We as human beings are extremely vulnerable creatures by nature. That means we are extremely dependent to our social environment or the society itself. With no society we are doomed to starve or freeze to death at the first winter. Most of us have no capacity living in isolation alone. This is a very dark side of being social. If someone who has power and authority, or has capacity and inclination to seize power tells you: listen pal, we as society provide for you everything you need for living your life, every possible thing that’s necessary to survive, including food, water, shelter, human connections, even hobby and passion, and so on. But if you do not provide for us back what we need as society, or you take more away that we consider fair or your needs, you are a blood sucker parasite, an enemy of the people. The whole society is completely hacked by this false morality, means there’s no more up and down, neither good nor evil. There is no more reference point. Everything is relative or more precisely up to the power only.
The entire social structure is doomed to collapse if we let this happen once. If the state owns everything in society, that does not confines to merely objects, means everyone is state owned. That is not even slavery but yet worse, because the price system does not work in state ownership, since the state can access to unlimited resources in society by privilege of ultimate power, and this regarding the slaves means nothing any good. If the slave has no price, because they are available unlimitedly and free, the slave has no value. The human life becomes worthless in absolute degree this manner. Because everyone can be replaced and sacrificed with no consequence. One life less is not a loss, not casualty for the state. If one life does not matter, no any life matters. And our lives will be worth less than any equipment that needs a human skills to be corrected. If there is not differences between the state and civil society that means one thing in mass scale. Everything you have is not really owned by you, but donated by the state. And everything is stolen from you. Since in the communism the price system does not work for reasons mentioned above, there’s no taxation in communism at the same way. Because the state can deduct tax only from private property, but no way can from state owned possessions. But implying the free labor that the state deducts from citizens, would correspond to a one hundred percent tax.
The question arises, who is eligible to set up social rules and conformity? If the individual is weak to take responsibility for his own life, requires state care at every possible aspect, no way he ain’t weak enough to give over the control of his life. No government can be legitimate this way. If our social being is hacked we are no longer social, as the hacked morality is not morality whatsoever. One hundred and four years since the utopia came to power, and the hundredth anniversary of the most devastating famine that this utopia has generated in history, which took place in Soviet-Russia at 1921. This essay was written in memory of hundreds of millions of victims of world communism, and the consequences of which still remained with us.
A common myth which requires debunk that communism in system of ideas is noble only its implementation is bad. According to this idea the bolsheviks had been working for poor and exploited people and in behalf of them, and Lenin only wanted to deliver a perfect equality to everyone. Nothing could be further from the truth. Because it’s logically not possible. Lenin, just like Hitler, had professed social Darwinist views. And social Darwinism advocates natural selection among people in order to progress of society. Thus it invalidates natural human empathy and compassion as barriers to social progress and modernization. That is, it elevates moral relativism to a scientific level for which there is no alternative. Hence the morality is classified counterproductive, but they are unwilling to admit. This is why the moral relativism had been labeled “socialist ethics”. In fact the ideology of social Darwinism makes way for exterminating the weakest, the most miserable, the poorest people to make the betters build the best society that will exist. Lenin looked the society as a carpenter on a piece of wood that required machining. And if the shavings fall, let them fall. It’s very unlikely that the carpenter feels compassion towards the falling shavings. The scrap of society falls out by artificially generated famines, but who remains deserves to live in the better world. As result there will be fewer Russians, but they will be better. But this path does not lead to the better world, but to the worst, to Kolima.
The question is, would you exterminate six billion people to make a world better place for the remaining one billion? Taking all these into account would you still think that Lenin and the bolsheviks wanted the best for the people, especially the poor ones? Lenin was a monster, an infinitely vile man, of whom it is difficult to assume at all that he would not have been a human hater. The weird irony of social Darwinism that this ideology has no real winner, because only the stronger and fitter deserves to survive, but there will be always stronger than everyone. Everyone’s right to exist will be overridden sooner or later. It’s only matter of time. In contrast, with compassion and empathy, everyone wins, everyone with the exception of psychopaths.
