Was Trump’s Rise To Power Truly A ‘Rise Against The Elites’? An Brief Answer

Trump’s rise was presented as a ‘rise against the elites’. But who exactly would be considered ‘elite’ in our society? Would it not be that social class that owns the means of producing wealth, and uses that surplus produced by the working class to fund and support candidates for both the Republican and Democrat parties alike? Would it not be not only those funded by PACs and Super-PACs (corporations) but also those corporate sharks that fund PACs and Super-PACs to begin with?

So then, we can say that our society is divided into to two social classes (with some in-between). On the one hand is working and middle classes consisting of the proletariat. What is the proletariat? According to Engels, “The proletariat is that class in society which lives entirely from the sale of its labor and does not draw profit from any kind of capital; whose weal and woe, whose life and death, whose sole existence depends on the demand for labor – hence, on the changing state of business, on the vagaries of unbridled competition. The proletariat, or the class of proletarians, is, in a word, the working class of the [21st] century.”

But this here, the proletariat, is the ‘common man’ Trump has declared himself to represent. How can this be so? Trump is of that other class, one of two in our society, the class of the bourgeoisie. Who are the bourgeoisie? According to Engels, Trump would be a part of “The class of big capitalists, who, in all civilized countries, are already in almost exclusive possession of all the means of subsistence and of the instruments (machines, factories) and materials necessary for the production of the means of subsistence. This is the bourgeois class, or the bourgeoisie.” In essence, this class lives off of, nay, expropriates VAST fortunes (billions on Trump’s case) off the labor of others, off the weal and woe of the proletariat.

The interests of the bourgeoisie are wholly separate from the interests of the overwhelming majority of our society, from the interests of the ‘common man’ which, according to Engels is “The class of the wholly propertyless, who are obliged to sell their labor to the bourgeoisie in order to get, in exchange, the means of subsistence for their support. This is called the class of proletarians, or the proletariat.”

What would be a true rise ‘against the elites’? It would be a movement for the liberation of the proletariat from the exploitation it suffers under the bourgeoisie. It would be directly mobilizing the masses and seizing the means of production from the capitalist class, a declaration that workers are entitled to all they produce and that no one can live off the labor of another. In electoral politics, it would be a candidate NOT funded by exploited labor. The closest thing we have ever had to such a thing was the Sanders campaign, but even that was limited in scope. The idea of a true representative of the ‘common man’ coming to power in this country without the approval of the bourgeois class is utopian.

Under a market economy, it would mean the establishment of market socialism. It would mean that workers would democratically elect members to the board of directors (who would in turn receive no more than a workman’s wage) to decide what is produced, how much is produced, etc. But here is an even bigger difference, under such a system it would be declared that profits are the unpaid wages of the working class. Instead of money produced by 100,000 going to a couple people on the top who did nothing but ‘own’ the means of producing subsistence in our society, to go into their own pockets and to fund politicians who maintain the capitalist system, it would go back to the workers who PRODUCED it in the first place. That would be socialism.

But we can go further than this as well, to abolish markets altogether and thereby all forms of exploitation. To produce according to human needs and not the blind pursuit of profit. We could get rid of the state and the exchange value of commodities (money). But the establishment of workplace democracy and the abolition of bourgeois right to fund politicians and one of the two parties that prioritize their interests above all, would be a necessary step towards this transition.

But now that we have identified who the ‘elites’ in our society are, tell me, how can the election of a self-funded billionaire capitalist to the highest seat in the land be a ‘rise against the elites’? Wouldn’t it be better said to be a ‘rise of the elites’?

Politics are not supposed to be entertainment, it is quite literally a matter of life or death.

We must assume the people to be good and the state evil (Reflections on our society)

