Whose means justifies their end?

I spend a lot of my time teaching and disciplining children now-a-days and through these experiences, I have found many similarities in the ways that Marx and Engel construct their arguments for communism and against capitalism, most of which are shaped around the concept of deflection. First, let me provide an example from which my conclusions are built, all of which are inducted from daily experiences.

I know that my experience is nothing novel or new, especially if anyone reading this has had the pleasure of working with large groups of kids. In a classroom there is supposed to be only one goal, one guider, and one “law maker” and that lovely job title has been bestowed upon me, the teacher. In trying to achieve my one goal to teach multiplication, I tell every student to be quiet and do their work. While not paying attention, I hear several of the students talking. When I look up, I single out the first one that I see talking (lets call him Crandon). I tell Crandon, “If you continue to talk, I’m going to take your work away and give you an F for the assignment.” Instead I simply turning to do his work, he replies, “Sandor (another student) was talking to me, I was only responding to him. Also, he has candy in his pocket and I saw him eating it to.” Normally, my response to this is to turn to Sandor and ask him to show me what’s in his pocket or simply focus on Crandon by say “I am not concerned with Sandor right now, I‘m telling you to do your work and stop talking.” In this situation, Crandon is using deflection as a method for arguing for his actions and to try to divert my attention, so I won’t know what he was doing or his intentions were while talking. He could have had a number of intentions including genuinely wanting Sandor to stop talking or worse. He could have been asking for some candy or asking for an answer for the math assignment, or considering a bribe from Sandor, who may have been offering candy for answers on the quiz. In the end his method of building his argument is a form of deflection, simply because the true intentions are hidden and covered with constant finger pointing between the two children, resulting in “he did this or she did that.”

Now, I don’t want to be slammed for making sweeping statements, because what I’m trying to do here is construct an argument that parses out the similarities between how the children I manage shape their arguments and that which pushes for revolution in favor of the proletariat through communism. In Marx and Engel’s discussion, I noticed that much of their arguments focuses on what capitalism is doing, specifically forming opinions about how the proletariat are oppressed and crushed. They also focus largely on the anticipated end of capitalism (profit), which is not justified by its means (oppression and exploitation of lower classes). All of their discussions of the weakness that plague capitalism resonate with my experiences as part of the hourly/wage earning class. However, getting back to my previous notion of deflection, even in the midst of building this argument Marx and Engel only graze over the true intentions of communism. Yes, I understand that the perceived intentions are to redistribute resources in way that abolishes inequities, one in which can never be achieved through capitalism, but here is my moment of contention.

If Marx and Engel were here today I would like to simply ask, “Without reverting your answer back to discussions of capitalism, what are you goals and the means for achieve them and which are more important?” Only once did I read part of this answer and it surfaced when Lenin states “The exploiting classes need political rule to maintain exploitation, i.e., in the selfish interests of an insignificant minority against the vast majority of all people. The exploited classes need political rule in order to completely abolish all exploitation, i.e., in the interests of the vast majority of the people, and against the insignificant minority consisting of the modern slave-owners — the landowners and capitalists.” In short, this points to one of the strongest arguments against communism, one in which again, the end does not justify the means. How can such a concept be accepted wholeheartedly when terms like “insignificant minority” are still used as evidence and support for controlling or oppressing others. Branching from this, acts of violence become acceptable because they are means to an end. RK’s post states, “Let's stop pretending to be shocked by violence; all of us participate in it structural violence everyday…” Given that there is material truth in this statement, my response is, but does two wrongs make a right? In my eyes it doesn’t. If the goals of communism were rooted in respect for human life, then I would be on board. In reality, it is not. It is one that is occupied with deflection and hiding the atrocities that come along with the means to that end. I can never condone death and violence towards others as a mean for a end that has similar flaws that plague the current system (i.e. insignificant minority). I believe that if the intentions were more focused on respect and love as the core value, violence would not be a possible mean. Under capitalism the proletariat are insignificant and under communism landowners and capitalist are insignificant. How about we focus on goals that do not deem anyone insignificant. Okay this is getting entirely too long, got to go.