The logical fallacy of Marxism
The modern age is characterized by four economic trends: Keynesian, Monetarist, the mentioned Marxism, and the least popular Austrian economic school. This is also worth explaining in more detail here because the communism is not only a totalitarian ideology, but an economic theory either. And the name of this theory is Marxism.
What is the basis of this theory?
According to Marx in every voluntary transaction, at least one of the parties is exploited. So one side wins the other loses. This is a logical impossibility, because in a voluntary transaction, all parties must win, otherwise the transaction would not take place.
What does Marx say about this? It’s worth recalling.
The value of a shoe is as much as the value of the material and work put in. Let it be $ 10, for instance. If the shoe is sold for $ 15, the buyer was exploited for $ 5. At least that was Marx’s “ingenious” vision. Or either the worker has been exploited, because he didn’t receive the $ 10 “extraprofit”. This is colossal bullshit.
What is the truth?
The value of the given shoe has nothing to do with the material and work put into. The value of a shoe, like everything, is SUBJECTIVE, meaning it depends on the buyer.
- Example: If you build a house out of ten thousand dollars worth of aluminum foil and pay the workers fifty thousand, then your house will not be worth sixty thousand dollars, but nothing, because the first wind bows it apart, not to mention the lightnings.
- Example: When Picasso paints a painting where he puts three dollars worth of paint on a two-dollar canvas and he even finishes it for lunch, the picture won’t be worth five dollars plus four hours salary, but two million dollars, not for me, of course.
That is, the value of it all depends on how much money buyers are willing to pay for it. A perfect example of this is bidding, which starts from the lowest value (starting price) and the limit is the starry sky (selling price).
A transaction can only take place if the buyer values the product or service more than its price, while the seller values the price more than he gives for it. So each party values what gives more than it gets. As simple as that.
Or we can ask our Marxist friend how much a glass of water is worth to him. Sitting in the room, I think it’s worth a few cents as much as the waterworks charge for it. At a football game in the heat, they pay a few dollars for a glass of mineral water. The same glass of water can be worth millions for a thirsty in a desert, and for that who is ready to die of thirst, the value of one glass of water is invaluable. Of course the work is there to find a thirsty and bring them the water. This is what merchants do who are so despised by Marxists, as “bloodsucker parasites”. And without traders, grain rotted on the lands in the Soviet Union, while tens of millions of people starved to death, because for there was no one to organize the journey of the grain produced to the stomachs of the hungry.
This is the typical Marxism, rather everyone ought to die of hunger, than letting anyone make profit. But as I used to say, with no profit no one will do anything, the world stops working, and everyone starves to death.
It is a pity that it’s so difficult to understand for ones.
Another logical fallacy with Marxism is the work unit theory. As according to Marxism the value of everything is equal to value of material and work put into, obviously the value of material is worth as much as the value of work put in producing.
But what determines the value of work?
When the demand-supply process does not work, the wage of the worker is also undetectable at the same way. So we need to figure out a wage for a worker, something that doesn’t make them feel exploited. But that’s ridiculous.
So let’s dig deeper into this work unit theory. Everything which is not based upon production in Marxist terms, cannot be touched, consumed, in other words the service industry, is good-for-nothing. In the sense of Marxism that value is produced when we produce things that meet basic human materialistic needs (industry, agriculture, sickle and hammer). Thus if something does not match with producing basic materialistic needs, it’s called useless, or even harmful. The Marxism ignores the fact that value production is depends on spontaneous and subjective needs of individuals and their voluntary actions in transactions. As the prices cannot be determined centrally, the human needs can’t be either. They didn’t see through value can be produced with no work at all, for example from passive income, and where there is no volunteering, no value will be produced, because there will be no one to evaluate it. The individual’s action that matters in determining human needs, not the decision of economic dictator, or central organizer. Therefore, the work unit theory cannot be interpreted.