“We must assume the people good and the state evil.”(1) Obviously the state, as an inherently violent institution, is a necessary evil both in our bourgeois society, and in the society which will be born of the triumph of labor under capital, it will be necessary until that day when bourgeois right ceases to be.
We say that the people are of good nature. What do we mean? Anyone who goes to a place where the poor are numerous and paupers beg for change will find abnormally high rates of crime. Everywhere the mentality will be ‘every man for himself’. The poor, who are deprived of the means of subsistence, of the means of production, are found to be in a constant state of stress and disorientation. Their concern is for themselves and their immediate relatives, for their immediate needs.
Then we go to those who own the means of subsistence, who grow extremely wealthy for owning the means of production with which the poor toil day and night without ever making a penny more than the capitalist allows. We find here an extremely wealthy fellow, whose “wealth springs quite literally from the poverty of the poor”(2). He lives off the labor of others, off the poor who have nothing to sell but their labor power as the precious commodity that it is, while he does no real work himself. We find a man who, unlike the pauper, has secured the means of maintaining his immediate survival and happiness. But even among him, selfishness runs rampant. It is a selfishness far worse than that which is forced onto the poor. He is in a state of constant struggle not only against the poor who, lacking class consciousness, want only better wages and better working conditions, but also against his fellow capitalist, both within his enterprise and in those enterprises competing against him.
If he grows concerned for the well being of his workers, for their humanity, he will certainly find himself going down a slippery slope. If he goes so far as to forfeit the means of production to the working class, then he will be forced to work like they do, under explorative conditions, with nothing to sell but his labor power. If he runs his business like the good Christian he claims to be, he will soon go out of business and become a laughingstock among the whole capitalist class.(3)
His own survival is based on his greed, on the ceaseless accumulation of capital. We see for both rich and poor alike that self-interest is compelled to become selfishness. “We see that the worker is compelled to work under feudal conditions, or die of hunger”(2), to look after only his own hide, or risk going hungry. We see that the selfishness of the ruling class becomes the ruling ideas of our age, for rich and poor alike. 
So what madness is it to assume the people good? Everywhere we look around we see that greed and selfishness are the sole motivating factors of our society. But we also know that “the ruling ideas of each age have only ever been the ruling ideas of each ages ruling class.”(4) If we imagine instead, “a free association of producers with the means of production held in common”(5), where the means of production are democratically controlled by society at large, then we see that greed ceases to be the sole motivator, the sole ruling idea of society. We see that the pursuit of meeting actual human needs instead of profits exorcizes the hold that greed has over our society.
Only in such a society can the natural virtue of the people by embodied, only in such a society can today’s rich and poor alike live free from constant want and worry, for the states of rich and poor alike will cease to be. Only in such a society can equality be real, and not “the formal inequality in spite of rich and poor, ‘equality’ in spite of inequality.”(6) Only in such a society can democracy embody the true will of all of society, and not only that of the ruling class. When man is free from manmade poverty, and from being compelled to live off of the conditions that create poverty, we will find a society in which the natural virtue of man is truly embodied. As James Connolly once said, “The.. people will only be free when they own everything from the plough to the stars”.(7)
1: Robespierre, Speech/ Rousseau

2: Kropotkin, Conquest of Bread

3: Connolly, Socialism Made Easy

4: Marx & Engels, Communist Manifesto

5: Marx, Capital

6: Engels, Marx Engels Collected Works Volume 6

7: James Connolly

On The “Over-Emphasis” of LGBT+ Rights in Modern Culture

A common talking point of the far right today is the alleged ‘over-emphasis’ on LGBT+ rights in modern culture. Indeed, there is an excessive emphasis on LGBT+ rights in modern movies, TV shows, music, ads, etc. But why is this? I argue that such an over-emphasis is not only acceptable, but also necessary. This over-emphasis is not in the least a result of ‘negative influences’ but on the contrary, it is much needed and long overdue.

I do not have any doubts as to the nature of such an over-emphasis on LGBT+ rights in modern society. Taking up a ‘liberal’ stance on social issues has always resulted in boosted ratings for celebrities, and it is nearly impossible to tell when it is out of a genuine concern for LGBT+ rights and when it is merely a stunt to get ratings. But this social mechanism of the appraisal of celebrities who take up such views is good, because it changes the ways in which society and culture develop.

Beyond the emphasis on LGBT+ rights merely for ratings, there is the genuine burning passion for equality that dwells within many. For us it must be said that such an over-emphasis on LGBT+ rights is, as the conservatives accuse us of, intentional. Yes! To this crime we plead guilty. But what the conservative critics of modern culture fail to see is that such an over-emphasis on LGBT+ rights is necessary. I argue that once we have full LGBT+ rights and equality, in actuality and not just on paper, it will be no different than how we treat issues of race today. You don’t think conservatives were complaining about ‘liberals’ overemphasizing race during the civil rights movement? Of course they were.

