By: Mike of the Ornery Young Gunz

This month workers of the world (as well smug metropolitan elitists and the idle rich) come together and celebrate the failed ideology of one of the world’s most infantile philosophers, Karl Marx. Believers in the free market take for granted that Marxism in all its many flavors (Progressivism, Liberalism, Socialism, Trotskyism, Nazism, Fascism, Leninism, etc) inevitably implodes, yet for some reason the Left cannot wrap their heads around why Marxism is doomed to fail from the very get-go.

Contrary to common belief, what separates Marxism is NOT the belief in or desire for an egalitarian society. Classical Liberalism -from which modern Conservatism and Libertarianism are descended- also values and promotes egalitarianism, via voluntary exchange and enlightened self-interest. What is unique to Marxism is the belief that such a utopian society cannot occur without the violent and bloody overthrow of the “master classes” -the bourgeoise- by the “slave classes” -the proletariat. Voluntarism -according to Marx- can never create a truly classless society because of the superstructure that free markets rely on that creates and perpetuates inequalities. Until this superstructure is dismantled, (and if in dismantling it millions die, oh well!), the workers will always be “oppressed” by the capitalist.

There is a trick here that many do not see, an ideological slight-of-hand that slips one lie after another past the marks of Marxism. Marxism holds that without the violent redistribution of wealth and power, the world can never be truly egalitarian. In other words, a small group of people -the bourgeoise- must be sacrificed for the greater benefit of a much larger group -the proletariat, because the former disproportionately benefits compare to the latter. This belief is loyal to the central tenant of all collectivist thought: that the group is more important than the individual, “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one.”

Ironically, while this appears altruistic on the surface, it is, in fact, completely self-serving. Sure, the people who most loudly advocate for some form of collectivism might say in public that they would gladly sacrifice their own wants and needs -even to laying down their very lives- for the good of the community, but the whole mentality of collectivism is one of survival via “strength in numbers”. It’s selfish humans being their usually selfish selves (try saying that three times fast!) while engaging in herd mentality and behaviors. “I want to survive, and the best way to do that is to gather in a group.”

The problem here is: the herd always requires the weak link -the sick, the elderly, the young, the infirm, the unlucky, the undesirable- to distract and sate the vicious predator. That’s how herds survive: by leaving the least fit to be devoured while the most fit escape danger. Herein lies the danger of collectivism: it automatically sets itself up to separate people into two groups: those who will be sacrificed, and those will not. Those fit to be ruled, and those fit to rule.

Isn’t it interesting that the people demanding this distinction in politics are almost never the ones jumping up to volunteer to be grouped in the “sacrificial lambs” category? How do you convince naturally self-interested people to sign up to be the scapegoat for all of society’s ills? The reality is you can’t. Just ask those pesky Jews how much they enjoy being blamed for everything wrong in society from “owning all the world’s money” to crappy weather? It turns out most people just don’t like being told they have to give up their lives or livelihoods for the greater good, nor do they accept the notion that they should work harder for less so that others can works less for more. Then there is the never-ending question: who gets to be the victims everyone else takes advantage of? Collectivism takes civilization and turns it on its head by contorting it into one big episode of “Survivor” with everyone clamoring to not get voted off the island.

Which brings us to every Communist and Socialist regime to ever exist: When you can’t convince people to volunteer to be the proverbial sacrificial virgin, your only option then is to throw them in the volcano yourself. Marx understood this, which is why he stated that his utopia could only occur after a bloody revolution. But revolutions require soldiers -people willing to fight- and soldiers require leaders in order to fight effectively. Every Collectivist regime that’s lasted more than a few years has always had bloody tyrants who were given power to exterminate the “enemies of progress.” (Bloodless collectivism never seems to last more than one or two generations; the workers soon realize who the moochers are and stop giving their labor away.) The Jews, the rich, the Christians, the “capitalists”, etc. whoever dares stand up against the mob and for the individual. Of course, these groups are typically portrayed as “evil,” or “selfish.” “They” have all the money, “they” have all the power, and because “they” won’t share either “we” have to take it from them by force. And so the collectivists take and take, till there is nothing left to steal and no one left to rob.

But when you eliminate the rich and powerful, you are only left with the poor and the weak -the people who couldn’t elevate their station thru effort and skill use force and get rid of the people who did, the result being that there is no one left able to provide the utopia they were promised. And what of the people put in power to get rid of the “enemies of progress”? Why would they step down now that anyone and everyone who could possibly oppose them is gone or neutered? Power once given, is never easily relinquished. Of course, there are exceptions to this rule, and their existence is probably why American Socialists, aka “Progressives” or “Liberals,” believe that socialism in America will be different. But if you notice, the exceptions to this rule, if they exist, are never Marxists.

Why? Because the people most likely to give up power rather than seize more of it for themselves -good people, virtuous people- are the least likely to slander and vilify their neighbor to justify grabbing power in the first place. After all, not destroying people who have done you no harm (and no, not giving you the bread from their mouths and the fruits of their labor does not constitute doing you harm) should be a lot easier than giving up power. If you can’t do the former than why should anyone expect you to do the latter?

That’s why whenever Marxism has turned up, the results look like Stalin’s Russia, Mao’s China, Hitler’s Germany, Mussolini’s Italy, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, the Kims’ North Korea, Castro’s Cuba, or most recently Chavez’s Venezuela. The weak give power to the strong, but only because the strong promise them safety and comfort. But the strong man willing to loot, plunder, and/or kill his neighbor simply because his neighbor owns more “stuff”, or because his neighbor opposes him, is the same sort of strong man who will refuse to give up the power he was given when the weak demand he step down. And when the weak inevitably demand they strong step down, either because they believe their utopian goals are achieved or when they learn the harsh truth of collectivism, that is when they learn the harsh lesson of collectivism: “all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” But by that point, it is too late. Power entrenched is not power easily removed.

Only the most arrogant of fools think that American socialists are somehow so much more virtuous than their non-American counterparts. Collectivism has always failed, and it always WILL fail, whether you try it here, there, or on a deserted island paradise with all your collectivist friends. It never works, not even in America. Of course, that might be why none of those calling for American socialism are ever willing to move to Venezuela or North Korea.

The sooner the Left can understand and accept that, the better off the world will be.