Should U really fund Marxism class?

Marxism is an abortive, utopian doctrine and contradicts common sense.

I was astonished to see a title such as “University should fund Marxism class” (March 3) in the Daily. It is impossible to believe that in the year 2004 there are still people who, in search of the truth, turn toward Marxism. Being associated with communism does not imply “that one is undeniably irrational, flamingly radical and morally questionable.” It states it!

History alone has proven that Marxism is an abortive, utopian doctrine and is in complete contradiction with common sense. Marxism fails to understand one basic thing: the principle of human nature. It fails to acknowledge that different people have different aspirations – that whatever is satisfactory for one is totally insufficient for others.

Having lived in a communist country for more than 20 years, where Marxism was the nucleus of every university’s curriculum (medical school, architecture school, etc.), as well as an essential part of every high school’s weekly program, I am inclined to supply the readers a few insights from “practical” Marxism.

Irrational? Most Eastern European countries “enjoyed” a planned economy for more than 40 years. All economic activities were scheduled to take place over five-year periods. For example, the government might (and did) plan for a country with rich traditions in farming to produce a certain number of tons of heavy metals and toxic chemicals, to be exported to a “brother country” in exchange for canned tomatoes, barley and corn. Acres of fertile land were then demolished and covered with industrial buildings.

Radical? The above five-year plan was successfully achieved and everyone could continue pursuing the newly set goals.

But if there were aberrant individuals who refused to blend with the happy masses and foolishly sought their own means toward happiness, the only thing they were likely to find was the eternal peace of mind and body!

Morally questionable? As a citizen of a communist country, one was to believe in its bright and bountiful future only. Karl Marx said, “Religion is opium for the people.”

Going to church, celebrating the holidays of Christianity and sharing ancestors’ religious values were all errant and brainwashing for young people – and therefore illegal.

The absurd examples of an artificial society do not stop here. Many other stories can be cited, but when faced with the facts and asked what went wrong, the later proponents of Marxism could only give the ready-to-use answer: “Marxism is a wonderful concept. It would have brought ultimate happiness to all if the greedy politicians didn’t turn it into a vicious practice.”

The most logical question that should follow such a saying would be: Why was Marxism unable to sustain the pressure of time anywhere it was accepted as an official political and socio-economical doctrine? It was not only one or two countries that went through a 50-year agony, striving to prove the improvable.

No economy can exist where the market is ignored and no democratic society can function if it does not acknowledge that it is created by and from individuals who have their own visions.

Ludwig von Mises in his work “Socialism” said: “(Marxism) promises a Paradise on earth Ö and sweeter still to the losers in life’s game – humiliation of all who are stronger and better than the multitude. It is against Logic, against Science and against the activity of thought itself – its outstanding principle is the prohibition of thought and inquiry, especially as applied to the institutions and workings of a socialist economy.”

Studying Marxism as a University course should not be more than studying where humankind must never go again. Whether the University has the funds to teach independent adults what is universally proven to be wrong and right is a wholly different matter.

Nevena Mollova is a Daily reader from Bulgaria. She now lives in St. Paul. Send comments to [email protected]