Saturday, 2 May 2009

Quoting Marx

Some time ago and on my old blog I posted a "quote" supposedly from Marx. Needless to say I soon had a very superior commenter pointing out that the quote is in fact not from Das Kapital at all. He helpfully supplied several links (One of which no longer works) to support his rather aggressively put case. Fine, I don't mind being corrected on matters of fact, but I have now spent some time going over my references from a Public Administration degree course and find that there are a number of things in similar vein that Marx did say, though not quite as clearly as the "quotation" I posted.

There is a very good exposition on this and the possible origins of the "quotation" on The John Birch Society blog. I suggest it is worth a read, particularly as it makes some interesting points in regard to the present banking crisis and the origins of the drive to get banks to take on the so-called "toxic debts".

Capitalism isn't a perfect system, it never was and it probably never will be, but from what I have observed in former communist states I have visited and from what I can see happening around me in Socialist Britain, I can say that I prefer it to the centrally planned, centrally controlled and centrally allocated system that pertains in the so-called "workers paradise" of a communist or socialist state. One has only to look at the destruction of the Aral Sea by the Communist Planners who diverted the rivers feeding it to create an irrigation scheme to create agricultural land - land now poisoned by the salts irrigation has leeched from the soil - to see one of the evils this system brings. Desk wallahs sat in a remote Capital and dancing to the tune of the ignoramuses that make up the political profession these days are not and never will be the best people to decide how best to conserve, use or improve the natural order. As for their ability to produce a "fair" or "just" society, forget it.

Marx and his fellow "socialist" thinkers missed an important point as my lecturers were at pains to point out. Put simply, they worked from the premise that society was a "fixed" structure, that the "worker" would always be a "worker" and that "wealth" could not, in ordinary circumstances, trickle down to them without some direct intervention. Hence the socialist taste for "Tax and Spend", except that anyone with half a brain can tell you that some 60% of any "budget" to operate anything, is absorbed in wages, salaries and perks. And this is as true of any bureaucracy created by socialist ideologues as it is of anything else and, as the bureaucracy grows, it absorbs more and more of the "wealth" it is supposed to "redistribute". Marx failed to notice that the hardest workers soon reaped the reward and managed to rise above their fellows.

My principle objection to any and all forms of socialism is that, as a system, it promotes the mediocre, rewards the lazy and robs the hardworking of their just reward in order to pay for it. In addition, "Socialism" in all its guises, has been the root of every major conflict of the 20th Century and will undoubtedly be the cause of the collapse of Western Society in the end. As the post I referred to earlier points out, President Obama rode to power on the back of an organisation which campaigned for and got an Act which imposed on banks the requirement to lend money to sections of the American society who would not or were unlikely to be able, to pay them back. Now that it has caused a major crisis he and his supporters want to blame the banks for doing what the politicians demanded they do. That is typical of socialist politicians - the UK Labour Party is a prime example of it.

Socialism is, at the most basic level, about teaching people to regard anyone better off or harder working and better rewarded, with envy. It is about teaching us to covet one another's wealth, prosperity and well-being in order that those who orchestrate it can ensconce themselves in power and syphon off as much of our wealth as they can get away with for themselves while pretending to redistribute it more "fairly".

I have said it before and I'll repeat it here again: You cannot be Socialist and Christian. The very principle of regarding someone else's wealth or possessions as "unfair" breaks the 10th Commandment and its practice involves breaking the 9th. Perhaps that is why most Socialists in Britain and elsewhere are so vehemently anti-Christian.

1 comment:

  1. Nice blog,

    Display a static image at any of the four corners of your blog, never going out of sight, visit = >>Blogger Dynamic™<<