Karl Marx Did Not Account For You

Karl Marx

When I was in school with people much smarter than I was, who were en route to becoming legitimate scientists, we learned a thing or few about the scientific method and what constitutes a “theory.” I won’t beat you over the head with it here, but in a scientific context a “theory” is a hypothesis that tests accurately. If that hypothesis does not test accurately, not only can you not call the results a “theory” but even your hypothesis is trashed and becomes a mere postulate, which needs to be subsequently redressed and tidied up until it becomes a testable, falsifiable hypothesis again. And on it goes until which point the hypothesis tests accurately, as predicted, thus earning the label theory.

One would think, or at least I would think, that an economic theory would have to, at very least, live up to those objective scientific standards before it was rolled out on an entire nation, affecting millions of lives and having a global impact. Call me crazy, but if you’re going to just have an authoritarian government institute new rules of the game, those rules should be proven effective. No?

Enter Karl Marx, a cut-rate philosopher of decidedly mediocre intelligence who’s worshiped, for some odd reason, as some god of political theory, economics’ Einstein equivalent. And there’s not one good reason for it. Communism is not a failed theory; it is not even a theory. It is a self-aggrandizing postulate, a pipe-dream of a man who, at his core, wanted to be the one in charge of lording over others with the rules, not one of the ones living within the communist system.

A trait every communist shares: Never wanting to be one of those living in the society, but rather wanting to be the one ensuring that you do.

Where Marx really failed was in his gross negligence when it came to self-appraisal of his own worth, and the worth of those who would find his broken postulate romantic. If you don’t grasp that, let’s walk through it. Look around America, Europe, wherever – take a gauge of the landscape and view the people who are all for competing in a capitalistic nation, and then view the people holding their socialist/communist signs up and wearing their Che t-shirts. What you’re going to see is that the latter are wholly unequipped, or just unwilling, to compete within a capitalist system. These are people who, by sheer necessity, have to rely on a massive, intrusive, bullying totalitarian government to give them what they want.

And this is where Marx missed the mark. All he ever accounted for was his selfish desire to be the headpin of the bourgeoisie. He never took into account the impact this postulate would have on people, what it would make them think about society, and most importantly, what it would make them do en route to installing this postulate.

The postulate of communism calls for class warfare and for the people to claim the means of production and to create a society subsequent whereby one is provided for per one’s need, as one provides per one’s ability. So, okay, let’s roll with it.

One’s Needs: What are needs? After all, we don’t see the poorest in the west up in arms about overthrowing capitalism. The most needy seem to appreciate having charities and social nets. Sure, they’d like more, but they aren’t out there waving flags and attending college courses where Marx is basically a god. The people who want this system are all already middle-class and have every one of the first-world’s luxuries at their fingertips. So we’re not seeing any “needs” being demanded met here; what we’re seeing are flippant, ever-changing, whiny wants, like the want of people to earn some arbitrary “living wage” or for guaranteed jobs. And this is only with the people who at least keep it economic based! What we see most from the west’s young, wealthy communists is a push for changes in how they’re viewed socially. They want to become the untouchable bourgeoisie in charge, and want their selected pronouns, their bathrooms, their psych meds, and on it goes. These are the things that are being described as “needs” by the communists in today’s world, and they’re basically all just Christmas wish-list items that they really want. More toys for babies already spoiled beyond the measure of telling.

One’s Abilities: With large swaths of those indoctrinated to want communism having race and gender-studies degrees, and many of them refusing to work, and the vast majority of them actually unskilled entirely, they cannot provide anything of worth to the society. So they would extract from the system everything they desired, by claiming that their wants are actually needs, while few, if any, of the pinko bastards would actually be contributing anything to society’s coffers. That old saying “You eventually run out of other people’s money” didn’t happen by accident. We’ve seen communism play out many, many times before. (Oh, that wasn’t “real” communism? More on that later.)

To sum that up: The only people—people in this context being the citizenry, not accounting for the ruling class—in the world who actually desire communism, who have ever desired communism, are the selfish, lazy, wealthy useless idiots of the world who (a) wish to extract every one of their wanton desires from thin air, to be gifted everything they want in life; and (b) cannot actually contribute to society in any meaningful way whatever.

These are people who demand to be part of the bourgeoisie. They do not plan to live in a communist nation; they plan to head the communism and believe that waving their flags means they’ll be part of ushering in the change, not the people who have to wait in the ever-long breadlines of another failed utopia.

Marx missed this. Was it intentional? Probably not. He was dreaming of ruling over others. Not an ambitious soldier to raise an army to overthrow a throne for a crown. No. Marx’s idea was to have the people revolt, and then to have him, and men like him, assume the mantle of governors over the accumulative wealth of the society, to dole out how they saw fit. “Each according to their needs; each according to their abilities,” or however it literally goes, is a campaign slogan promising free goodies without having to actually work for them. It’s right there in the go-to communist headline; commies have never tried to hide it or dress it up. Basically, if you “need,” you get, and you put in what you can. Or can’t – it doesn’t matter: You still get.

