Hello everyone, welcome to Quark Says, I am Quark. In the previous two episodes, we reviewed the five early leaders of communist thought. Now, we finally reach the climax of this series, featuring the most familiar figures, Marx and Engels. But before introducing them, we need to briefly mention an important person. At the end of the last episode, we talked about a survivor of the **Conspiracy of Equals** who fled to Switzerland and compiled and published the theories of the fifth-generation core leader, Babeuf, in a book called "The Conspiracy of Equals." This book later spread and became a bible for communist revolutionaries worldwide. Among Babeuf's many readers was a down-and-out tailor. When he first read this book, he was struck by lightning; the theories about how to rebel ignited a fire in his heart, which was full of hatred yet confused.

It's interesting to note that the second-generation leader we mentioned earlier, the charlatan Teacher Yu who married 16 wives in a year, was also a tailor. It seems that in Europe, tailoring was indeed a dangerous profession, much like being a librarian in our context. Getting back to this tailor, he is our sixth leader, Wilhelm Weitling. You probably haven't heard his name, but what he did next truly had a significant impact on communism and even on human history. In 1836, following Babeuf's ideas, the tailor established an underground revolutionary organization primarily composed of small artisans. The organization's name was quite "chuunibyou" (a Japanese term for a teenager who has delusions of grandeur), called the **League of the Just**. At first glance, one might think of Superman or Batman. This "chuunibyou" group later changed its name to the **Communist League**. Later, this Communist League commissioned two German bearded men to write a book called "The Communist Manifesto." Of course, if it were only for this, our tailor certainly wouldn't have reached the position of a leader. Its significance lies in the following points.

In the first episode, we raised a question: Is communism a religion? If this point was somewhat uncertain with some other leaders, like the atheist Maymay, it was absolutely clear with the tailor. First, the tailor regarded "The Bible" as a manual for communist revolution. That is, he didn't just draw analogies between "The Bible" and communism; he directly believed that Christianity *was* communism. His interpretation of "The Bible" was akin to how professors in Marxist academies today view "Das Kapital" and "The Communist Manifesto." To this end, he reinterpreted many accounts in "The Bible" according to communist ideas to support his views. For example, he believed Jesus was the first communist, who was both the Son of God, the Lord, and a political and economic communist leader. His crucifixion, like the stories of Jiang Jie and Liu Hulan you heard growing up, was that of a martyr killed by reactionaries.

A side note here: in the 1970s, a kind of **Liberation Theology** became prevalent among Latin American Catholics, including Black liberation theology, queer theology, feminist theology, and so on. These largely followed the tailor's line of thinking. From their perspective, what is Marx? Can you represent communism? All your ideas are just leftovers from our charming ancestor Jesus, who played with them 2000 years ago. Second, he believed that the communist revolution would come about due to the so-called sacred wrath of the poor, and this wrath was God's will. Since it was God's will, there was no need for a vanguard communist party; the savior would personally descend to earth and become the general secretary. Finally, his preaching methods, including the language he used, were entirely Christian, because he was essentially proselytizing, just with a different interpretation.

Besides these points, our tailor brother had a very unique creation, for which he had multiple online debates and arguments with the later leaders Marx and Engels: the question of who constitutes the main force and leading class of the communist revolution. At this point, many people would instinctively react: Isn't that obvious? Of course, it's the working class! Yes, that is indeed the standard answer given in your middle school political textbooks, stated by our supreme sage Marx and his disciple Engels. But if you ask one more question: Why did Marx and Engels so adamantly insist on the working class? You can say that communism mobilizes the poor to confiscate the property of the rich, but there are many poor people. What's special about your working class? Why should you lead? For example, the previous leader Babeuf also proposed agrarian communism, prioritizing the mobilization of peasants. You see, this is the benefit of our program: many standard answers you take for granted, if you think one step further, you can find many points worth pondering.

