Monday, November 28, 2016

Simplifying Marxism

Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, and Aurini

To my great pleasure, my friend and colleague Davis Aurini started up his YouTube channel again.  I enjoy his videos very much because I lack any formal education or training in philosophy and his channel does an amazing job of separating the wheat from the chaff for people like me who have an interest in philosophy, but aren't stupid enough to waste 8 years studying it in college.

So when his video "Lenin and Trotsky: Early Marxist Philosophers - An in Depth Analysis" was posted, I was excited because while I am thoroughly familiar with the economic side of Marxism, I knew little of its philosophical underpinnings.  So off I went, downloaded the video, converted it to an MP3, put it on my phone and started listening to it over the course of my day.

It was a 41 minute waste of time.

Not because Mr. Aurini did a poor job or somehow failed to make any kind of interesting philosophical insights (it's actually impossible for him not to).  But because he made a mistake that ensured he wasted his time making the video, I wasted my time listening to it, and anybody else who studied communism wasted their time too. And that mistake was he stayed within these long-dead communists' frame, and in doing so lent credence, credibility, and legitimacy to faulty premises and arguments.

Faulty Premises Waste Our Time

Not that I am against "communist premises and arguments."  I certainly am in a real world, but the point I am trying to make here is one of argument and debate tactics.  One of trying to advance one's philosophical understanding on anything (communism included) in the most efficient way possible.  And if we operate from flawed, faulty or (what I contend is the case of the original communist philosophers) intellectually-dishonest premises, all - AND I MEAN ALL - time, effort, energy, and resources spent discussing it, debating it, and philosophizing about it, are wasted.

And communist philosophy is the epitome of what I'm talking about here.

For example, take two premises about communism and what it is.

1.  Communist philosophers' views on communism

vs.

2.  My own.

The communist philosophers' opinions and views on communism are lengthy, long, varied, diverse, and arguably limitless.  They are complex, ever-evolving, and encompass completely new concepts, theories, and vocabulary that didn't exist a short 200 years ago.  Karl Marx's "Das Kapital" alone is 610 pages.  The "essential" works of Lenin only comes in at 410 pages.  Trotsky's "History of the Russian Revolution" is 1,040 pages.  And that's just arguably the first three founding members of communism!  You throw in the literally millions of pages that have been written by other communists, leftist-journalists, propagandists, and (perhaps the most prolific writers of them all) academians, and there are hundreds-of-thousands of life-time works dedicated towards communism, what it is, its theories, and its philosophies.

Now replace all of that with my own personal take on communism:

"It's an excuse for lazy fucks to steal your shit so they don't have to work"

and ask which premise is more accurate, more grounded in truth, and is therefore going to result in more progress being made about this political philosophy.

Simplifying Marxism

To be honest, I don't have the time, and neither do you, to sit and listen to the fanciful blatherings of socialists in academia or the meandering, blathering, screeds of long-dead and empirically disproven "philosophers."  And especially so in light of communism's abysmal historical economic and human rights track record.  But more importantly, we need to step back, clear our eyes, and ensure we don't fall for the very first trap communists always lay.  And that trap is that somehow their philosophy of "communism" is a philosophy at all.  That it has merit.  That the debate of communism is some kind of "higher-intelligence" debate that is the preserve of PhD's, academics, and "social scientists" AND can only be argued within the confines of "communist philosophy."  We need to never accept this premise in the first place, rejecting their flawed frame, therefore avoiding the faux-philosophical pablum and hokum that ensnared Aurini, and did nothing to genuinely advance or resolve the debate about communism.

So permit me to offer a much more succinct, concise, and empirical explanation of communism that will save us all a lot of time, a lot of headache, tons of brain cells, not to mention, explain what communism truly is and advance society more than Marx ever did.

Communism is a method by which lazy people concoct reasons and rationales to steal other people's money legally.

That's all it is.

There's nothing more to it than that.

They're lazy people, deathly afraid of work, labor, and toil, and instead of suffering the pain of work that all of us do, they'd rather spend lifetimes concocting reasons why the rest of society should be enslaved to provide them a free living.  And that's precisely what they do.

