages as in Russia, while here Marxists demand the same wages for skilled workers as for inexperienced workers. I can only refer to what the aforementioned "delegate" writes in "Arbeider-Ungdommen", No. 1 — 1935:

“According to the information we received, the average wage at the factory was 189 rubles, the minimum wage was 140 rubles. But since wages vary greatly, several of the best workers could in some cases reach up to 600 rubles per month.”

And you also get a little insight into how the workers live by reading what the same reporter writes in "Arbeider-Ungdommen". One certainly could not accuse him of painting the situation bleak:

"According to the information we received and what we were able to ascertain when we visited the stores, we can say that the wages are completely livable, and to live well, but of course not in abundance.

As a kind of apology, we then also hear that:

“-- The young workers have every opportunity to acquire the necessary knowledge they desire in all fields. And what doesn't that mean!”

When the "classes" on the railway were abolished, soft and hard carriages were introduced instead, and the ticket has a different price depending on whether you travel in 1st, 2nd or 3rd class.

In the Soviet Union, Marxists still look forward to the promised communist society after 17 years.

On all points, Marxism fails both in theory and in practice. And the reason lies in the fact that Marxism is a false doctrine. It tries to solve man's problems by reducing man to a materialistic economic plan of production. But this cannot perfect human life. Marxism tries to solve the problem of existence by denying what is man himself, namely the human spirit. And Marx's words fall back on himself and on Marxism:

"Der Mensch scheint ein Geheimnis für den Menschen, man weiss ihn nur zu tadeln, und man kennt ihn nicht". (Berichte vom Selbstmord.) “Man seems to be a mystery to man, you can only judge him, but you do not know him.