Theme: Class

MARX, MARXISM, THE WESTERN SOLUTION, AND HIS LIFE OF FRAUD, IN HISTORICAL CONTEXT

—“Folks criticize what they don’t understand. Marxism advocates nothing like uniform income. The central dogma of Marxist economic philosophy is “From each according to his ability, and to each according to his need”. How can this translate into an advocacy for uniform income? The redistribution programs and other such interventions are geared towards redressing the prior social injustices that led to the undue accumulation of the means of production and opportunities by a few; to create access and opportunity for those with the ability to become productive members of society, but by the very accident of their births lack such opportunities. This should not be contorted into the school of thought which indiscriminately redistributes wealth without recourse to ability nor need, typical of the welfare state. Thus it’s quite instructive to distinguish the welfare state from the socialist state. …. Mind you, egalitarianism calls for equal rights and equal opportunities; this does not in any way guarantee equality of outcomes. Thus the presupposition that Socialists’ advocacy of equality of rights and opportunity means a certain determination of equality of incomes and any other such social outcomes is a flawed deduction. …. Lastly, it’s Marxism that introduced the concept of labour as capital in the production process in the first place; insisting that without labour, Finance Capital and Production Capital cannot automatically create value. So at what point does Marxism deny the value of humans in the production process?”—Jason Tutu

Yes, except every premise he relied upon, and you reiterated is false, and those that aren’t false, are dysgenic. Families produce individual members of families. The distribution of proceeds of production by family despite the individual rights of the individual to property. That’s why families exist as the central unit of production in all civilizations that survive – and their work product is another generation of humans. The only ‘according to need’ that is ‘measurable’ is equality with subsidy for the dysgenic, diseased, or results of accident. Nothing else is need. The only ‘according to ability’ that’s measureable without markets is coercion, favoritism, corruption. The only ‘advantage’ to be gained under such a scheme is competition for the most dysfunctional so that one can do the least and consume the must – and that’s what we see in every instance. Labor isn’t capital. That’s the thing. Its just cheaper than automating until the present era. all the value that is created is created by the ORGANIZATION of production. Everyone else is just a fungible domesticated animal. And that is what we see in labor markets around the world. Labor is cheaper than slaves, because they can be positively motivated, and seek self interest. (In fact, investing hgh trust hgh value capital into low trust low value labor is merely a way of putting dead weight semi-domesticated animals to use such that they are less a burden on the productive.) All marxism did was return man to the condition under which he makes the least possible contribution in order to survive, and seeks rents, black markets, and corruption, by every possible venue. Marx tried to restore slave economy. All creativity (Positive incentive) evolves in the invention of black markets (every market other than the productive market, and every market other than the one suppressed by the authoritarian communist state). No one teaches marxism in economics, as other than yet another fantasy-moral-literature, except in pseudoscientific rather than supernatural, or moralizing prose. The most damning evidence of all, and why the marxist program of undermining western civilization’s tripartic division of responsibilities between the classes, by the generation of class conflict ended in the 60s and was replaced immediately by the Postmodern and Feminism as a means of undermining western civilization through gender and identity conflict, was that consumer capitalism and fiat credit, and fiat currency, made possible the expansion of employment and the vast at the cost of entrepreneurs and capitalists’ inability to save accumulated earnings except by flight into commodities (oil) or rental assets (land, buildings). The only beneficiary of the capitalist program has been the common man. And the only correct that needs to be made is the redirection of consumer credit from the financial sector (which has captured all gains from increases in employment and increased consumption) to the government, thus relegating the financial sector to the production of innovation, instead (driving them again out of savings) and back into longer and longer research cycles, with higher and higher returns . To offset this shift, the government may no longer generate inflation that would alter this investment, and instead redistribute liquidity (increase in the money supply to maintain monetary velocity in the economy) directly to consumers, to maintain the velocity and volume of investment, without requiring manipulation of the labor market. This effectively makes ordinary people shareholders in the state and eliminates all demand for, want of, immigration outside of exceptionally talented experts. And immigration must be stopped because it will destroy the balance by increasing the unproductive and dependent population to the point of causing the same systemic failure as the concentration of the results of liquidity distribution in the financial sector. I’m a lot better than marx mostly because I don’t want to lie cheat and steal, and undermine western civilization. He did. He was a parasite his entire life. And he tried desperately to justify and expand hs parasitism. Else if he was a moral and ethical and honest man he would have stopped taking money from Engels when he stopped writing, as soon as he’d read Menger and the marginalists, and in doing so understood his entire edifice was wrong, and that he had been falsified, and his work no longer of merit. Others would have known this except when Keynes used marx’s research to write the general theory he couldn’t believe anyone would see it as other than a means of recovering from the war, and a general strategy for economic development. Hayek likewise didn’t refute keynes’ reformation of marx, because he couldn’t imagine people being that stupid. Unfortunately, he didn’t, move on once he understood the problem of modernity was not economics but the rule of law, and while keynes told hayek he would correct the public and government if they got out of hand, he died early before he could do so. Marx was just another lying cheating scumbag like Boaz, Freud, Adorno, Derrida, trying to overthrow the applecat for no other reason than to rebel and get attention, so that he could have the pretense of moral cover by which to get away with parasitism – and he wanted to industrialize parasitism. And 100M people are dead because of it. An there are still idiots running around talking about marxism without realizing that there isn’t any difference between marx and tolkien other than subject matter. It’s fiction. Fantasy fiction. The difference is tolkien was moral and marx was, like saul of tarsus who he imitated, a sick evil immoral human being. I understand marx far better than anyone else I’ve ever met. But that’s because I’ve spent a great time studying the female and abrahamic means of deceit by false promise, baiting into hazard, profiting from hazard, and hiding behind pretense of moral ambition, selling by pilpul and defending by critique, to create the semitic dark ages we escaped, and to try to create the second semitic dark ages, we have been entering since Das Capital. Marx is just another crook lying by intuition, and covering his lies with extremely detailed fictionalisms. The most obvious sophism in the above post, is:

