Sometimes I go and read some Marxist websites just to amuse myself of the amount of nonsense the Communists can come up with. I have read into the Marxist view on the State how, according to them, the State is an instrument of Capitalism and it is used to protect the wealth of the rich, and maintain the Class society, and things like that. They also say that there was no State before there was no abundance in wealth (capital) and everyone lived in an egalitarian society in utopia, but as technology advanced and more labor saving technology was invented, excess capital created the Capitalist class.
Ok this is a very confusing argument and they surely as hell like to confuse dumb people, luckily I am a sharp intellectual that can see past the bullshit. So let's start debunking it 1 by 1.
1) Noble Savage Myth
First of all there was no egalitarian utopia 30,000 years ago. It is the Noble Savage myth, whereas many delusional people think that the current society is so bad because we have all these wars and problems, but fail to realize what life was like 30,000 years ago.
Like dying in horrible pain at age 6 because of cholera, or having an infant morality rate of 80%, and things like that. It's kind of hard to imagine a utopia civilized society under such harsh conditions.
They literally think that we all shared resources 30,000 years ago and we lived in a Garden of Eden.
But what really happened is that the strongest Alpha Male became the chieftain and if you disobeyed him, you were fed to the wolves, and your wife got gangraped. That is what really happened 30,000 years ago.
So you must be a special kind of moron to believe in this socialist utopia 30,000 years ago. By the way, they also claim that there was no State before Capitalism.
Well I beg to differ. See the State is nothing more than the pure manifestation of violence in society. So when you had bloodthirsty chieftains, I'd pretty much call that a State. In fact it was a more totalitarian State than any other since it was so close to you, it was like a couple meters away from you all the time if you lived in a tight village or camp in a forest 30,000 years ago. And it was totalitarian, the chieftain told you what to do all day, every day, your kids were totally owned, and if you didn't behave correctly, your wife was also taken from you. So it was 100% State direct control, even worse than Hitler.
2) The State
Again, the State is not the buildings or the rituals or the people in them. The State is the sum of all organized violence in a society. So the State appeared when the first human formed a gang to steal from another human or subjugate him.
Whenever some strong guy 30,000 or even 100,000 years ago found a group of people who were weak, he told them, "from now on you obey me or die!". That is when the first State was formed. That is the State.
The current State is more polished, much bigger, with more complex rituals and customs, but it's essentially the same thing, it's the violence beneath the subterfuge.
3) The State used to protect Capitalists
Another mistake the Marxists make is that they think the State is there to protect Capitalism or the wealth of the Capitalists. Well this is partially true, but there are also a few misconceptions here.
First of all I would not consider the "ruling class" Capitalist. I mean is the King a Capitalist? Just because he owns private property?
Are the Marxists Capitalists because they own private property? But then they make a difference here, they say that there is a difference between "personal property" and "private property" , as the personal property is property used for personal reasons and private property is the means of production.
But this is horseshit, your brain is a means of production, so by this reasoning everyone is Capitalist. So it's not the private property classification that distinguishes Capitalists.
It's neither the amount of weath they have:
- Jonny has 5$
- Jim has 5,000,000$
Is Jim the ruler of Jonny? Nope. So it's neither the amount of money a person has that makes him a ruler.
It's actually the fact whether they will initiate force against someone, or not. So if Jim makes money and doesn't try to steal from Jonny, then Jim is just as good as Jonny, they are not in a ruler<>subject relationship, they might not even know eachother.
The King is not a Capitalist, even if he does have property, a lot of it, because the King declares himself as sovereign, and everyone else his subject. So the relationship between you and the King is that he is your ruler, and you are his slave.
There is no Capitalism there, that is just a pure master<>slave relationship.
So Capitalism is voluntary, you can be rich or poor in it, but the rich capitalist is not your ruler: the State is.
And the State is not there to protect any wealth other than his own. I can guarantee you that if some revolution were to break out, the State will not send out the military to protect McDonalds, but you will definitely see tanks around the Parliament to protect the State.
4) The Myth of Communism
Which brings me to my conclusion: Communism is a delusion, there never was Communism, there never will be.
There was certainly no Communism 30,000 years ago, and there certainly won't be 30,000 years from now.
So there are only 2 entities that exist:
- Capitalism: The sum of all voluntary interactions in a society
- The State: The sum of all violent interactions in a society
There is only Capitalism & The State, that is all there is and, hopefully Capitalism will defeat the State in the end.
Bolshevism:
Bolshevism was a political ideology that wanted to create Communism by eliminating Capitalism. Well they did eliminate Capitalism in the Soviet Union, and guess what they were left with a Totalitarian Vicious Police State.
They didn't got Communism but they surely got a beastly State that committed all sorts of atrocities.
Chomsky:
I kind of like Chomsky's insights on politics, but his theory about the State is laughable. He said on many occasions that yeah well you can't really do much about the State, so let's just use the State to bring democracy and get rid of Capitalism and things like that. I'm not sure where he is going with that line of reasoning. But it seems to me that every single progressive is like in love with the State. The State should do this, the State should do that.
But to translate it it would be like: "I want violence to happen here , I want violence to happen there". That's all it is.
So instead of asking people nicely, or reasoning with them, let's just commit violence against them, because that is really the pinnacle of civilization.
The State is truly a beast, and these stupid people who just want to grow the power of it, are playing with fire. They might end up with a Soviet style Police State, because that is exactly what the Bolsheviks have ended up with.
The US already looks like a Police State and it's dominated by Progressives. How is that possible? Is it a coincidence?
So I am telling you there are only 2 options:
- Voluntary peaceful interactions between humans
- Violence, initiation of violence, coercion & threats
This is the litmus test of the civilized society, you either have Voluntarysm and Peace, or you have the State and Violence.
THE STATE WILL NOT WITHER AWAY IF YOU KEEP FEEDING THE BEAST, WAKE UP MARXISTS, DON'T BE STUPID, JOIN CAPITALISM!
Sources:
- https://pixabay.com
- Thus Spoke Zarathustra by F. Nietzsche, based on the Thomas Common Translation, extensively modified by Bill Chapko