Conservatives insist on the ‘evil’ nature of LGBT+ rights. But even taking into account this attitude of religious bigotry (which is absolutely wrong), tell me, which was worse? The mandated chemical castration, psychiatric abuse, imprisonment, harassment, lynching, etc. of LGBT+ peoples in the past or allowing LGBT+ people to exist freely in our society without direct or systemic attacks by society? The answer to this question is both obvious, and extreme! Extreme measures are necessary to end centuries of bigotry.

Latest Victim of U.S. Imperialism: Venezuela, an excerpt from Slavoj Žižek and a Statement of Solidarity  

“In 1970, in the notes of a meeting with President Richard Nixon on how to undermine the democratically elected Chilean government of Salvador Allende, CIA Director Richard Helms wrote succinctly: ‘Make the economy scream.’ Top US representatives openly admit that today the same strategy is being applied in Venezuela: former US Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger said on Fox News that Chávez’s appeal to the Venezuelan people ‘only works so long as the populace of Venezuela sees some ability for a better standard of living. If at some point the economy gets really bad, Chávez’s popularity within the country will certainly decrease and it’s the one weapon we have against him to begin with and which we should be using, namely the economic tools of trying to make the economy even worse so that his appeal in the country and the region goes down… Anything we can do to make their economy more difficult for them is a good thing, but let’s do it in ways that do not get us into direct conflict with Venezuela if we can get away with it.” -Slavoj Žižek
That alone is reason enough to stand in solidarity with Venezuela as it endures the economic hardships caused by U.S. imperialism and its running dogs. The economic crisis in Venezuela was caused by imperialist aggression, indirect as it was. It was an act of, or due to its lack of action, economic warfare. 

The condition of Venezuela today is not a reason to disavow ‘socialism’ but it most certainly is a reason to sharpen the rhetoric on the left against U.S. Imperialism. The tactics being used on Venezuela today are the same tactics used on Chile and Cuba, are the same tactics the U.S. has used for the past 70 years to terrorize those in the third world who dared stand up against imperialist exploitation of labor and resources. Some on the left have rightfully been critical of Venezuela, but this criticism should not feed into the imperialist propaganda about the real reasons for that country’s crisis, nor should it be used to attack the genuine successes and triumphs of the Venezuelan people. If anything, such criticisms, right though they may be, should be pointed at as examples of the crimes of U.S. Imperialism and neoliberal economic warfare.

In that, I express my solidarity with the Venezuealan people.

“So much for the tolerant left!” My Position On The Matter

“So much for the tolerant left!” cries the far-right. I am intolerant, yes! But of what? I am intolerant of intolerance on the basis of race, gender identity, sex, sexual orientation, religion or nationality. In a word, I am intolerant of bigotry. “You are a dogmatist!” I am a dogmatist, yes! I am irrevocably convinced of the equality of black and white people, of men and women, of the fact that rape is bad, and I want society to be also. Do you mean that I am not ‘liberal’ and that I do not wish to give bigots a platform? To this crime I plead guilty, I do not wish to give Nazis, white supremacists and other hate groups a platform. No, I wish to deprive them of that.

“If fascism could be defeated in debate, I assure you that it would never have happened, neither in Germany, nor in Italy, nor anywhere else. Those who recognized its threat at the time and tried to stop it were, I assume, also called “a mob”. Regrettably too many ‘fair-minded’ people didn’t either try, or want to stop it, and, as I witnessed myself during the war, accommodated themselves when it took over … People who witnessed fascism at its height are dying out, but the ideology is still here, and its apologists are working hard at a comeback. Past experience should teach us that fascism must be stopped before it takes hold again of too many minds, and becomes useful once again to some powerful interests.”

— Franz Frison, Holocaust survivor

 I care infinitely more about the rights of black people, of women, of jews, and of all other oppressed minorities to exist freely and without enduring bigoted attacks by reactionaries than I do for giving someone who would commit genocide a platform. Am I a liberal? Not in the least, I openly declare that I fully intend to deprive such people of a platform, of their ability to organize and rally.

Do I mean that I am intolerant of conservatives? I do not like their views in the least, in fact I despise their views. I myself may not like their views, but I will not try to make society itself, or the state deprive them of their right to organize, debate, rally and petition freely. Conservatives do not wish to burn people alive, to send them to concentration camps. They do not wish to kill people for things they cannot help. Will I discourage it and in every way oppose all reactionary sentiments? Absolutely. But will I, in a stable democratic republic, deprive those people, conservatives, of the right to the free battle of opinions? Will I rape the human conscience and dogmatically force people to take up my views at the barrel of a gun like a fascist? No, I will not do that.