Value creation can even come from gambling, which has really nothing to do with meeting basic materialist human needs. I’m not a fan of gambling, but who I am to judge. If the people are deprived of freedom of choice they are deprived of responsibility of their actions as well. Where the individual can determine human needs (free market economy), there we can talk about value creation. Where in turn the government has an authority to determine human needs (communism), because the people don’t know what is the best for them, there’s no value that’s created.
Let me illustrate the impossibility of work unit theory with an example:
- Luxemburg: Industrial capacity 8%, Agricultural capacity 0%, GDP 58 900 USD
- Monaco: Industrial capacity 0%, Agricultural capacity 0%, GDP 27 000 USD
- Liechtenstein: Industrial capacity 0%, Agricultural capacity 0%, GDP 25 000 USD
- Bulgaria: Industrial capacity 40%, Agricultural capacity 50%, GDP 8200 USD
- Tajikistan: Industrial capacity 20%, Agricultural capacity 80%, GDP 1100 USD
As you can see the value creation and prosperity alone have nothing to do with satisfying basic human needs especially in collective terms, nor with industry or agriculture. The size theory plays more role here, but the point is freedom and volunteering. The above data is for information purposes only, not up-to-date data.
After the disintegration of the USSR and the CMO, with the cessation of economy of command a multitude of factories had to be closed down because they were unsustainable, producing value that was not needed. This is not a consequence of “wild capitalism” as so many people wrongly considered, but of systems where the government determines the needs of the people. That is, treating with contempt the service industry and trade, it nothing more than ignoring real human needs and reality, an absolutely flawed approach based on Marxist innervation. Since the human needs are endless, the human capacity is not.
So the basic principle of Marxism is this: All human action is, directly or indirectly, about acquiring as much resources as possible. It’s partly true, but not at that way the Marxists would think.
First of all which resources we’re talking about? We’re talking about material resources only? Or something else we should consider as resources, such as intelligence, trust, or virtue? So many people can create amazing things from virtually nothing. I for instance created this blog with virtually no using any resources in materialistic terms. As I pointed out this above the Marxist terminology would not consider the art, philosophy, or scholarship as value creation, although they play an enormous role in creation civilization, and motivating people. Not only bread feeds man. However even the Marxists don’t deny the aesthetic significance of art if it serves propagandistic purposes.
So let’s see merely the materialistic resources. If someone takes more, someone gets less because of it. It makes sense, doesn’t it? WRONG!!!
The work that can be done in the world is not a static quantity. One of the basic tenets of economics is that human needs are infinite. This ensures that we never run out of work.
That is, it is not what we distribute that matters, but what we produce before we start distributing. Europe, for example, consumes ninety percent more than Africa, but Europe produces more than Africa not with ninety percent but with more.
So, as the amount of work to be done increases exponentially as efficiency increases, so do the goods to be produced to the same extent.
So who gets how much of the goods doesn’t depend on how we distribute the goods, but how much we produce from them.
Why? Because the redistribution has a vastly harmful side effect. Redistribution of material goods produced greatly reduces the goods produced and the motivation to produce the goods. So if we redistribute more, there will be less we can redistribute from.
So what do Marxists say is causing social inequalities? Is this something that needs to be balanced? It’s like they want to suggest that everyone is equally beneficial to society, only some invisible hand causes inequality. That is, you can only get rich to the detriment of others, because in every transaction, one party is exploited. The irony is that this is true of Marxist society, where the difference is greatest between the ruling elite and the average people. This is how the communists became the monopoly capitalists who best exploited the workers.
So if we take the money from the millionaire today because they are the top one percent, we have to take the money from the middle class tomorrow because they will be the top one percent tomorrow. And the day after tomorrow, the poorest worker will be the top one percent, from whom everything must be taken away, and so on. When we have completely ruined the economy, and that unfortunate will be the “rich” and “exploiter” who has a job at all, 90% of people will be unemployed.