In response, Marx's view was: Didn't the peasant uprisings of previous leaders, like Teacher Yue, all fail? That's because peasants lacked sufficient revolutionary spirit. Because peasants are essentially small private owners; they either own land or don't, but they all dream of buying land and becoming landlords once they have money, rather than wanting to completely abolish private ownership. Furthermore, because peasants are scattered across vast lands, they lack connections with each other, as well as discipline and organization. He even used an analogy, saying that peasants are like a sack of potatoes, each potato is independent and cannot form a unified whole. But workers are different; they don't own the means of production, they are concentrated in cities, working on assembly lines every day, and their collective consciousness and discipline are already trained by capitalists. What is this? Just give them guns, and they are a ready-made army! So, once a revolution breaks out, workers will definitely have stronger combat power, while peasants can only play a supporting role.

But in the tailor's view, what Marx said about workers and peasants were all marginal elements; the true revolutionary主体 must be artisans and the **lumpenproletariat** (in Marxist theory, the lowest social stratum, without fixed occupation or class consciousness). In today's terms, these are the flexible workers in cities and the idlers in rural areas. Why? The problem with peasants has been discussed, but the working class you speak of is also soft, lacking revolutionary spirit. Because working as a lathe operator or fitter in a factory is more stable than delivering food, right? If the boss raises wages, or you encounter a so-called good boss like Pang Donglai, you won't cause trouble out of human sentiment. But we artisans and lumpenproletariat are different; I don't even have a stable employer, I live off various sources, so there's no need for sentiment. Once a riot starts, we will definitely be the most ruthless!

To prove this, the tailor even found an endorsement, saying: Look, why was our Brother Jesus so revolutionary? Because he was a carpenter, an artisan. Why am I, Weitling, so vigorously agitating for revolution? Because I am also an artisan, and among the lowest of the low. In other words, what was the tailor's idea? The class consciousness and collective awareness of workers—those are all nonsense concocted by you intellectuals. The truth is, whoever is poorest and lives the most miserably, their revolutionary will is the strongest. Don't you see it's always like this in model plays? Xi'er in "The White-Haired Girl" and Li Tiemai in "The Red Lantern"—they are all deeply resentful, the poorer, the more revolutionary. This also aligns with our common sense. Look at Hu Dahai, played by Jiang Wu in "A Touch of Sin," and Sha Gen, played by Wang Baoqiang in "A World Without Thieves"—both are peasants. Who do you think would be more inclined to cause trouble?

It should be said that the tailor's ideas were not conjured out of thin air. First, there was the broader context: he lived in the era of the burgeoning Industrial Revolution. What characterized this era? Steam and tears intertwined, large-scale factories sprang up, trains replaced horse-drawn carriages, and spinning machines bankrupted countless family workshops and artisans. So, if you were to ask who were the most deeply hurt people of this era, it was precisely not the factory workers depicted by Marx or in Chaplin's films, who at least had jobs. If you don't believe me, look at who are the most resolute anti-establishment figures in America today. Are they Silicon Valley tech workers or dockworkers? Neither. They are the so-called lumpenproletariat in the Rust Belt who have been unemployed for years and cannot find work. So, between Marx and our tailor, who do you think made more sense? Probably the tailor.

If you don't believe me, think about it: in all the countries where communists successfully seized power historically, which one truly came to power relying on the working class? Take the Soviet Union; how was the Tsar overthrown? Was it by worker strikes and uprisings at the time? Clearly not. It was by the mutiny of World War I veterans. If the army hadn't defected and the apparatus of violence still pledged allegiance to the Tsar, no matter how much Lenin incited the workers, it would have been useless. Looking at China, it's even more obvious. Why was Mao Zedong called "Marxism from the ravines"? Why was there "rural encirclement of cities"? Wasn't it precisely because the workers were not effective and couldn't get things going, so it had to rely on the lumpenproletariat, as the tailor said? Mao emphasized this point many times. For example, in his 1925 article "Analysis of the Classes in Chinese Society," he said: "There is also a considerable number of vagrant proletarians, landless peasants, and unemployed artisans. They are the most unstable elements in human life. This group is very capable of brave struggle but also destructive; if guided properly, they can become a revolutionary force."