Academians constantly begging for more money in fake disciplines such as "sociology," "women's studies," and "lesbian-Portuguese-Anthropological-Studies" all so they can avoid the real world. 

Millennial college students forever perpetually putting off adulthood, DEMANDING their student loans be forgiven so they can avoid the working world as long as possible.

Politicians who find real work beneath them, opt to instead divide us against one another, blaming those who work harder have more wealth for the idiotic mistakes misfortunes of others.

Non-profits and their army of "employees" always championing some cause or another, yet never solving it.

And all of them, ALL OF THEM, blaming people with more money as the cause of the world's problems, yet ironically demanding rich people's evil money as the solution.

One could even argue that the true job of a communist, socialist or leftist is to CONSTANTLY come up with new reasons and rationales as to why they're disadvantaged, oppressed, discriminated against, etc., and therefore deserving of other people's life and labor.  It makes me wonder if they had just put forth the same effort they did into parasiting off of others towards productive endeavors in the real world, whether or not they'd all be millionaires.  Regardless, if you look at people who advocate socialism you will see them wasting nearly every minute of their fininte lives begging, scamming, and demanding other people's

Of course, none of this makes sense unless I provide some evidence.  And the empirical proof I'd like to tender are the founders, supporters, and advocates of communism themselves.  For if you look at them the vast majority of them are precisely what my theory would predict they'd be: rich, spoiled brats, that hail from the upper classes of society, who were so lazy and so fearful of real work, they spent the lions share of their lives advocating the theft of others.  And it is AMAZING how accurate and applicable this description is to all communists over the ages.

Karl Marx himself hailed from a well-to-do family where his father was a lawyer and vineyard owner, allowing Karl to attend private schools and join a drinking club.  Avoiding work with all of his might, Karl fancied himself a great philosopher which led to his genuinely unintelligible writings, but also a perpetual parasitic reliance on others to support him.  Most notably, Friedrich Engels...who was also a spoiled brat pampered son of a rich man.  The irony that communism couldn't exist without first parasiting off of capitalism should make one think.

Vladimir Lenin, perhaps the original executor and implementer of socialism, also was not missing any meals in his childhood.  His father, Ilya, was a rather well to do director in the school system in Russia.  Despite the passing of his father early in life, there was enough money to send Lenin to university where he...like today's millennials...majored in protesting and not any kind of serious study.

Mao Zedong, the son of an incredibly rich father, was just another spoiled brat in a different country...who ended up starving out 50 million of his own countrymen.  And a little to his south, a few years later would come Pol Pot, the son of a relatively well to do farmer, who would go on to study in France (which most of us never had the money to do)...and kill only 2 million of his own countrymen.  Both early adapters, advocates, and implementers of socialism.

I could go on with historical communist figures, and you'd find a shocking majority of them were just spoiled rich kids who wanted to tell the world what to do, but you will see a similar, almost identical profile of people who advocate socialism, communism, and leftism today.

Today's professorial class, ESPECIALLY in the liberal arts are by FAR the weakest minded, most fraudulent parasites in today's western world.  Not only are they too lazy to work real jobs, they're complete hypocrites living off of their presumed beloved "young."  Having no real skills to offer society, they instead sell their fake "trade" to naive college students for $200 a credit and $150 per textbook.  In exchange these naive students receive a worthless piece of paper, sopping wet with rank leftist propaganda, so they're too brainwashed to realize how much they just got screwed over by their professors.  Of course, to keep this racket up, this communist class of professors need a perpetual inflow of government money, and therefore it should notbe surprising they are the most fervent advocates of communism.

Today's students are simply the proto-professorial class.  Most of them hailing from the SWPL white suburbs, or flooded with tons of scholarship money because of their minority status or vagina, they too are spoiled children who like Marx, Mao, and Lenin find real work beneath them.  Thus when given the choice between majoring in engineering or political science, they'll chose political science because (once again) they're lazy and are deathly afraid of real work.  Of course, just like Marx, Mao, and Lenin, this won't stop them from telling the rest of the world how to live...perhaps become parasitic professors themselves...but such intellectual hypocrisy won't bother them as they vote for Bernie Sanders to take your money so they can live the parasitic life of a professional student.

