A very good critique of Marxism.

I would add that the fundamental flaw in Marxism is the denial of the concept of property. Marx really didn't touch it. But property rights are the most basic of rights, down to your ownership of yourself. They inform virtually every other right.

Marx assumed they were a fiction and one that could and should be altered by a political act. He didn't see individuals having a right to own things. The collective had a right to take that which they used, in his opinion. Marx bought into the idea of economic democracy and the Collective Will of Rousseau. We call that theft and it has always been suppressed by every civilization to a larger or lesser degree.

That some societies accepted a certain amount of theft - be it the king overtaxing or seizing property in war or whatnot - but in the end there has always been some legal mechanisms protecting property rights to some degree.

America accepted John Locke's definition of property, and while the Constitution did not enshrine property rights as an "enumerated right" it was thought it unnecessary by Madison and the others. It was clearly the CORE right. Marx denied this basic assumption. In short, he advocated a society based on theft.

The Communist Manifesto really does read like a teenager's essay, I might add.

After claiming history was going to make all this happen, this wondrous withering away of the State after the success of Socialism, Marx and Engels then call for revolution. Why? If it's inevitable, why promote it? As has been pointed out the Communist Manifesto is a document from the Romantic Era and it reads more like a work of fiction from that era than a treatise on economics and social evolution. They simplify so many concepts, stripping things down to an "us" versus "them" which is ridiculous.

Marx tried to argue the workers would own the means of production in the socialist state prior to the happy day of Communism. Huh? The workers own NOTHING in such a state, but rather the government and the Party own it all. The workers are essentially unable to leave their jobs and that makes them at least serfs. All Marxism did was put a happy face on the old feudal serfdom. (And remember, serfdom died out in Russia only in 1861, AFTER Marx published the Manifesto (in 1848). Is it any wonder Russia had no problem adopting Marxism? They had a long history with the concept.

I recently had an argument with a Marxist about the fundamental nature of Marxism. His arguments were vague and abstract. They were so by design, as he knew he could offer nothing concrete because he had nothing that actually worked. He tried to dodge admitting he was a Red but I pinned him and he admitted it (and said he thought the French Reign of Terror was just fine) and is no doubt still blabbering about Bolshevism now. But the point is this is magical thinking, a BELIEF that things can be changed by an act of will without regards to reality. The Marxist believes that the universe is perfectible, that Man is inherently good, that the collective is the sole determinant of right and wrong. And since they eschew notions of God or Nature's God they must believe in the power of a collective delusion; reality can be changed by an act of faith on the part of enough people. Paradise is attainable, in their worldview, if enough people struggle and demand it. It's pure utopianism. Man can create Heaven on Earth sans any sort of deity.

But even if you don't believe in a deity you can still see the stupidity of this. Natural Law is not predicated on the existence of a God (although that's a powerful part of the thinking) as the Universe works a certain way and human nature is subject to universal laws. One such law is property rights; what's yours is yours and what's mine is mine. The animal kingdom shows a certain sense of that (although animals steal from other animals all the time.) The Lion may feed it's mates and children with a kill, but it doesn't kill and hand meat out to hyenas and bears. And many animals are territorial; cross a hippo's territory and you may wind up being bitten in half, despite the vegetarian nature of the beast. They see property rights and they don't like trespassers.

Marx and Engels ignore all this as a mere construct of society to benefit the haves. He ignores the fact the poor man is equally jealous with his own goods and home, and rarely lets another man simply stroll into his home and eat his food.

At any rate, please do read the whole article; it's a worthwhile thing.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:27 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 812 words, total size 5 kb.