🧐🦾🚫 Marx False Prophet? or just Weirdo Grizzly Adams Guy?

Highgate Cemetery, London –

Weirdo or false prophet?

Definitely both. ☝️

Ever wonder why he never shaved that beard off?

Prob’s he was charging animals or insects rent to live there, whenever he needed beer money and couldn’t mooch off of Engels anymore.

The Five Main Psycho-Epochs

It’s actually like psycho-economic epochs or eras, and why is it psycho, you might kindly ask?

Well, you have to be a psycho to believe in Socialism, right? 🤷‍♀️

Glad, I cleared that up.

Seriously, and un-seriously, I love mentioning the psycho-epochs, Cuz’ it drives Marxists crazy.

As a quick aside, you know why Socialists can never rule the world?

Because in addition to being psycho, we only bicker and criticise each other all the time, like two chickens duking it out inside a KFC bucket, and afterwards, we got no energy left to fight off the capitalists.

Then, and only if one of us survives, there can only be one: hence false prophet, false messiah.

So Let’s Rile Up Some Marxists

Let’s do it together first, then I’ll throw in something Marxists really do understand, or at least they should, if they’re really Marxists, and we’ll have a little fun together.

Five psycho-human-epochs

[1] Communism, tribalism

[2] Slavery, Tyranny, Monarchy

[3] Capitalism

[4] Socialism

[5] PMC, pure modern Communism, or

Star Trek, and the end of history

Criticism of Marx

He is a false prophet, but maybe in a good way, and I promise to explain that a little bit more, but first a quote.

If you are a real Marxist, not a fake one, you should recognise this. (Btw: I’ve been called ‘fake’ all the time, but I’m kind of getting used to it. In fact, I think I’ll have my name legally changed to Fake'izt Marxist.)

Many movements defame theory itself as a form of oppression, as though praxis were not much more directly related to oppression.

People locked in desperately want to get out. In such situations, one doesn’t think anymore…The leap into praxis does not cure thought of resignation…

And, the main criticism against Marx:

Because the thinking person does not need to inflict rage upon himself, he does not wish to inflict it on others.

‘The happiness that dawns in the eye of the thinking person…

…is the happiness of humanity.’

Then the criticism is here:

The only thing praxis still meant: was increased production of the means of production; critique was not tolerated anymore except for the criticism that people were not yet working hard enough.

The last is a major theme in Animal Farm by Orwell

But we’re not quite there yet, we finish with:

So easily does the subordination of theory to praxis invert into service rendered to renewed oppression.

Indictment of Marx

Finally here, and I apologise for the wait, but we had to cover a little ground before we could get here, first.

Here is the number 1 criticism against Karl Marx:

By contrast the uncompromisingly critical thinker, who neither signs over his consciousness nor lets himself be terrorised into action, is in truth the one who does not give in.

Why Attack Marxism

First, Marxism is not a religion, and as a Marxist, at least this Marxist believes, not everyone must be a Marxist or even understand any of what Marx said to improve the conditions for us all in this crowded little world.

But let’s get rid of Marx for a second. Let’s say he is a false messiah, or never existed at all. Is there a core unifying message that can unite all Socialists, who really want to make this world work for everyone?

To lift all spirits, to mend all hearts, and care for the injured, the sick, give sustenance and purpose to the poor?

Is there such an idea, a philosophy out there? Simple to understand and hold in our hearts?

Yes.

Actually, there is.

Mutual Affection

The idea of mutual affection is as old as time itself, or as long as there have been humans living on the planet.

It is the counterweight to the themes of exploitation and coercion that make up capitalism, and an idea which unites all Socialists.

Mutual Affection, in fact, is the foundation of all Socialism.

And without it, human existence is nearly impossible; to say the least we would not survive this capitalist-dystopian nightmare without it, nor be able to live together in communities or cities.

As long as there are humans still breathing, there will always be mutual affection.

It will never desert us, nor give up on us. Nor abandon human life nor experience.

And it is never satisfied, unless there is complete cessation of poverty, economic oppression, and any form of human cruelty, not for a select few, but for everyone and all of us.

But…

It’s made clear how psyched up I am about the idea of mutual affection, but I should make clear that it is like a legal definition.

Mutual is very well understood. Something for everybody.

Affection is a synonym for love.

However, this sentimental expression ignores the full societal expression or in legal like terms.

Why have mutual affection? Especially in a legal sense?

The idea is you will never do anything in trust or care for a service or good that harms or causes injury to another person.

In return, you expect the same from another worker.

Obviously, we assume a restaurant worker will not poison our food. Nor would we if we’re in the same position.

The most obvious example of mutual affection, call it cooperation if you want, the distinction really doesn’t matter, is in driving a vehicle.

Hopefully, most drivers want to help other drivers and allow traffic to flow and not cause collisions.

Similarly, in factories, we see mutual affection in a culture of safety, where employees are careful not to create hazards for others.

Corporations and Mutual Affection

Unfortunately, and this is not a political rant, the idea of mutual affection does not apply to corporations in a capitalist system of self-interest and exploitation, while most corporations are shielded by the law or difficulty in holding them accountable for the harm they do.