And in the "Report on an Investigation of the Peasant Movement in Hunan," published by the Central Bureau in 1948, he stated even more clearly; I'll read a few points: First, "In fact, some of the poor peasant leaders were formerly gamblers and stayed out for four nights." Second, "The destitute class, which serves as the basic reliance for the rural revolution, refers to those who are completely unemployed, without land or capital, having completely lost their means of livelihood, and are forced to go out as soldiers or laborers, or to wander as beggars, or to commit crimes as thieves—all are destitute." Third, "The gentry particularly hated the lower-level peasant association officials, calling them ruffians. These were those who were formerly known in the countryside as 'worn-out shoes,' idle and lazy, knew a few characters, and gambled." There's a scene in the movie "Autumn Harvest Uprising": a beggar saw the Red Army recruiting and wanted to join. The recruiter, seeing him disheveled and in rags, refused him. The beggar cursed, "If you don't let me join the army, I'll come tonight and burn down your barracks!" The recruiter, enraged, immediately locked him up. Then Commissioner Mao arrived, and after understanding the situation, gladly accepted him into the army. The beggar immediately jumped for joy. When registering for the army, Commissioner Mao asked his name, and he said he had no name, people just called him "Rotten Skin Luo." Mao felt this nickname was inappropriate, so he changed his name to "Lan Dingtian," meaning to stand tall and be a man of integrity from then on. From then on, Lan Dingtian closely followed Commissioner Mao in the revolution, and later, in a battle, he bravely sacrificed himself to cover Commissioner Mao, becoming a revolutionary martyr.

In fact, Mao not only thought this way and propagated it, but also acted on it. For instance, my grandfather was a land reform cadre, and he told me more than once that during the land reform struggles against landlords, those who were ruthless, including the peasant association cadres, were basically not honest, law-abiding peasants. They were the village ruffians and local thugs who wanted to take the opportunity to settle personal scores, default on debts, or seize someone's wife or daughter if they found them attractive. One of the most famous examples in this regard is He Long, who started with the so-called "Two Kitchen Knives Uprising." Coincidentally, this fellow also learned tailoring. Regarding this group, there is a more popular term today called "vagrants." The historian Wang Xuetai wrote a book called "Vagrant Culture and Chinese Society," which deeply analyzes the characteristics of vagrants, including their so-called revolutionary nature. I highly recommend everyone to read it.

Returning to Mao, why did he always look down on Wang Ming and his group's so-called fundamentalist Marxism, ridiculing them as armchair strategists? Because it completely contradicted the common sense he experienced in life. On the point of how to successfully rebel, his approach was clearly the correct one. Given Mao's educational background, he certainly hadn't read the tailor's works; one can only say that great minds (or ruffians, in this context) think alike.

Having discussed the tailor Weitling, we finally arrive at the last battle of this series: the seventh-generation leader and deputy leader, Marx and Engels. As mentioned above, up to the tailor, communism was essentially still a religion, a revolutionary interpretation of "The Bible." Its appeal came from the moral passion of equality before God. But as previously stated, if you still operate under the banner of Christianity, there remains the question of whether you are subject to the leadership of the Catholic Church and whether followers might be diverted to other churches. Moreover, there are many people in this world who don't believe in Jesus at all; how do you persuade them?

Thus, Marx and Engels entered the scene. Their goal was far grander than the tailor's: they wanted to upgrade communism from an optional belief to an unquestionable science. And the first thing they did was a clever sleight of hand, replacing God with a new deity that, in modern society, seemed more politically correct and irrefutable: the people, and their embodiment, the working class. This new god was far more effective than the old one. Imagine, perhaps more than half the people on Earth could legitimately say, "I don't believe in God; can I believe in Buddha or the Jade Emperor? Can I believe in nothing at all?" In such cases, invoking Jesus is ineffective. But who dares to publicly declare, "I am against the people"? Morally, this is an unassailable high ground. Even the most authoritarian dictator would at least put on a show and say, "My ascent to power is the will of the people," right?

Moreover, it has a huge advantage: it is extremely deceptive. As long as you elevate the people, especially vulnerable groups, and praise them to the heavens, you can provide emotional value, allowing a large number of fools to gain psychological satisfaction, feeling that you are speaking for them and are righteous, while ignoring your actual harmfulness. For example, you say that workers are the leading class, the worker-peasant alliance is the foundation of governance, and children are the successors of socialism, even if these people are actually just **human ore and cattle/horses** (a popular internet term, metaphorically referring to ordinary people who are exploited and oppressed). Millions may starve to death in a famine, but most of them will still be sold and help you count the money. Finally, the abstract concept of "the people" can prevent charlatans from playing tricks. For instance, if you worship a personal god, like God, there will always be restless figures like the **Red Sleeve Fists** (a fictional, metaphorical term for restless groups) who stay up all night pretending to be Wang Zuxian—no, pretending to be the son of God to seize power. And there will always be fools who follow them. But the people are different; besides our Party, who else can represent the people?

