The Manifesto of the Perpetual Victim
By: Tracy Phernetton


A survivor of the holocaust wrote and published a book titled, “Man’s Search for Meaning.” Victor E Frankl’s book gives a detailed account of his personal experiences while he was held captive at Auschwitz. Frankl theorizes on the compiled, experiential observations he made during this horrific time in his life. In his book, Frankl proposes a theory and some concentrated evidence of the repercussions that oppression invoked on him and other survivors of the holocaust. His experiences after Auschwitz suggest that the effects of oppression are not always concrete. Oppression is also an enveloping, toxic message that saturates the psyches of it’s’ survivors.

Victor E. Frankl was truly oppressed. He was held captive, while he was tortured, and humiliated by the Nazis. Frankl serves as a great living example of how someone who is oppressed can rise above the mental manipulation that also comes with oppressive experiences. False consciousness was forced upon those who were imprisoned in Nazi camps. By force, a group of people were told they were inferior, and therefore became oppressed. The oppressors in this case, were the Nazi’s and the Hitler regime, and in Germany, they were the dominant class.

In a less threatening example, capitalism is thought to be another form of an oppressive construction. According to Karl Marx, oppression was the consequence of a corrupt economic system, which by his estimation was Capitalism. Karl Marx was the grandfather of conflict sociology which consisted of sociological and economic theories of a society that was always in battle. Conflict sociology is at the heart of the Marxian assumptions on social classes and false consciousness. In a Marxist world, capitalism was the cause of the unfair divisions in society. Marx determined that capitalism was the cause of unequal distributions of wealth which in turn created the “haves” being the oppressors to another group, the “have-nots,” being the oppressed.

Marx only analyzed and theorized of oppressive inequities. Marx gave society labels and distrustful explanations were assigned to those who happened to have achieved more material success than others. Marx and his quagmire of pessimistic theories may have done more damage than what had ever really existed in the first place. How so? Marx’s message to the oppressed was not filled with constructive means to a successful end, yet it was left open ended, creating a mind set of resentment and self-restriction.

Victor Frankl described a real-life scenario in his book about how the released captives who were once held hostage in Nazi camps reacted to their new found freedom. Their reaction is truly shocking to those of us who have never been contained in a Nazi camp. Many released victims reacted to their new freedom by going back to the camp! They were plagued and poisoned by the underlying message of oppression longer than they were physically oppressed. These survivors of the Nazi camps did not understand freedom. This is a very important example that indicates negative, limiting, suppressive messages can be more damaging than the negative, limiting, suppressive acts.

While survivors from Auschwitz may seem like an extreme example in the case for the Marxist theory of Capitalism; it really is rather telling of the inaccurate assumptions that were created by Marx and his outlook on social classes and consciousness. The influence that Marx had on sociological theory also spilled over into certain political ideologies. The real damage was not so much in the original Marxist theories and writings; anyone can theorize anything and write it down. The real atrocity was the stir it invoked into the psyches and stradegies of the people he called oppressed. Instead of seeing the social class divisions and positions of hierarchies as possibilities for achievement and advancement, he argued that it was a battle. The elitist and mean wealthy people were all purposefully hoarding all the wealth and keeping it from the little, weak-minded people. The revolution that Marx saw in his Nostradamus-like premonition served as a battle cry to the little people, to resent, revolt and take down.

Marx expelled socially, disgruntled theories on socialism/communism vs. capitalism/entrepreneurship. Marx was rather sophisticated in his approach to the pigeonholing that he believed occurred in a capitalistic society. Marx believed that until the socialist mindset could be applied to the organization of society, society would continue to be in a state of inequality and unfair social disparity. Marx drove his theories straight into the growing inferiority complexes of peasant mind sets. He did this during a time in our human history when politics were controlled and monopolized by the aristocrats. From a Marxian, panoramic view on social classes, one finds financial gains and losses to be the evil twins of the paradoxical human experiment gone bad.

Marx speculated quite a bit about Religion and how it fit into a capitalist society. Ultimately he down graded religion and compared it to drug use. Marx even went so far to say “…religion is the opiate of the people.” Marx’s hypothesis devalued the thinking abilities of those who were victims of capitalism. His conclusions that Religion was used to subdue the social ills of the oppressed made it appear as if the oppressed were just dumbed-down infidels that really didn’t think for themselves. The oppressed used Religion solely as their antidote. These cynical evaluations made by Marx regarding Religion and society, inadvertently accused those whom he thought were victims of a Capitalist society also victims of Religious persuasion.

The Marxian umbrella perspective of Capitalism places a great deal of emphasis on tales of surviving the social inequities found in capitalism. His view of social inequalities however reduced the confidence of the lower class mentality to pure survival. These types of incessant anti-Capitalistic assessments made by Marx contained an array of subtle, underlying allegations and stigmas. Eventually the messages and terms used to describe the peasants, candle-makers, and blacksmiths in society became the mantra of the lower classes’ outlook on their position in society. A false consciousness eventually developed in the lower classes, which cast an inferiority complex that sanctioned the so-called “oppressed” group psyche. A cloud of resentment and envy emerged under the pretenses of a sociological theory.

In the book, “Mans Search for Meaning,” Frankl makes a self-reflective observation of his former experiences, “When a man finds that it is his destiny to suffer he will have to accept his suffering as his task.” This chilling statement made by an Auschwitz victim intersects with the Marxist perception of being oppressed. Frankl goes on to say, “It did not really matter what we expected from life, but rather what life expected from us.” If “life” is telling someone that they are victims, or oppressed because they don’t have as many material goods as another in society, the result in the psyche of those who received that message face a much greater risk having been fed that message. The message of the Marxist theory is clear; for those who have less will inevitably achieve less. And so it is, down with Capitalism.