This is not worker to worker, but corporation to worker or consumer.

The boeing dreamliner felony plea is an example of this, as well as pollution, toxic waste dumping, inferior products such as contamination in food, and hazardous working conditions.

Since mutual affection is too a legal and social norm under Socialism, it helps reduce the harms caused by corporations.

Mutual Affection Supersedes Marx and all of Marxism

Have you possibly noticed why Socialism is listed as number 4 of all the psycho-epochs? Always placed just one notch above capitalism?

Why do that? What does it mean?

Socialism is inherently better than capitalism

That’s right, it is.

But, we might have to escape the labelling of what Socialism is first. Certainly, and I concede, Soviet Communism was not always better than Western capitalism.

And Western capitalism, often, did not lift every boat and feed every person, or allow the obtainment of the so-called American Dream.

If it had, then FDR and his New Deal reforms, which included social and central planning, and the takeover of the economy by the U.S. government, would’ve been unnecessary.

But that was not the case. History clearly shows that the U.S. government did manage and control the economy.

And in those years, national GDP did not decrease, in fact, it doubled.

Does This Mean Switch to Socialism today

Not really.

There could be bad Socialism, just as there can be really good capitalism, that if heavily regulated, can operate like good Socialism.

But the only time this has worked, is by under heavy supervision by past Democrats and Republicans, FDR, and the Eisenhower administration.

Eisenhower’s was especially Socialist because it commanded businesses to re-invest in their growth and their workers, or it would heavily tax them.

The Nixon administration was too heavily Socialist in some parts: Nixon called for price freezes and price controls, and considered enacting some form of U.B.I.

That’s right: Nixon thought of implementing UBI, and he was a conservative Republican.

Without Marxism

Can we do well enough without Marxism? What if Marx never existed?

Yes.

With mutual affection alone, we could end all poverty, homelessness, and hunger.

We can look to pre-Marx history too. In the Christian commentaries and even in the old testament, pro-capitalist evangelicals and theologians have a real problem: The book is anti-capitalist.

Levictus 23:22

When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. Do not go over your vineyard a second time or pick up the grapes that have fallen. Leave them for the poor and the alien. I am the LORD your God.

And,

Deuteronomy, 24:14

Do not take advantage of a hired worker who is poor and needy, whether that worker is a fellow … or a foreigner residing in one of your towns. 15 Pay them their wages each day before sunset, because they are poor and are counting on it. Otherwise they may cry to the Lord against you, and you will be guilty of sin.

And,

Luke 12:14

Jesus replied, “Man, who appointed me a judge or an arbiter between you?” 15 Then he said to them, “Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; life does not consist in an abundance of possessions.”

Lastly, nearly all from this tradition, know this one:

Mark 10:25

It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.”

There are many more.

Weber and the Communitarian affect

So controversial was any idea of Communism, even the good kind, during the Cold War, that evangelicals had a real problem on how to describe the conspicuous Communism contained within the bible, without using the term Communism.

Communitarianism, based on the word community, is what they came up with. Though in reality it really is just Communism.

However, not all property was held in common. Much of it belonged to a king, monarch, or some kind of ruler. But when tribes ruled it, this is Communism, though more primitive.

And even in those examples, as listed above, farmers are still instructed to leave food for the needy poor and strangers.

Regardless of who owns the land, that still is a form of Socialism, because it is done with affection and not-for-profit.

Weber

As a theorist, his work is a little strange. Calvinist leaning and pro-protestant.

This is oversimplified, because I don’t hold Weber’s work in high regard, and his flaws are obvious, but he equated Christian protestant work ethic, in a secular vocation, with religious piety and economic advancement.

His work is titled: The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism.

Why does Weber’s Work Fail

He based it on Christianity. And, historically, it doesn’t work with Asian countries like China, Japan, India, and South Korea, which have achieved massive economic gains and modernity without being Christian.

And,

I confess I am not an expert on his work, but he doesn’t seem to understand about the development of natural rights, which is critical to economic growth and expansion.

Perhaps, the focus on natural rights over the proclamations of ecclesiastical authoritarianism from the Roman Catholic Church, is what accounted for the difference.

Guess what?

That is exactly what we have been talking about in this article.

Whenever we have authoritarianism, even if it’s in a softer form with the inherent exploitation and coercion of capitalism, then it is never really a good thing.

So again, good capitalism is certainly better than bad, oppressive Socialism.

But if the two are equal, then Socialism is always inherently better, because it is not based on greed nor exploitation, and can not lead to alienation.

So if Marx is no good, why do we need him

This is the end of the article.

Going forward, I will discuss a little of the identity of Marxists, and why we believe in what we do.

I will discuss some of Marx’s flaws too. And he had many.

Marxist-Materialism

[1]

‘Anything in the world which exists without my knowledge, exists without my consent.’

[2]

‘Any fact or thing which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.’

*Under construction…

I will write this later.

\\Photo Credit: The image for this article was produced by an AI computer programme.