But when it comes to fascists, to Nazis and white supremacists, yes, I most certainly will deprive them of their right to organize, rally, run for office and have a platform. The state must draw a line as not to rape the human conscience, but to deprive fascists of having a platform. Does this mean I support this policy in times of revolution or civil war? Absolutely not. But as a general rule, for a stable society in which the foundation of the people’s republic is founded, I think this absolutely applies. Am I as an individual intolerant of conservatism? It is absolutely opposed to everything I for, but I do not wish the state to deprive people of the right to the free battle of opinions within reason.

On Policing Institutions Today and What is to Replace Them Under Socialism

First, let us address the police as they exist today, to put it bluntly, the police don’t exist for your protection, they exist to solidify the ruling classes’ hold on power. They do this by solidifying the rule of the state and thereby of the existing social order and current mode of production which is inherently exploitative in nature. They might be your friends now, going around the cities and towns promoting a false sense of communal solidarity. They may converse with you, help you, hell they may even save your life. But all of this is a mirage, masking their real purpose which isn’t all that hidden if you simply look closely. They exist solely to act as agents of the bourgeois state. On behalf of the state, they are granted the sole legitimate monopoly on violence in our society, thereby they are in many ways, the essence of the very state itself. They aren’t there to be your friend, though they may very well be so. They exist yes to prevent violent crime (which is the sole justification for their existence) but moreover to act as agents of capitalist exploitation. Look at this both now and in historical context. Who is there when the working class rises up and demands better working conditions? Who is there to intimidate and arrest when the people rise up in protest against injustice? Who was there to beat and kill when the workers demanded to join a union or to end child labor? Who is there to intimidate when the people stand up in the thousands against an unjust police killing or state corruption? Who is there to intimidate, to beat, imprison and kill when you act against their interests, against the interests of the ruling class? It is none other than the police force!

Sure they may seem your friend today, but when ‘shit hits the fan’, as they say, and 70% of the population declares itself in opposition to the current social conditions, it will be they who raise their baton and gun against the very people they are supposedly there to protect. As Trotsky correctly said, “The worker who becomes a policeman in the service of the capitalist state, is a bourgeois cop, not a worker.” They, as an institution, are always on the wrong side of history, I make no false gestures of communal solidarity with them. They serve no other purpose but to maintain and exploitative social system. To be more direct, what would happen if the workers banded together, rebelliously making up the majority of the population, and took the means of production which they toil day and night with from the capitalist who exploits them? Even if 80% of the people were in support, they would show up and beat, nay, kill those very workers! They would have no mercy! Historically this has always been the case. Show me one example where the police were on the right side of history!

But oh! You say that the police act against violent crime and therefore they are justified in their actions! But this is a meager excuse for the horrendous injustices brought about by the bourgeois state, and particularly its cronies (i.e. the police). We do not wish to abolish the police entirely today, but we do on the other hand wish to strip it of all its political attributes at once. In this way the police force, as it exists today, ceases to exist. How? Let us look to Marx’s writings on the Paris Commune as an example. Thus we transfer from focusing on the policing institutions that exist today in bourgeois society, to what will exist in the future socialist society:

“The Commune was formed of the municipal councillors, chosen by universal suffrage in the various wards of the town, responsible and revocable at any time. The majority of its members were naturally working men, or acknowledged representatives of the working class…. The police, which until then had been the instrument of the Government, was at once stripped of its political attributes, and turned into the responsible, and at all times revocable, agent of the Commune. So were the officials of all other branches of the administration. From the members of the Commune downwards, the public service had to be done at workmen’s wages. The privileges and the representation allowances of the high dignitaries of state disappeared along with the high dignitaries themselves…. Having once got rid of the standing army and the police, the instruments of physical force of the old government, the Commune proceeded at once to break the instrument of spiritual suppression, the power of the priests [as in separation of church and state]*…. The judicial functionaries lost that sham independence… they were thenceforward to be elective, responsible, and revocable”