Well, how convenient that we have these examples abound in the west of downtrodden communities, generations deep, illegal immigrants, etc, who seek to be provided per their need, then offer absolute zero in terms of a tax base; negative value, in fact. Even in capitalist societies we have indisputable proof that communism does not work as a “theory.” And don’t say “Well, it’s not real communism!” You can’t say that when it’s the core damn tenants! All public ownership would do is cause faster starvation, because people who won’t work, aren’t skilled enough to work, aren’t suddenly going to become successful capitalists when given ownership over industry! The industry is going to fail, and with full-on public seized ownership, there remains not one tax base left from which to draw for the “needs” of all these failed people.

Enter breadlines. I mean, we know this shit already. What is the damage here?

Brilliant in its deceit, idiotic in its economics – strictly because of the human element and to whom this postulate appeals.

The people of the world who want communism are not smart enough, driven enough, powerful enough, or influential enough to actually create class warfare on a scale to effect sweeping change in a nation’s economic system. Even less equipped are they to own and successfully operate anything that would turn a profit. Or, if that seems overly illogical due to its general inclusiveness, let me put it another way: There is no possible way, mathematically, logically or otherwise, that enough of the “people” are skilled enough at being capitalists that they’d turn a profit via public ownership, and thus there’s no industry, no tax base, and no one has their “needs” met anymore because there isn’t any way by which to meet those needs. Again: Breadlines!

The union workers aren’t saving the economy either. They aren’t going to become deal-makers, ground-shakers and masters of industry. Union labor, specifically public-union labor, is absolutely asshole horrid in its functionality and ineptitude. Seen a public school lately? Teacher pulls up in a $50,000 car, cries about not getting paid enough money, passes only 20% of the class with over a C average. Public workers, unite! (LULZ)

They’re simply not good enough as people to bring about sweeping political change either. These are the people who during the great wars of the world would flee and hide, not fight. These are the people who during the great plagues of the world would die out first, not help to find a cure. These are people who, by sheer necessity, must beg and plead for a gargantuan, unruly, power-hungry government to grow and grow until the point it seizes the means of production. And with what are we left? Every single failed socialist/communist/Marxist state all throughout history, that not only left its people in abject poverty but has murdered untold missions en route to the state basically becoming its own religion.

This is how the postulate of communism works out every single time it’s implemented, and that is precisely because it is merely a postulate, not even a hypothesis. It was once a hypothesis, but then it tested and failed. It never became a theory. It had to go back to the drawing board. Though instead of reworking an economic hypothesis which could be tested, it was instead romanticized by the chased-out bourgeoisie of communist states who ended up in the west, in positions as educators, and subsequently forced into the brains of malleable youngsters who now believe in the romance of Karl Marx and his brilliant “theory” that is so fair and just… if only it would be correctly implemented!

Let’s say this again for the hard of reading: Those who desire communism are themselves wholly incapable of waging—let alone winning—any sort of class warfare. They cannot seize power. They cannot run a business to turn a profit. These are people who want to be gifted even more luxuries than they already possess, and who insist a large government must be the ones to enact their freebie vision of “social justice.” And it has always been like this, since the postulate was first published. The people taken in by it, who thought it was such a grand idea, were always the same: Incapable of doing for themselves and inherently and utterly reliant upon the state. The state, of course, never minding more power! After all, it’s not as if a communist government has ever had to sneak in and overthrow anything. Not saying they haven’t; just saying they’ve never had to do so. The foolish people, always demanding more, have freely elected these officials into office, or have stood by hoping they would become part of the ruling class. Instead, the citizenry ends up in bread lines, and the government ends up carrying out mass murder.

Sorry, folks, but this is what communism is; this is what communism necessarily has to be. The reason it’s implemented this way, and that Marx’s “theory” doesn’t practice how it reads on paper, is that he never factored for the weak-willed, unskilled, noncompetitive whiners who would, in the name of the people, ironically outsource to the state from sheer necessity.

Basically, for communism to work, the “people” have to become capitalists, bereft of large government interfering. And there’s your paradox. How, on this blue-marbled Earth, do you get people who loathe capitalism and love large government to become free-market capitalists and turn a profit? It’s not a trick question. You can’t!

Obvious mutual exclusivity is obvious.

So the next time someone tells you that communism has never been implemented correctly, simply remind them that it has been implemented exactly how the people have wanted it implemented; e.g. through the force of government because the people themselves aren’t doers but rather beggars.

There can never be common ownership and publicly owned means of production. And the reason is pretty apparent, and incredibly simple: The individual who is given to the belief that communism is a good economic theory is an individual necessarily too weak to take action, too inept to run business, yet instead outsources the tasks involved to government.

Facebook Comments

About the Author

Brian Hendrix
Brian is a regular contributor to Halsey News. He has more than 20 years experience in Media and Publishing. He can be reached at brian@halseynews.com or on Twitter @kekkitchen