—“Marxism advocates nothing like uniform income.”—

Not directly, but he presumes (a) people are relatively equal in value, or worse, that many people are not harmful to others by their mere existence; When it is the excess of harmful people that are more influential to the current condition than the beneficial people; (c) western success was as much a product of our thousands of years of eugenics, as it was our truth telling, traditional law of sovereigns, and preference for technology and magic we controlled, over supernaturalism and the occult that controlled us. (d) labor is other than yet another fungible resource, and organization of production takes all the risk and creates all the value – automation has made this painfully obvious over the past fifty years – and it’s escalating. Marx was recommending a repeat of the semitic dark ages, this time in pseudoscience instead of supernaturalism, that would expand the underclasses we sought so hard to gracefully reduce, thereby reversing our self-evolution. He was a fantastic liar.

MARX, MARXISM, THE WESTERN SOLUTION, AND HIS LIFE OF FRAUD, IN HISTORICAL CONTEXT

—“Folks criticize what they don’t understand. Marxism advocates nothing like uniform income. The central dogma of Marxist economic philosophy is “From each according to his ability, and to each according to his need”. How can this translate into an advocacy for uniform income? The redistribution programs and other such interventions are geared towards redressing the prior social injustices that led to the undue accumulation of the means of production and opportunities by a few; to create access and opportunity for those with the ability to become productive members of society, but by the very accident of their births lack such opportunities. This should not be contorted into the school of thought which indiscriminately redistributes wealth without recourse to ability nor need, typical of the welfare state. Thus it’s quite instructive to distinguish the welfare state from the socialist state. …. Mind you, egalitarianism calls for equal rights and equal opportunities; this does not in any way guarantee equality of outcomes. Thus the presupposition that Socialists’ advocacy of equality of rights and opportunity means a certain determination of equality of incomes and any other such social outcomes is a flawed deduction. …. Lastly, it’s Marxism that introduced the concept of labour as capital in the production process in the first place; insisting that without labour, Finance Capital and Production Capital cannot automatically create value. So at what point does Marxism deny the value of humans in the production process?”—Jason Tutu