The second thing Marx and Engels did was to complete the most crucial theory of hatred that Maymay had failed to establish, and they clothed it in the guise of science. Previous leaders, like the tailor, had a simple, illogical hatred: because you are rich and I am poor, it's unfair, you exploited me. This logic is actually untenable because you cannot demonstrate exactly how the exploitation occurred. But our old Marx was much smarter; he came up with a powerful weapon called **Surplus Value** (a core concept in Marxist political economy, referring to the portion of value created by workers that exceeds their wage value). That is, I not only accuse you of being an exploiter and a bloodsucker, but I also "prove" it in a seemingly scientific way. Note that "prove" is in quotation marks. This argumentation process is familiar to anyone who has attended middle school in China. Simply put, if you work in a boss's factory for a monthly salary of 5000, but in reality, the value you create by working only 4 hours a day is enough to offset this 5000 yuan salary. However, the boss makes you work eight hours, so the extra four hours, which the boss appropriates without compensation, is surplus value. The power of this theory is subversive; it no longer morally condemns the rich but scientifically convicts capitalists. Regardless of whether you are Pang Donglai, every penny of your profit is stained with the sweat and blood of workers. This provides perfect justification for subsequent violent seizure: when I fight local tyrants and divide land, confiscate your company, and hang you from lampposts, I am not committing evil, but scientifically reclaiming what rightfully belongs to me.

However, this seemingly perfect theory has a fatal flaw: what exactly is the so-called **Necessary Labor Time** (a concept in Marxist political economy, referring to the time required for workers to produce the value of their own labor power)? For example, if you work 8 hours a day, why is the necessary labor time 4 hours? Could it be 5 hours or 3 hours, or even 8 hours? Who sets this standard? How is it calculated? The theory of surplus value has never provided a verifiable mechanism. If you don't believe me, go ask any Marxist scholar in the world: how are necessary labor time and surplus value calculated, and what formula is used? No one can answer. To put it plainly, this is a concept fabricated for the sake of the theory's validity.

Here I can draw an analogy: the **Aether** in the history of physics (a substance once hypothesized in 19th-century physics as the medium for light propagation). In the 19th century, physicists couldn't explain why light could travel through a vacuum, because according to earthly experience, wave propagation requires a medium: water waves have water, sound waves have air, but what about light? So they hypothesized that the universe was filled with an invisible, intangible substance called aether, and light propagated through it. Sounds reasonable, right? But the problem was that no one could prove the existence of aether. It wasn't until the advent of special relativity and the Michelson-Morley experiment that people discovered that aether simply didn't exist. Surplus value and the so-called necessary labor time are the aether in Marx's theory. It is a theoretical patch created to explain the predetermined conclusion of exploitation, which can neither be proven nor disproven. In other words, it is not science at all.

In other words, Marx's entire theoretical construction process was actually "shooting the arrow first, then drawing the target." He didn't first discover surplus value through research, and then conclude that capitalists exploited workers, leading to the necessity of revolution. Instead, he first presupposed the goal of "we need a revolution," and then fabricated a theory of surplus value and exploitation in reverse. Someone might ask, "Do you have proof?" Indeed, I do. As mentioned earlier, Marx and Engels both believed that the working class was the most revolutionary and conscious group in the communist revolution, meaning the main force of the revolution. When was this conclusion reached? In the 1840s. More specifically, by December 1843 at the latest, when Marx was writing "Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right," he explicitly proposed that the proletariat needed a thorough revolution to abolish private ownership. At this point, he had not yet targeted capitalists; he merely broadly believed that rebellion was necessary and that a communist revolution should be carried out.