But what all does this mean? It means for the first time ever, the establishment of legitimate democracy. Both in the political and industrial sense (socialism). In The State and Revolution, Lenin further clarifies:

“Democracy is a form of the state, it represents, on the one hand, the organized, systematic use of force against persons; but, on the other hand, it signifies the formal recognition of equality of citizens, the equal right of all to determine the structure of, and to administer, the state. This, in turn, results in the fact that, at a certain stage in the development of democracy, it first welds together the class that wages a revolutionary struggle against capitalism­–­the proletariat, and enables it to crush, smash to atoms, wipe off the face of the earth the bourgeois, even the republican­-bourgeois, state machine, the standing army, the police and the bureaucracy and to substitute for them a more democratic state machine, but a state machine nevertheless, in the shape of armed workers who proceed to form a militia involving the entire population.”

The police in class society, admit it or not, is an inherently political institution. What Marx, and later Lenin proposes, is to strip the policing institutions of these very political attributes. But how does this work exactly? No longer will the police force be an oppressive apparatus of the state, no longer shall it act to hold down the majority of the population but is instead to be responsible to them. The organs of the police shall be democratically elected by the proletariat, responsible to them and at all times revocable. They will act only to solve serious crimes and arrest dangerous criminals, and by serious, it is meant violent.

But who then is to suppress counter-revolution on account of the overthrown bourgeoisie? This has already been answered, an armed militia involving the entire population (and you thought we communists were against guns)! In this way, it is the population at large acting as the state through its various militias which are inherently democratic in nature. The police can be instantly recalled by the people themselves, no longer can the police raise its batons to the working people en mass. If they rise up then they rise up, and no state institution shall stop them as it will be the will of the overwhelming majority of the people. But if the counter-revolutionaries rise up to bring back the overthrown oppressive order, then the whole population, through the armed militias, rises up and stops them, by force if necessary. Thus it is the majority acting to suppress the already withering away minority, and not a minority (acting through the police) acting to suppress the majority (the proletariat).

Obviously, it must be said, this was not, and likely could not have been done in the early Soviet Union. Indeed Lenin, due to the material conditions of early Russia, had to abandon this (what was at the time a) utopian ambition of a truly democratic society. However, in modern times, such a system is possible. And we communists hold it to be much preferable to the existing mode of exploitation. So we Leninists look back to the USSR as a tragic attempt at revolutionizing a society to get to such a point where this was possible, and we Trotskyists view it as a degenerated workers state after Lenin’s death under which the Stalinist bureaucracy abandoned Lenin’s original ambitions and betrayed the revolution, as the society envisioned by Lenin was never actually attempted even on a small scale by the Stalinist bureaucracy. Even when taking into accound the civilian police under Stalin, they could not and did even later attempt to do away with the police force, and never to strip it of its political attributes. Also, it must be said, socialism itself as an economic system was never actually achieved either in these workers states!

So now I ask you in closing, wouldn’t you prefer to strip the police of its political attributes? Wouldn’t you prefer a police force you can democratically elect, that was responsible to you and instantly recallable at all times? Wouldn’t you prefer a police force going only after serious, violent crimes? I think most sane people would. The police today are a hindrance to social progress, and moreover to a truly democratic society. They are not your friend. A better world is possible my friend, but not under capitalism! The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains, now more than ever!

 

*my brackets

See Karl Marx, The Civil War in France (Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Selected Works, Vol. 2, Moscow, 1973, pp. 217­-21). (Also in State and Rev (below) pp. 26)

See Vladimir Lenin, The State and Revolution (Lenin Internet Archive (marxists.org) 1993, 1999, pp. 58).

“Who supports communism anymore?” I do, and I’ll tell you why.

I recently came across a comment on The Philosophical Salon about the CIA’s deliberate attacks on the intellectual left. It reads “Who supports communism anymore? Those who have never lived the communism”. Now, ignoring the obvious grammatical mistakes in this assertion let me begin to address this person’s concern, and show why it is absolutely preposterous.

People who support communism today actually have read Marx and understand the huge differences between Stalinism and the socioeconomic and political system Marx advocated. People who support communism today understand Marx believed proletarian revolution would come about only once capitalism had reached its peak stage of development in the most advanced countries int eh world first,(say in 30 years) instead of in the poorest country in the world, (1917 Russia) in an isolated revolution which could not support democracy or socialism, (industrial democracy) and where Stalinist bureaucratic degeneration was practically inevitable under such conditions.

