Hate

I Hate Karl Marx

Everything evil in the world spawns from Karl Marx's twisted little noggin, and Jon Collegio is anything but happy about it.

BY JONATHAN COLLEGIO

Are you a Marxist? It's an important question, once you consider that everything evil in the world spawns from Marxist political and social theory. If you refer to yourself as a Democrat, take the following fact into mind, quoted from David Horowitz's new book, The Politics of Bad Faith: "In 1995, 43 House Democrats voted to the left of Bernie Sanders, the body's only independent member and a self-proclaimed socialist." One of those Democrats in question was surely Eugene's own leftist, Peter DeFazio. And considering his wide margin of victory, you probably voted for him.

There are a lot of kooky leftists out there. Throw a stone anywhere near the EMU Kremlin and you'll hit one. I call them Marxists-in fact, I work with a bunch of Marxists. The Commentator staff is a bunch of quasi-Marxists, if of only the closet, unknowing variety. They're not kooky Marxists, though-they're a more moderate kind of leftist, but nevertheless of the Marxian school. Anyone is, who believes in taking away my rights. So, gentle reader, back to the question at hand: how far to the Left are you? Are you a socialist? A totalitarian? A Marxist? And what are the criteria for this Marxist label, anyhow? Chances are that you have totalitarian tendencies, and that, well, that is bad news. So in the meantime, consider yourself a Marxist by default-or continue reading.

Everyone's political worldview falls in one of two directions: toward totalitarianism or toward anarchy; toward oppression or toward freedom. The political struggle within any society is thus how much freedom the citizens are willing to give up in return for security. The root cause of every human action is want of something. It is not necessarily self-interest; it is more a want for self-improvement. With our closest friends and family, we may act without regard for what we get in return-but this is much more of an exception than a rule.

Given this, consider society at large. All civilizations, all living arrangements are, by their nature, unstable. Any security that we feel within our lives is a mirage; emotional security we feel with our families and friends can fall apart at any time due to unforeseen diseases, accidents, natural disasters, and whatnot. This is disconcerting, because most people strive for security-or a want to end want. This is the root of Marxism. It arises when one's desire to end his or her desire is stronger than primal desire itself. It arises when society aims toward some "secure" end at the expense of freedom. Markets are the paragon of financial instability and insecurity; for this reason, they are continually attacked by the Marxists who, as hard as they may try, cannot assuage emotional insecurity. Any businessperson who lets down their guard for a minute can see some energetic competitor take their income away. This drive, of course, makes all of our lives as consumers dramatically easier; it is this drive that makes better products available to us at lower costs.

But the drive is relentless, and the environment drastically insecure. That insecurity causes Big Business to seek out political power from the State to control their markets and regulate their competitors through monopolies. That insecurity drives unproductive industrialists to run to the government, yelling and screaming for tariffs to keep foreign competitors' products out of their markets. That insecurity causes unproductive workers to unionize, necessarily keeping less lucky workers out of the union, to artificially drive up their wages. It is that insecurity that drives people toward a larger, all-encompassing "grandmother" government in order to alieviate their problems. Insecurity, perceived or real, drives us toward Marxism.

But Marxist societies and those tending toward Marxism are destined to failure for a very simple reason: to use the words of Marx himself, they possess the seeds of their own destruction.

People may want security, but they do not give up their other wants in exchange for it. They may want welfare, a "safety net" to keep them from "falling through the cracks of capitalism" as the rhetoric would have it, but the primal desire to own their own things and keep what is theirs still exists. To achieve a welfare state, people enlist the coercive force of the collective, raw police and military power, to force people to give up their wealth in favor of the "public interest," a.k.a. taxation. Even the logic of taxation is flawed; how can anyone be "forced to give?" This is a great redistribution of power from society to the State. Any increase in state power -- any new law or regulation that inhibits the free will of an individual -- necessarily corresponds to a decrease in social power. The state has no money or power of its own. It only possesses the power that we -- that society -- gives to it. In America, this is the power that some individuals by democratic majority take from an unprotected minority. Now that the State has power, who will administer its affairs?

Enter the bureaucrats and politicians. Political power draws the worst from all corners of society to its ranks. An honest person has little to gain from a position of power, but the unscrupulous who are willing to abuse that power have much to gain-from government contracts, kickbacks, patronage, etc.. The power itself tends to eventually corrupt the sincerest men and women, as well. That is why there are so few people in government we can trust. The more power lent to the state, the more corrupt the official, as there is even more for the unscrupulous to gain.

So by giving up our social power and entrusting it to the State, we leave private decisions we normally would make up to corrupt men and women. This is why socialism or any increase in government power will eventually fail. Don't fool yourself; contrary to the sound bites you hear in the University, Marxism doesn't work in practice, and it certainly doesn't work in theory-unless people are completely given to altruistic, selfless ways. If Allen and Bob work side by side in a factory, Allen outproduces Bob 2-1, they get paid the same and Allen doesn't mind, Marxism would work. But even in theory, Allen would resent Bob for doing less work and receiving the same wage. Knowing that he would get the same compensation for putting out half the effort, Allen would cut back his production. With less productive workers, the economy, and ultimately everybody, suffers. But these are utilitarian grounds.

Marxism is a moral atrocity. You have no right to what is mine unless I give it to you. Most can agree to that. Why, then, has any government a right to tax 60% of my income without my consent? If I consented, it would not be a tax at all. That is why the idea of "voluntary taxation" is a sham. You may work your whole life, be taxed for a lifetime, and once you die, your heirs must pay half of what you left to them in inheritance taxes to the state-goods and property you already paid taxes on. This is the worst and most immoral of Marxist policies we have in America today.

So politics in a Marxist government is a game of who has the most connections; it is a game of who can use State power to plunder as many others as possible. If the power were never given to the State in the first place, corruption as such would never exist. The founders of our government miraculously eschewed their own wants for power by creating the smallest government in the history of the world. Our nation was founded on a tax revolt, and the new Republic did not even have power to tax its citizens' incomes. What is more, the state could never take away its citizens' guns, forever preserving their rights-among which was, ultimately, the right to revolt. That is as anti-Marxist a state as has ever existed. Even though revolution is Marx's recipe for societal evolution, the totalitarian nature of every Marxist state has kept their citizens from their guns, and thus, their rights. This is no coincidence.

Every time you support higher taxes, you embrace socialism. Every time you vote to restrict someone else's right to keep and bear arms, you embrace authoritarianism. Every time you ever vote for a politician who will enlarge the size and scope of government-necessarily diminishing your own rights-you are embracing Marxism. So are you a Marxist?

Jonathan Collegio, Publisher of the Oregon Commentator don't like them Marxists, no sir.