Journalists anyone?  Speaking of lazy and worthless degrees, could there be a better major that more clearly declares to the world "I'm lazy, don't want to work hard, but want to have a job that strokes my ego!"?  Their desperate desire for an easy and lazy life shines through with the horrendous political bias "journalists" have.  And that political bias is, you guessed it, to the left.

And politicians.  Unless specifically anti-communist, nearly every democrat/labor/leftist/socialist/left-leaning political party in the world is staffed by worthless, lazy people, typically from rich backgrounds, who have the gall to not only demand other people work hard to pay for their salaries, but demand to be put in charge of the world's governments, and thus rule the world.  If there is proof that there's a second "incentive" or motive for communists and socialists beyond laziness/weakness/fear, it is ego.  You see it in professors, protestors, college students, media, non-profit directors, and others.  But nowhere is ego as prominent as it is in our politicians.

So my question to you is, why would you bother wasting your time arguing the differences between "Trotskyite communism" vs. "Leninism" vs. "Marxism" when the entire political philosophy is explained in one word - parasitism?  Why would you waste your time arguing at their pig-in-mud level when you can simply dismiss them all as lazy pigs?  Communists, whatever their incarnation, be they historical figures, your university professors, your local democratic politician, etc., are lazy, worthless, parasitic human beings who cowardly hide behind lofty and fabricated academic theories, solely created to steal your wealth, all while boosting their egos as they fool themselves into thinking they're somehow smart, educated, or superior.  And if it isn't lofty, fabricated academic theories, it's rank and cowardly lies such as "privilege," "racism," "the glass ceiling," etc.

My life, as well as yours, is too damn short to tolerate these lazy, egotistical, and above all else, evil people.  And I am not going to validate them by giving their arguments credit or trying to debate them using their premises.  I'm going to simply call them what they are and dismiss them as such, because that's all they deserve.

They're a bunch of spoiled brat, lazy, weak, parasites.
___________________________________
Check out Aaron's other sites, social media, and EVIL CAPITALIST ventures!
Podcast
Asshole Consulting
YouTube Channel
Twitter
Books by Aaron  
Amazon Affiliate

18 comments:

Ed Hamilton said...


Sorry.
You lost me at "Lenin and Trotsky: Early Marxist Philosophers - An in Depth Analysis".
They do not require analysis.
They have already proven their "value" by their results and subsequent failures.

If you lay your hand on a hot stove and burn the snot out of yourself, is it really necessary to analyze the act of putting your hand on the stove in the first place?

Analysis is for discovering unknown or unexplained data.
I think we can safely say that we already know everything there is to "know" about Marxism.

Anonymous said...

Wow, you're angry. That's good, as this is your best piece ever.

Cecil Henry said...




Equality is Envy: A man abler than his brothers insults them by implication. He must not aspire to any virtue which cannot be shared'


The Political Correctness Game (SJW Game) - Jordan B. Peterson
http://i.imgur.com/RraXG7L.png
Pass it on.

anonymousX said...

This piece is 1st class Cappy. Kudos.

Capitalism is the only honest, moral, ethical & humane political & economic system known to mankind. All others are bullshit philosophies that are based & grounded on the belief mechanism of “something for nothing.” And Cappy is right on when he suggests that its a colossal waste of time & energy trying analyze & understand these garbage ideologies by breaking them down into their core components.

Now, the world has always been polluted by lowlife scum who espouse lies that the alternatives to capitalism are morally superior. Those parasites will always be with us and we need to understand that fact. We must always be on guard against them. What I don’t get is, why the people who actually labor and work in the real world haven’t fully awaken to this predicament and realize that they, in fact, have been enslaved by these people for centuries. It’s absolutely mind boggling.

But with the election of the Donald, it appears that some have woken up. Maybe there’s hope for us yet.





Anonymous said...

I recall a story from a book I read decades ago (but unfortunately do not recall the title) about a US labor leader visiting the Soviet Union, and one of the tour guides saying to a reporter that the visitor was a real champion the working class, and the reporter replied "Yeah, that's how he avoids being part of it."

Anonymous said...