Yes, except every premise he relied upon, and you reiterated is false, and those that aren’t false, are dysgenic. Families produce individual members of families. The distribution of proceeds of production by family despite the individual rights of the individual to property. That’s why families exist as the central unit of production in all civilizations that survive – and their work product is another generation of humans. The only ‘according to need’ that is ‘measurable’ is equality with subsidy for the dysgenic, diseased, or results of accident. Nothing else is need. The only ‘according to ability’ that’s measureable without markets is coercion, favoritism, corruption. The only ‘advantage’ to be gained under such a scheme is competition for the most dysfunctional so that one can do the least and consume the must – and that’s what we see in every instance. Labor isn’t capital. That’s the thing. Its just cheaper than automating until the present era. all the value that is created is created by the ORGANIZATION of production. Everyone else is just a fungible domesticated animal. And that is what we see in labor markets around the world. Labor is cheaper than slaves, because they can be positively motivated, and seek self interest. (In fact, investing hgh trust hgh value capital into low trust low value labor is merely a way of putting dead weight semi-domesticated animals to use such that they are less a burden on the productive.) All marxism did was return man to the condition under which he makes the least possible contribution in order to survive, and seeks rents, black markets, and corruption, by every possible venue. Marx tried to restore slave economy. All creativity (Positive incentive) evolves in the invention of black markets (every market other than the productive market, and every market other than the one suppressed by the authoritarian communist state). No one teaches marxism in economics, as other than yet another fantasy-moral-literature, except in pseudoscientific rather than supernatural, or moralizing prose. The most damning evidence of all, and why the marxist program of undermining western civilization’s tripartic division of responsibilities between the classes, by the generation of class conflict ended in the 60s and was replaced immediately by the Postmodern and Feminism as a means of undermining western civilization through gender and identity conflict, was that consumer capitalism and fiat credit, and fiat currency, made possible the expansion of employment and the vast at the cost of entrepreneurs and capitalists’ inability to save accumulated earnings except by flight into commodities (oil) or rental assets (land, buildings). The only beneficiary of the capitalist program has been the common man. And the only correct that needs to be made is the redirection of consumer credit from the financial sector (which has captured all gains from increases in employment and increased consumption) to the government, thus relegating the financial sector to the production of innovation, instead (driving them again out of savings) and back into longer and longer research cycles, with higher and higher returns . To offset this shift, the government may no longer generate inflation that would alter this investment, and instead redistribute liquidity (increase in the money supply to maintain monetary velocity in the economy) directly to consumers, to maintain the velocity and volume of investment, without requiring manipulation of the labor market. This effectively makes ordinary people shareholders in the state and eliminates all demand for, want of, immigration outside of exceptionally talented experts. And immigration must be stopped because it will destroy the balance by increasing the unproductive and dependent population to the point of causing the same systemic failure as the concentration of the results of liquidity distribution in the financial sector. I’m a lot better than marx mostly because I don’t want to lie cheat and steal, and undermine western civilization. He did. He was a parasite his entire life. And he tried desperately to justify and expand hs parasitism. Else if he was a moral and ethical and honest man he would have stopped taking money from Engels when he stopped writing, as soon as he’d read Menger and the marginalists, and in doing so understood his entire edifice was wrong, and that he had been falsified, and his work no longer of merit. Others would have known this except when Keynes used marx’s research to write the general theory he couldn’t believe anyone would see it as other than a means of recovering from the war, and a general strategy for economic development. Hayek likewise didn’t refute keynes’ reformation of marx, because he couldn’t imagine people being that stupid. Unfortunately, he didn’t, move on once he understood the problem of modernity was not economics but the rule of law, and while keynes told hayek he would correct the public and government if they got out of hand, he died early before he could do so. Marx was just another lying cheating scumbag like Boaz, Freud, Adorno, Derrida, trying to overthrow the applecat for no other reason than to rebel and get attention, so that he could have the pretense of moral cover by which to get away with parasitism – and he wanted to industrialize parasitism. And 100M people are dead because of it. An there are still idiots running around talking about marxism without realizing that there isn’t any difference between marx and tolkien other than subject matter. It’s fiction. Fantasy fiction. The difference is tolkien was moral and marx was, like saul of tarsus who he imitated, a sick evil immoral human being. I understand marx far better than anyone else I’ve ever met. But that’s because I’ve spent a great time studying the female and abrahamic means of deceit by false promise, baiting into hazard, profiting from hazard, and hiding behind pretense of moral ambition, selling by pilpul and defending by critique, to create the semitic dark ages we escaped, and to try to create the second semitic dark ages, we have been entering since Das Capital. Marx is just another crook lying by intuition, and covering his lies with extremely detailed fictionalisms. The most obvious sophism in the above post, is:

—“Marxism advocates nothing like uniform income.”—

Not directly, but he presumes (a) people are relatively equal in value, or worse, that many people are not harmful to others by their mere existence; When it is the excess of harmful people that are more influential to the current condition than the beneficial people; (c) western success was as much a product of our thousands of years of eugenics, as it was our truth telling, traditional law of sovereigns, and preference for technology and magic we controlled, over supernaturalism and the occult that controlled us. (d) labor is other than yet another fungible resource, and organization of production takes all the risk and creates all the value – automation has made this painfully obvious over the past fifty years – and it’s escalating. Marx was recommending a repeat of the semitic dark ages, this time in pseudoscience instead of supernaturalism, that would expand the underclasses we sought so hard to gracefully reduce, thereby reversing our self-evolution. He was a fantastic liar.