In today’s America, Marxism is once again being heavily criticized and attacked. And inevitably, the left is being associated with it and accused of harboring dangerous sympathies for it. To the simple-minded and uninformed, the culpability of the left seems entirely evident. Marxism is a political belief that is no less powerful than the belief in the blessings of the free market. Opponents can only believe that the highest goal of left-wing communism is to undermine and overthrow liberal democracy by any means necessary. By uniting all minority groups, women, asylum seekers, people of color, and Muslims to make the feminist-communist-Islamic-emancipatory world revolution possible. The fact that this is primarily a historical fear of minorities is completely lost on Republicans, who are blind to their racism.
Nowadays, most American politicians and voters have little idea what Marxism means. At most, they have heard about it from their narrow-minded and fearful predecessors. The shareholders of the crudest form of capitalism. As a result, social security as a safety net for people in free fall in what was once the richest country in the world has barely got off the ground. In 1959, 22% of the population lived impoverished. This was mainly the African American population, because the aftermath of the Great Depression had only just ended. Current figures indicate that approximately 43 million Americans live in poverty. That is 13.5% of the population. Not to mention the children growing up in poverty (19%). Given the current politics of the “big beautiful law,” the chances of them rising out of this inhumane poverty seem quite slim.
Among right-wing politicians, it is customary to lump Marxism, communism, Marxist-Leninism, Maoism, and everything they oppose together. This is probably due to a complete lack of knowledge. Or simply because of the Saturday supplement of De Telegraaf. However, based on a dominant image of the enemy to which the arguments are adapted, one can never arrive at an objective view of reality. Or those who do not dare to doubt can engage in science!
The biggest liberal fallacy, now that I think about it, is to assume that liberal democracy desperately needs the free market economy to thrive. Whereas the opposite is true: the free market economy requires a deregulated and stripped-down democracy to have and maintain freedom of action. The second fallacy is that right-wing liberal circles fail to consider that the degree of voter participation in government depends on the size of the government. Whereas in neither a communist nor a fascist state system is a free market economy possible. The Chinese model is a hybrid between a planned economy and a free market economy that seems to be working reasonably well so far, but only if party discipline prevails and workers at all levels are willing to make sacrifices.
Now, I don’t intend to give an extensive lecture here on all the ins and outs of Marxism. According to Roy Kramers, former spin doctor for D66, in his latest book, Waarom Wilders* wel wint (Why Wilders* will win), we need to empathize with the thoughts and feelings of ordinary, hard-working Dutch people. Because ultimately, the weakest link determines the strength of the anchor chain of the ship of state! We can discuss this at length. About whether turning the ship around actually leads to progress. And whether, by exaggerating the glorification of so-called liberal values, in the absence of differentiation within them, you run the risk of alienating the children in the first year of secondary school from politics. Whether you have to scale back your own way of thinking and reasoning, your rationality and intellectual abilities, to be understood? To be understood by a majority, of which no one really knows whether it is actually a majority. Or whether it is influenced by the political wishful thinking of right-wing forces. But all this is another discussion. I will venture into that next time. However, I am increasingly getting the idea that politics could learn a lot from pedagogy and developmental psychology. Meanwhile, I stumble over the suspicion that freedom is seriously restricted through only monosyllabic words and prejudices.
So back to square one: what is the mistake many people make when they see Marxism and communism as interchangeable? Just like a dollar used to be exchangeable for gold. In short, Marxism is the theory devised by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels for its dissemination. Communism is the political elaboration based on the theory of historical materialism. And as is usually the case, communism has almost as many interpretations, movements, and divisions as the Reformed Church in the Netherlands. The original theory from the second half of the 19th century is unambiguous. Based on the well-known historical development described in his life’s work, Das Kapital, political-economic thinker Karl Marx predicted that the means of production would eventually fall into the hands of the workers. Given the poverty and lack of rights among the working population at the time, this was considered progress. The idea that you could improve the world, fight injustice by taking over the means of production, and achieve wealth and equality for all by uniting.
Based on this hypothesis, a number of communist political strategies were developed to bring about a workers’ paradise. An important factor here is how differently the various movements think about the role of the vanguard, or the party. A kind of communist elite. The structure of the state to achieve the ideal. Like liberal democracy, the communist model was a work in progress. But the most frightening thing for the capitalists was the change in the sacred ownership relations. The inviolable and inherited property rights, the basis of their power. It is no coincidence that in America, the mecca of capitalism, opposition would be fierce and continuous. Because giving up and cutting back seems to be against human nature, according to these cold-blooded political scientists. Yet, as I see it, you cannot govern a country based on an image of the enemy. Just as you cannot implement the necessary political changes via your Facebook or X account.
And why wilderse wins is because, as a cannibal and carnivore pur sang, he cannibalizes and swallows liberal values in his hunger for power. People who feel they are missing out tend to be jealous of the little that others have and have a tendency to gorge themselves. However, most of his supporters will not care that this power is based on the fascist principle of anti-intellectualism. As a result, his party program can be summarized as follows:
THE BUTCHERS IN POWER!
Wilders leads the PVV, a populist party that leans toward the extreme right when it comes to migrants or Islam.
* De Telegraaf, the largest daily newspaper and most populist newspaper in the Netherlands.
Ludo 09-24-2025