These early sociological observations made by Marx and other anti-capitalist thinkers labeled a group of people and left an indefinite scar in the mentalities of those whom he claimed to be speaking in defense for. In Marx’s view, oppressed people were truly inferior. It could be argued that the assessment by Marx in itself was the most destructive on the lower classes in society. Someone’s socio-economic place in society suddenly became an economic offense committed by the capitalists. Capitalism became the enemy. This type of class envious attitude from Marx and other conflict theorists helped in the emergence of a false class consciousness that would fight oppression with the adverse strength of a victim hood mindset until this very day.

Political ideologies have since been curved and incrediousibly launched based on the Marxian conflict theories regarding a dominant class sneering and hoarding over the lower class. The devastating anomaly in this instance is that dominant didn’t necessarily have to mean “superior.” However, with a struggle-based perspective focused on the social organization of class materialism, this anomaly retained much more substance (ironically) than moralistic and religious nonmaterial fancies. Somehow class divisions were made to be glimpses of evil inequality and social/economic stratification. And this type of, “I’m down. Your up,” thinking gave way for the socialist revolution to manifest.

The Marxian apathetic view of achievement formulated around victims and oppressors. His sociological theory sought to undermine the competitive free market of the entrepreneurial spirit. The arguments were based in superior vs. inferior and encouraged class rivalry. Anti-capitalists’ could in fact also be called anti-opportunists, and that alone turned ideological debates inside out. Marx and his view of an endless class struggle served as a pursuit that desired uncovers the industrial elements in the establishments of commerce. This eventually gave rise to a revolution and insurgency against the reigning financial class.

The perpetual struggle of the perpetual victim was the lower classes’ out in an unfair capitalistic society. Clearly, class conflict can be marked as the hypothetical woes that spawned the great Marxian depression. Marx’s view of society was just downright depressing and his incomplete efforts to unravel the free-thinking democracy became food for thought for finding economic equality. To a conflict theorist, order almost seems to be a sinister concept. However, order is what conflict theorists seem to search for. It is the brand of order that sets Conflict theorists like Marx apart from great thinkers like Alexis de Tocqueville whom viewed order as the explanation of collective experience. Tocqueville would emphasize individualized incentives and opportunities and Marx would view economic inequality as a perpetual problem, with no individual incentives. Marx made it very clear that material freedoms were meant to be attained by everyone. From his viewpoint, unequal classes in society needed to be equalized by uniformed control. Just what type of unified control he really had in mind, is up for discussion.

We can see these sociological debates in our modern day politics. Today’s political debates reflect this original Marxian v. Tocqueville clash. The Marxian paradox is found in the destiny of what he believed to be the “natural superiors” of his premise that materialism ruled the day. He assigned his own imperial enemy to a life of successful exploitation of the oppressed. In other words, by demonizing the dominant class, in effort to debunk a free market playing field, he yielded to the self-consciousness of all he sought to advance. The class struggle that Marx revealed also indefinitely revealed a code for victimizing the lower class and labeling them “oppressed,” instead of empowering them and instead labeling them “free market opportunists.”

Marx let the oppressed labor workers off the hook when he cast them and characterized them in the eternal flame of victimhood. Consequently, he also invited the illusion of a larger division; a wall of separation that made peasants believe they couldn’t be anything more than peasants for the rest of their unappreciated days, as long as capitalism endured. In effect, this contempt for the ruling class actually ridiculed the lower classes, which may have been able to sees the fruits of their labor through the eyes of St. Simon. St. Simon made the bold yet common sense observation and conclusion that it was not the Kings and Queens that ran society, but it was the peasants; candle makers, blacksmiths and farmers that held society together. Just imagine if the lower classes had adopted the St. Simon attitude and class consciousness that saw their economic positions as important, worthy and indispensable instead of the Marxian attitude of seeing themselves as inferior victims oppressed by the kings and queens?

Marx may have intended for a non-physical fantasy land, or maybe he dreamed of a non-humanistic setting where human potential meant nothing and class and rank were pre-decided and permanent. Either way, the battle Marx fought did not truly defend the persons he defined as oppressed; rather the battle displayed the achievers as superior constructs that ultimately repressed in stead of achieved. The repressed were of course the “oppressed” and achievement was not attainable thanks to the oppressors who repressed them. Achievement could not easily be looked at as a goal from an oppressed point of view. Progression was set aside for an elite group of individuals that were unrealistic, egotistical and had an unfair dominance that prevailed in the end. So his oppression argument never ends as long as a free democratic state exists.

Marx’s demonization of free market entreurprenurship and potential sliced the mental constructs of the people he claimed he sought relief for. The destruction of capitalism hasn’t occurred yet in America, however the devastating debate and pessimistic argument is still seen in some of today’s modernized versions of what social/economic equality is supposed to mean. The debate is tiresome, and it revels in the game of superiority and inferiority. The destruction of Capitalism vision that Marx had as not yet happened; thank God. Instead we can see a much greater destruction; the victim mindset and the self limiting beliefs that kill individual dreams brought to us in part by class envy. It can be argued that Marx has successfully had a theoretical hand in killing the idea of the American dream for many people.

In conclusion, it is silly to think a socialist state could some how create an equal playing field for everyone which would in turn give power to the inferior persons. In his ambiguous battle for the class struggles to cease, he instead launched a battle that produced the social constructs of a victim’s endless battle. Oppression is a today’s victims’ greatest defense, but it’s a weak one at that. The equality of opportunity is still attainable and flexible, with ultimately no barriers for achievement other than a Marx appointed oppressed status’s that so configuratively survived in many minds. We can only fly as high as we really want to fly. In Marx’s world, the seekers of that flight have been blinded by a haunting Marxian overcast of victimhood.

© Tracy Phernetton 2007