Leftism is the high/low alliance of absolute losers who hate competition, and absolute winners who almost make it to the top of the most elite careers only to find out those at the top are cheating losers. Conservatism is the alliance of the utterly average and thus never accomplishes anything. Success in politics is all about finding one's position and leverage within the left.

Marxism ranges from collectivist loser coalitions like Maoists to disgruntled talent like Stalinists who would rather live in poverty under a crude brutal dictator than be forced to work for a lesser man who weaseled and slithered his way to the top.

Stable leftism works by rejecting the specialized manifestations of Marxism and trying to unite the different factions within the anti-competitive philosophy. Conservatives always trend towards becoming lukewarm cucks who settle for being second place in life, always above average but never sleazy enough to make it into the big leagues that actually matter.

Conservatives are the worst enemies of reactionaries.

Anonymous said...

Aurini jumped the shark

Anonymous said...

Captain, my Captain- well said indeed. And since this came only a few days after Fidel's departure, this was a good lecture to hear since all the world leaders and "folks who should know better" were tripping over each other to praise him for his "tireless humanitarian work and state-building".

But what can you say about the miracle and success of Cuba under Castro? Not even in the Land of Detroit, are the roads crowded with classic Chevy vehicles.

Enjoy the decline!

Chuckie Chuckster said...

Damn Cappy. Good stuff.

flighter said...

My motto is: "Fat fucks get no bucks."

Anonymous said...

The Walking Dead is going through just that premise, the Saviors who live at the Sanctuary, practice Socialism (Communism). They just take people's shit. They do practice "It's an excuse for lazy fucks to steal your shit so they don't have to work".

Watch the Saviors get fucked over.

Un Americano said...

National Socialists are just as ignorant. Socialism for them is nice and natural while socialism for not-them is an eeeviiil no-no.

Faithless Cynic said...

Excellent post Cappy! You forgot another aspect of Communism/ Marxism/ whatever the Fuckism and that is control. Why do you think all fucking control freaks HATE guns in private hands? Guns keep the control freaks from declaring themselves king and just taking over. Our forefathers were truly wise, unlike this sorry lot of bought and pad for assholes nowadays.

Jay Nix said...

Cappy,

On this subject I go back to that list of majors versus thing people want you did so time ago. Ultimately socialists think that capitalism's market valuations are incorrect. Only the benighted betters of society can accurately determine the real worth of the BA in Puppetry or the NGO Middle Manager.

Kim Øyhus said...

A beautiful application of Ockhams Razor, that article.

Ockhams Razor is half of the foundation of Science. Testing is the other half. But of course the professors never lay it out this simple.

Or to quote one of my own variations of this razor:
"Simpler explanations are better because they have less place to hide errors and lies."

Webley Silvernail said...

"Karl fancied himself a great philosopher which led to his genuinely intelligible writings, but also a perpetual parasitic reliance on others to support him."

Er, Cappy, don't you mean unintelligible?

KL said...

"communism: an excuse for lazy fucks to steal your shit so they don't have to work"

That's not why it fails. It also failed with dedicated hard-working Israeli kubbutzniks. Central planning fails because the leaders have neither knowledge nor expertise to run everything. Capitalism uses prices to communicate information for optimal decentralized decision-making. A good leader like Trump knows enough to delegate and empower people instead of micromanaging like Hillary.

JK Brown said...

Contemplating the murderer Castro this week, I realized that for all the socialism/communism talk, Castro had in reality created a feudal state. Sure "the People" owned everything, but as you said in an earlier post, the real thing to look at is not who has "title" to the property, but rather who controls what can be done with it.


Castro made his fortune the old fashioned way. Well, the feudal way, by taking land, enslaving the people, extracting taxes (food rent) to the point of starvation, maintained loyalty by gift-giving, and keeping a merry group of psychopaths as his house war-band. And the feasts, let's not forget the feasts, where the great leader lets the retainers, even the peasants, eat some of the food rent he has accumulated...from them in a grand celebration that regardless of the "holiday" tends to revolve around fealty to him.

It's just humans resist feudal lordship these days so they have to re-package it as being socialism and everyone has their place (based on their usefulness to the "Presidente" and rewarded by him for their loyalty). If the lord of the manor called his peasants comrade back in the 12th century, then maybe they would have felt better about being subject to his whim.