STOMPING ON MARXIST BUNNIES —“The chief benefactor of consumer capitalism has

STOMPING ON MARXIST BUNNIES

—“The chief benefactor of consumer capitalism has been… consumers, of course. (Something Marx didn’t foresee.)”— Curt

—“False on two levels. First the benefit has been to both groups, largely for the bourgeois and Marx never said there would be no benefit for workers. Please learn something about Marxist theory.”— Well meaning fool.

RESPONSE

I know quite a bit about marxist theory, I just know even more about economics.

First: Empirically measure the two statements. Demonstrate the change in the relative consumption of lower and upper classes. At present all upper class consumption is relegated entirely to signaling and retirement savings. That’s the data. Period. Otherwise consumption is nearly linear all the way down into the lowest quintile.

Ergo, the chief benefactor has been a disproportionate increase in relative consumption of workers and a decrease in relative consumption of the upper classes. The reward has been vastly disproportionally weighted to consumers, while natural aristocracy (the upper classes) have been relatively impoverished. And my statement (like most of my statements) stands. Period.

Second: To say “marx never said something” is a deceptive argumentation technique from hermeneutic scripturalism. Regardless of what one says or argues, one’s theories must correspond to demonstrated behavior in objective reality.

Third: you engage in another marxist form of deceptive argumentation by casting labor (unskilled lower classes without market utility, and therefore without utility to other human beings) and consumers as the same. So your attempted deception (spin) is just that: marxist deception.

Marxist premise is that exploitation occurs in voluntary exchange, whereas the aristocratic premises is that unskilled classes with nothing to trade are a dead weight on productive society. That there is some ‘common good’ that is an excuse for theft and predation, rather than voluntary cooperation. yet they threaten revolution (violence against life and property) if their demands are not met. Which is no different from the upper and middle classes using violence to defend their property that was obtained in voluntary exchange.

But the fact of the matter is, that cooperation is only rational in the absence of parasitism. So if you have nothing to trade, no reason to cooperate, and you seek to use parasitism by verbal justification, political deception or physical insurrection, then you are merely an enemy that must either be tolerated, ostracized, or enslaved, or exterminated if necessary.

This is the Nietzchean interpretation of morality.

(The argumentative technique I am using is quite different from that of Christian apologetics. It’s purely moral: cooperation is only rational under voluntary exchange. And so I do not truck with altruistic punishment. I revel in it Nietzschean ridicule of it.)