It can be seen by any logical thinker that if we take something from someone to distribute it, we do not create anything new. We redistribute only the already produced value. And at the next redistribution there will be less value available, waiting to be redistributed, because the producers will have less value available to create new value. And at the next redistribution will be less and less value until we attain the level of North Korea or Cuba, where the most of the general population gobble soil and grass. If someone still has a piece of rotten cabbage that will be the top one percent, and the cabbage must be taken away from him and redistributed amongst the starving people.
I’m asking seriously now. Is it really hard to understand that Marx and all of his followers were mentally ill or has no one noticed this fundamental flaw in Marx’s great oeuvre?
But I’ve personally read not only into the Marx and Lenin volumes, but into the Mein Kampf, moreover the Green Book either, and none of them I could have ever completed, because sooner or later I will have enough with the brain shaking idiotism. Incidentally, an intelligent person like me will soon notice when a writing is full of unrealistic assumptions and logical self-contradictions, and from that point it’s not worth to force myself to keep it reading. Ludwig von Mises has published his work Human Action in 1949, and with this he destroyed the delusions of Marx’s communist manifesto altogether. Since then, a few thousand economists have done so, such as followers of the Austrian School, Monetarists, but even Keynesians. Nowadays, no one considers Marx more than a prehistoric fossil, and his doctrines are not worth as much as a lukewarm sputum in autumn winds. I mean, I’m not writing anything new here, but still, I feel a necessity to write these down because for some these might be new.
But apart from Marx not the most disgusting thing when someone is born mentally ill, since it’s not up to him whatsoever. What is really disgusting is hypocriticism. Even the mentally ill can see if he has more than anyone else has in his environment, but it does not turn in his mind to distribute his own wealth among the poor to balance the system if it’s his heart’s desire. All he can think about is how he could rob the rich ones than him. In fact the Bolsheviks went even further and they became the exploiters of poor for generations, and from then on it is not madness, but a crime.
In social democracy the workers are the exploited class to increase the camp of the beneficiaries in other words voters. In contrast, in communism, the worker is the lord. Everything for the worker, nothing for consumers. Awesome! No one is exploited, everyone has a job, paid leave, free kindergarten, crèche, social security, guaranteed pension, everything you need. Super! It’s good to be a worker in communism, isn’t it? There is a problem, however, the shops are empty, and the worker who has a golden life as a worker dies of starvation as a consumer. Unpleasant. Because there is no private sphere in communism, nor private property, thus the consumers are forced to feed the workers. The Marxism takes the fact no into account that the workers are consumers at the same time. Hence the enemy of the people the people themselves. The circle is closed.
The fascism is the same in checkers, but not even a fascist system was succeeded to last until it would collapse on its own, which takes some time but not much. The Third Reich had lasted till 1945 only because they launched a war, which is a scam, because it is easy to feed the people with things robbed from the outside. But warring has a down side of course, either sooner or later you can’t find anyone to rob or you meet a stronger who kicks your ass apart.
It is questionable why collectivist regimes were only able to stay in power with terror. Because these regimes demanded of the individual what is unnatural to human. That is, they work like an animal and give up their personality, their interests, their human nature like programmed robots.
Communists and fascists recognized that this behavior was unnatural for homo sapiens, that’s why terror, violence, and re-education camps are required. This proves the failure of communism the best. These re-education camps are characteristic only of collectivist systems down to the core.