Next, in 1845, Engels wrote "The Condition of the Working Class in England." From 1845 to 1846, Marx and Engels collaborated on "The German Ideology." In these two books, they explicitly stated that industrial workers were the only class capable of thoroughly completing the revolution, for reasons already mentioned. Note that at this point, they had not yet concocted the theories of surplus value and exploitation, nor did they know what necessary labor time was. This means that even before scientifically demonstrating the exploitation of workers by capitalists, they had already decided, "We must rebel, and workers must be the main force." The reason was very pragmatic: workers' working environments are concentrated, they are highly disciplined, and it's convenient for them to stir up trouble when agitated. But the question is, logically, shouldn't one first discover surplus value, realize that capitalists are exploiting workers, feel that workers should revolt and reclaim what belongs to them, and *then* consider them the main force? If you've already decided that workers are the main force without even knowing the theory of surplus value, then are you truly feeling indignant for exploited workers, or were you just looking for an excuse to rebel and become an emperor, coveting the workers' bodies? It's very suspicious, isn't it?

So when did the theory of surplus value emerge? It wasn't until 1867, with the publication of the first volume of "Das Kapital," that Marx fully elaborated his theory of surplus value, and in an era when most people didn't understand economics, he managed to mislead a large number of so-called intellectuals. And what was Marx doing during those intervening ten or twenty years? He spent his days at the British Library, searching for theoretical justifications for revolution. Finally, he distorted the **Labor Theory of Value** (which posits that the value of a commodity is determined by the amount of labor expended in its production) of **Adam Smith** (British economist, founder of classical economics) and **David Ricardo** (British economist, a leading figure in classical political economy), and concocted his own theory of hatred—surplus value. As for how absurdly wrong the theory of surplus value is, due to its length, I won't go into detail here; perhaps I'll dedicate a separate episode to it. In short, from this timeline, you can see the mental journey of Marx and Engels: they first presupposed the need for revolution, then decided to utilize workers, and then spent their days at the British Library fabricating a flawed theory to prove that workers and capitalists were enemies.

What is this comparable to? It's like Marx and Engels were two robbers who wanted to rob a bank but couldn't find a way in. After some research, they discovered that bank employee Zhang San held the vault keys, and if they could get him on board, they could open the vault. So, our old Marx spent his days poring over documents and finally found a loophole. One day, he approached Zhang San and said, "I've checked; your surname isn't actually Zhang. Your ancestors were surnamed Yue, as in Yue Fei. And the owner of this bank is surnamed Qin, as in Qin Hui. Your two families are sworn enemies, so you must help me open the vault; it would be a way to avenge your ancestors." Finally, to make this narrative more compelling, our old Marx personally took charge, revising his battle manifesto, "The Communist Manifesto," word for word. The manifesto we read today is actually the second edition; the original was Engels's "Principles of Communism," which was very plain in language, like a Q&A manual. Marx was very dissatisfied after reading it, feeling it lacked煽动性. So, with a flourish of his pen, he transformed the originally plain explanatory text into a pre-war mobilization book full of literary and religious overtones. Phrases familiar to us, like "A spectre is haunting Europe—the spectre of communism," and "Capital comes into the world, dripping from head to foot, from every pore, with blood and dirt," are not written like scientific papers at all, but rather like a preacher's proclamation filled with religious rhetoric. Just as "Wolf Warrior 2" used American-style individual heroism to make an ultra-nationalist film that became a box office hit, Marxism, under the guise of science, also set sail with the tailwind of Christianity.

At this point, I'd like to offer a brief explanation. In the comments section of the first episode, many impatient Christians, upon hearing that communism originated from Christianity, immediately flared up and started cursing without waiting for further updates. Here, I'll briefly respond: Is Christianity communism? Looking back at the history of the previous episodes, we will find that anyone who believes Christianity is communism, or at least contains strong communist ideas, will basically cite a few passages from "Acts of the Apostles." This is actually the norm for the evolution of any religion and ideological system; that is, the original founders create a certain idea and leave behind some classics, and later generations will interpret them according to their own inclinations and intentions, emphasizing the parts they want to emphasize and selectively ignoring the parts they dislike.