Not to say I don’t idealize the October revolution as a general historical event, I most certainly do. What emerged from the October revolution? The writings of Lenin in The State and Revolution could not be implemented in backward Russia, that is a fact. What Lenin did was try to build the foundation on which such a society could eventually come about. This is why Lenin implemented the NEP (New Economic Policy), a system of state-capitalism as a necessary prerequisite to socialism. It was unfortunately cut short by Stalin once he came to power, the multi-party political system which existed up to 1924 (the year of Lenin’s death) was abolished and never returned. Soon the Stalinist bureaucracy emerged and the hopeful embers of October were snuffed out. Marx believed in the inevitability of proletarian revolution in the most advanced capitalist countries at the end of capitalist development, but October was not the revolution Marx foresaw as inevitable, as anyone can clearly see.

“But wasn’t Stalin doing what Marx advocated? Building a Marxist utopia?” Anyone who’s read Marx, or even Lenin’s The State and Revolution can tell you what an absurd statement that is. Let’s look at a few examples. Did the USSR get rid of the military and police force to replace it with armed militias instantly recallable of and by the people? No. Were all elected officials instantly recallable at any time and receive no more than a workman’s wage? No, they weren’t even democratically elected as the necessary preconditions for democracy simply weren’t there. Lenin and Trotsky, before the bureaucratic degeneration of the October revolution, did, however, take no more than a workman’s wage for their role in leading the country. Did the USSR utilize a system where the workers, and not the state had democratic control over enterprise (socialism)? No, it was the state that controlled industry, a form of state-capitalism as a necessary prerequisite to socialism. In essence, the USSR remained staunchly state-capitalist until, as Trotsky would call it, the inevitable dissolution of the Stalinist bureaucracy. Contrary to Stalin’s infamous declaration, any Marxian economist can tell you that the idea of 1930’s Russia having a socialist economic system was preposterous. Should I even mention the genuine worker’s revolts in Hungary, Germany, and Czechoslovakia against the Stalinist system, that aimed at genuine socialism against Stalinism, and not at capitalist restoration against socialism? I could go on and on.

Also to equate Stalinism with communism is such an ignorant thing to say. It’s not too different from equating fascism with capitalism. It is to say this highly authoritarian system which advocated the preservation of capitalism is no different than what capitalism actually is, it is an absolutely absurd statement to say that Stalinism is the same thing as communism. Furthermore, the method to get to communism, as we have stated, is not inherently through this totalitarian system whose sheer brutality and inefficiency we all know too well. In fact, most communists are highly critical of the Stalinist system and its legacy on the left. In Nazi Germany, all national socialists supported what Hiter was doing. His actions were the perfect embodiment of the Nazi ideology. Why then, in the USSR were millions of communists sent to the gulag, deported and killed for saying that Stalin betrayed the revolution, that he betrayed Marxism? Why then did characters like Leon Trotsky, bolsheviks to the core, emerge to condemn the horrific abuses of Stalin’s power? To compare communism with fascism is equally absurd. If you assert such a comparison then I should be able to compare anarchist communism with fascism, right? By your logic, I could compare two ideologies which could not be more opposite as being the same. Fascism is a highly authoritarian form of capitalism, and Stalinism (Marxism-Leninism) is a highly authoritarian form of socialism, moreover of the road to socialism. I won’t say that one is worse than the other, I have no patience for lesser evilism. We have enough of that in the two-party US as we speak. To compare the two, in your mind might make sense, but good lord it couldn’t be more wrong.

Perhaps even more importantly, we are living in the time Marx spoke of, that is- not 1917 but today, what is happening in the world today is exactly what Marx wrote about. He is more relevant now than he ever was in the 20th century. It can be said that the workers have nothing to lose but their chains, now more than ever. They still have a world to win. The time is ripening by the hour. Wealth inequality is higher now than it was in the 1920’s and it doesn’t seem to be slowing down, wages haven’t risen with productivity since the 1970’s, the most brutally efficient capitalists in the world are not in the US, Europe, or Latin American but in China. Democracy and capitalism will be, in the not too distant future, completely incompatible. Everything Marx wrote about the inevitable future of the capitalist system is happening today. So to answer the question, pretty much anyone who reads and understands Marx would see the logic in supporting communism today.