Public opinion contrasts communism with fascism based on farce logic that the latter one is exclusionary by nature. But unlike the fascists if the methods are bad either, but just because the communists want equality. Nothing could be further from reality. This regimes in behalf of this ideology created a rigid caste system based on birth that has not been seen in Europe since feudalism. The whole system of ideas of communism was built on exclusion from the very beginning, against bourgeoisie, capitalists, petty bourgeois, craftsmen, merchants, religious, priests, kulaks (moderate peasants), bloodsuckers parasites, reactionists, saboteurs, even party members and enthusiastic communists (as right-wing deflectors, or Trotskyists) and so on. And if we look at the fact that ideology waged war against basic human nature, and a hundred thousand victims slaughtered in peacetime, it can be said that all humanity was the object of exclusion. That is, the cruelty of communism was manifested in the fact that it provided equal opportunities for death for all, regardless of color and nationality.
however, the most serious sin of communism is not mass murder, but the humiliation of human to level of animal, the destruction of human nature, which is far worse than physical destruction.
So it can be said that Marxism never worked for a minute in practice. Why not? Because the whole system of ideas of communism is at odds with the genetically determined basic human nature.
Nevertheless, the communists are surrounded by a kind of superior morality among the political intellectuals. Che Guevara is the role model of the youth of the world even in our present days. Mao Zedong is known as the great teacher. Left-wing intellectuals compete with each other in resurrecting Marx. And the modernist Foucault is classified among the great philosophers. No any nazi enjoys as much popularity as the last mass murderer communist human waste. Although the nazis are amateur beginners compared to the communists in mass murder, and in total destruction of economy, not to mention that without communism, nazism would not have existed.
Capitalism of the communist elite and the historical background
It is the story of an ideology that defined itself on the surface against human greed and exploitation, but it was nothing but about profit, money, and exploitation. However the game is over now. The lies are finally unveiled. Some historical information here contains datas are based upon the Black Book of Communism.
However the phrase of capitalism is the invention of Marx, he didn’t use it to define the free market economy merely. Marx meant capitalism as a term in all forms of capital accumulation. Marx made no distinction between the ways in which capital was accumulated. Marx didn’t care if someone got property by robbery or by voluntary sale and purchase transaction, he considered both exploitation.
But then how is it possible that, with the help of an ideology that exterminated hundreds of millions on his behalf, a small group of criminals had amassed all the wealth of society for themselves? For nowhere was there such exploitation and wealth inequality in the world between workers and the elite as in communism. Although according to Marx communist Russia would also have been capitalist because of this, which was based on public property.
Because if there is a country in the world where there has been no tradition of private property and individual freedom, it is Russia. Oddly enough, the complete lack of a tradition of private property was only the root cause of the rise of communism and not the consequence. According to Marx, the post-capitalist economic system will be communism.
But then why did a miserable little peasant society became the first communist country in the world where industrial production based on capitalism was not even known from the news?
Because, contrary to Marx’s theory, in a developed, civilized, industrial society with strong traditions of both private property and freedom, communism can only come to power if it has been preceded by a complete collapse of the economy, like in FDR’s America, or Hitler’s Germany. But they can’t stay in power there for long either, since when this systems consumed all of the reserves of future, they’re going to collapse on by own, without exception. Hungary was the only country after Russia where the Bolsheviks could come to power, but unlike Russia, they could not stabilize their power there, whereas the ‘commün’ in Budapest collapsed in a few months. This could happen in Hungary because there was a strong tradition of private property in the post-monarchic period.
In Marx’s time, however, at the dawn of industrialization and nation-states, no one longed for a communist utopia and his visions. The proletarians of Germany and Britain embarked on the path of civilization (guess it, with accumulating wealth,), and the Paris commune also bleed at a rapid rate, triggering the wrath of Marx. Therefore, the kommunists had to re-evaluate Marx’s strategy and cut the path of social development. They needed to find a country where there was no tradition of private property. The choice fell on the continental-sized crumbling Tsarist Russian Empire as the first educational place of the communist experiment. Let us not forget that this was the country where classical anarchists and anarcho-communists like Bakunin and Nechajev once failed, but they haven’t backed by Western powers with diplomatic passport, and money, like as Lenin and his comrades had as German agents.