For example, several branches of liberation theology mentioned earlier, such as Black theology and feminist theology, all exhibit this characteristic. For instance, Black theology, to endorse the Black liberation movement, will particularly emphasize God's and Jesus's identity as liberators, which is why they value "Book of Exodus" the most, because "Book of Exodus" tells the story of God and Moses liberating the Jewish people. As for other passages unfavorable to their views, such as the example in "Epistle to the Ephesians" requiring servants to obey their masters, they selectively ignore them. Feminist theology is similar; it will emphasize the contributions of several female prophets, including the Virgin Mary, while ignoring or directly rejecting passages that clearly emphasize patriarchy, such as Eve being Adam's rib, wives obeying their husbands, and "First Epistle to the Corinthians" requiring women to remain silent in church, believing these are not God's original intent. Such unique interpretations are very likely to create new denominations or schools of thought, but these may no longer be the same as the previous ones. Therefore, the derivation of communism from Christianity does not logically imply that Christianity *is* communism.

In fact, if you review the background of that passage in "Acts of the Apostles," you'll find that it was merely a temporary phenomenon akin to donation, rather than a long-term system. The context at the time was that over three thousand people were baptized in one day, and a large number of pilgrims from out of town flocked to Jerusalem, leading to situations where people didn't have enough to eat or wear. Also, because Christianity was still an underground organization at the time, to ensure the basic livelihood of these pilgrims, some more devout believers voluntarily donated their property for mutual aid. Someone might surely say, "Even for mutual aid, you don't have to donate all your property; a little would suffice." There's another background here: it was Pentecost at the time, and many believed Jesus would return soon, and then it would be the Last Judgment. Putting yourself in their shoes, if you were a devout Christian and heard that the world was ending next week, would you donate all your property? Most likely, you would do so, since life wouldn't continue past next week anyway.

However, throughout "The Bible," Jesus never said that believers must forcibly confiscate property. In the history of normal Christian churches, there has never been a long-term, fixed, mandatory communist way of life. The logic is simple: if Jesus truly advocated long-term public ownership, why would there be tithing? Everything would be public anyway. Moreover, today's churches even donate tithes voluntarily, so how can there be talk of communism? Therefore, the conclusion is simple: ideas like the tailor's, that "Christianity is communism, and Jesus is a revolutionary martyr," are purely his own interpretations and are completely different from orthodox Christianity.

At the end of the program, we return to the original question: Is communism a cult? First, if the definition of religion is changed to "a principle or theoretical system upheld with passion and firm belief," then undoubtedly, communism, including Rousseau's patriotism mentioned earlier, can be considered a religion. So, is it evil or not? In a previous episode titled "Is Falun Gong a Cult?", we discussed three typical characteristics of a cult: first, whether the leader claims to be a living saint; second, whether there is information isolation, forced brainwashing, and restriction of personal freedom; third, whether there is systematic serious harm caused to followers or others. The second and third points go without saying; anyone living in China is well aware of them. But the first point might be somewhat confusing.

But as mentioned earlier, abstract concepts like "the people" and "the state" can also become deities. A leader who doesn't openly declare themselves a god can still be a god. Because whether it's a god or a saint, its essence is four words: never makes mistakes. If you apply this criterion, don't you find that almost all leaders of communist countries, from the elder brothers Lenin and Stalin, to China's Mao and Xi, share this characteristic? During their lifetime or while still in power, it is absolutely impossible for them to make mistakes. Conversely, look at normal religions, such as Protestant pastors or the Catholic Pope; they can make mistakes, be criticized, and even be removed from office, because they are human, not gods. And this trait of "never making mistakes" essentially serves the purpose of personal worship and deification for generations of great leaders.

Imagine, if Mao had to bear responsibility for the Great Famine during his lifetime, would the rotten mangoes he gifted to workers and students still be worshipped as relics, and would there be annual pilgrimages of tens of thousands to Shaoshan today? In other words, as long as figures like Xi Jinping can forever be **Great, Glorious, and Correct** (a phrase of praise for leaders or the Party in Chinese official propaganda), and criticizing him could lead to imprisonment, then he is claiming to be a living saint. Similarly, as long as the Party continues to move from one great victory to another, forever "yin ma" (the original text uses "淫麻," which, in context, might be a homophone for "great" or "powerful," or refer to its pervasive influence), then it is a cult.