Thread by @Doc_0

Some follow-up to yesterday's thread on Marxism:

It's sad how many people have been programmed to think Marxism and socialism just mean "generous welfare benefits," so anyone who criticizes those ideologies is just a meanie who wants poor people to starve.

That's not thinking, it's regurgitating Marxist cant. Of COURSE totalitarian collectivists want to be given sole credit for "caring about the poor" - or more importantly, to make people think that only be submitting to their toxic ideologies can the unfortunate be cared for.

The idea does not survive a moment of reflection, or a single look at the life in the real world. The unfortunate benefit far more - orders of magnitude more - from the prosperity and technological innovation of capitalism than from the allegedly tender ministrations of Marxists.

The actual life of the poor under Marxist regimes tends to be horrifying. Poverty and violence are everywhere. That's because the core principles of Marxism breed desperation, shortages, and endless factional strife by replacing free commerce with raw political power.

Marxism's assault on profit as evil exploitation is actually an assault on individual free will. Why would anyone work hard, take risks, or make sacrifices to invest in the future?

Two reasons:

1. Voluntary pursuit of profit

2. Because you're FORCED to

The entire brutal structure of Marxism is built on the idea that since profit is exploitation, compulsive political force should be employed by brilliant central planners to allocate capital. The smart scientists decide what's best for everyone, and then YOU do as you're told.

If profit is evil and individuals should not own capital - including the precious capital of themselves, their own labor - then ambition is evil and there are no incentives to work or excel. Persuading people to work or invest by offering them incentives is corruption.

Using force to allocate capital is, in truth, vastly less efficient than the profit motive and individual ambition, even if the central planners are as smart as they think they are - and they're not, because they can never approach the distributed intelligence of individuals.

Marxists think the problem lies with the people, not themselves, so they are perpetually trying to engineer a New Soviet Man who will be more purely socialist in character, less individualistic, more programmable and receptive to collective endeavors, more "progressive."

That's one of the viral characteristics of Marxism that makes it so enduring. It appeals powerfully to elitists and totalitarians because it gives them a toolkit to justify coercion and centralization. Marxism only fails because it wasn't given enough money and power.

Welfare is not synonymous with Marxism or socialism. It is possible for free market democracies to have very generous welfare. America has managed it for decent stretches of time. If welfare programs are not carefully tended, they have a tendency to become socialist in character.

What's the difference? The concept of entitlement. Welfare programs are supposed to be temporary. They get SMALLER when they succeed, because the beneficiaries don't need them for life. They contribute to upward social mobility. Providers and recipients see them as charitable.

Socialists want EVERYONE on welfare, forever. The concept of "socializing costs" means everyone participates. Everyone needs the government's help. Only the Evil Rich can handle the necessities of life on their own. Costs are spread around until everything necessary is "free."

Marxists believe class is fixed, the higher classes exploit the lower classes, and upward mobility through the voluntary pursuit of ambition is an illusion created by capitalist exploiters to instill "false consciousness" in victimized workers while their capital is stolen.

When non-Marxists think of welfare, they envision the helping hand, "a safety net not a hammock," food and shelter for the truly destitute, welfare leading back to work. Marxists think all that is unspeakable cruelty and selfishness because it assumes individual responsibility.

Another Marxist dodge is to hide their ideology behind communism or fascism, taunting critics of Marxism as if they were Red-baiters looking for Commies under every bed. One important reason for understanding Marxism is to defeat this lazy tactic.

All forms of collectivism are dangerous to individual freedom and national prosperity, but they're all different. Marxism and Communism are related, but not the same thing. Likewise with Marxism and fascism. They all oppose capitalism and individual freedom in different ways.

Chinese Marxists get thrown in jail for pointing out that Chinese Communism is more akin to fascism than Marxism these days. There are places in the world where the precise differences between Marxist, fascist, and communist theory can get you killed.

But like any good virus, Marxism is adept at camouflaging itself, hiding its toxins inside other ideas and corrupting them. It pretends to be about "worker's rights" while it seeks to strip them of the most fundamental right of all: the right to sell their labor as THEY please.

Marxism pretends to be about "welfare" as it relentlessly works to make the actual lives of real people worse, for the benefit of political elites. It claims to be about "justice," but Marxist societies become horror shows with politicized courts and heavy-handed regimes.

Marxism hides from its critics by pretending they're obsessed with communism, or they're just evil capitalist exploiters who sadistically enjoy watching the lower classes starve. Its carriers and victims are programmed to think there are no good faith arguments against it.

Never take your eyes off the core assertion of Marxism, the leaky radioactive core at the heart of its poisonous ideological reactor: profit is exploitation. It's not hard to sell to people who feel alienated, frustrated, oppressed, or undervalued by their society.

But in truth, the argument that profit is exploitation is an argument against freedom and individuality. Why else would anyone do something difficult, unpleasant, or risky, but to invest the capital of their labor to pursue profit?

Marxists know damn well why else. /end