The Germans could not have found a more suitable man than Lenin in implementing the task, who abhorred the Russians and the Russian culture in general, what he called shit in one of his writings to Gorkij. The Russians had a peasant, narrow minded mentality which was still far away from the workers of Western metropolises and such as utopian intellectual as Lenin was. Russia, on the other hand, had the advantage of having neither industrial nor civil traditions, but poverty and social injustice were immeasurable. He had to start working with the given people and especially on them. Eighty percent of the Tsarist Empire lived in the countryside and was made up of low-productivity village communities, the Oprichnina. The peasants did not own their land, for it was the property of the village communite, which were redistributed amongst them every year. The emancipation of serfs also brought only bitterness, for the lands were given to the peasants on a mortgage.
The remaining twenty percent of holy Russia lived in a city and was either a destitute factory worker or a soldier and government official in a giant, cumbersome bureaucratic corrupt monster. Only priests, aristocrats, landowners made up only a few percent of the total population, and only they had significant property. And in such a society, it was easy to turn the public anger against them, presenting them as the source of all problems of society.
One of the very first acts of the new regime was the means of production, moreover the subordination of the entire food supply to the state control. Thus, the power and the state party behind it created completely blackmailing situation against the entire population. People were rewarded with their most basic human needs or punished by deprivation of them, depending on whether the regime’s supporters or enemies they were, and their social status. As Lenin remarked, one who does not work should not eat. By work, he meant a twelve-hour robot a day, seven days a week, in inhumane conditions with insufficient food. The purpose of this horrible food weapon was keeping the power by all means necessary. And this has been proven an efficient weapon to choke the factory strikes and peasant revolts. As result in 1921, an unprecedented famine swept across the country, with at least five to six million casualties, mostly in Volga countryside, North Caucasus, western Ukraine. Without this the regime of Bolsheviks probably would have not survived.
Famines have taken place in Tsarist era either, because it is a very low-productivity agricultural country (many people feed little). It’s enough a year of a drought in every one or two decades to occur. However, this famine was different. It was triggered by food blockade and requisition. Civil war and drought were only the catalyst of this. So in reality this famine was artificial, and wasn’t the last one. It is clear from the number of victims. In the XIX. century famines claimed only a few hundred thousand casualties, compared to five to six million in the autumn and winter of 1921-22. Famines in such a scale broke out only where communism was introduced, this rules apply even to Black Africa.
In 1921, Lenin proclaimed the NEP (New Economic Policy) at the party’s 10th Congress. The purpose of this would have been to re-allow peasants to sell their products and abolition requisitions as well as war communism. In reality, however, all that happened was that the requisitions were renamed crop taxes. But the requisitioning detachments continued to roam freely in the countryside and take everything they wanted. Nevertheless the famine provided a great excuse for looting and humiliating the Church. By the end of the twenties, however the situation of the general population became more relaxed. The repression eased somewhat, not because the Bolshevik rule wanted better for people, but rather because they were not yet strong enough to continue the terror rule. After Lenin the party was busy with dealing the power vacuum that was created. The protracted crisis and famine that had helped them seize and retain power earlier no longer favored them. They were not yet strong enough to collectivize and handle related resistance. However, this relatively calm state of transition did not last long. It was just silence before the storm.
Lenin’s successor, Stalin, was committed to the forced industrialization of the country. To accomplish this, he collectivized the lands to purchase technology to accelerate industrialization by exporting the crop. Unfortunately in this he left no room for human needs and capacity. The result of this policy has been an economic disaster and another famine. Collective farms that did not meet the unrealistic service quota were blacklisted, which meant total food blockade and starvation. The Stalinist elite had a big problem with the sympathy of the local collective farms with the peasantry, and hiding the cereal. Therefore, central GPU squads were sent to regulate the kolkhozes. The result is a massive migration from the countryside to the cities. The government has also introduced an odious domestic passport system and stopped selling train tickets to prevent the population from fleeing famine-stricken areas. After weeks cases of anthropophagy were reported, consumption of carrions and abduction of children in mass scale. Although Stalin solved the problem of the contradiction of ideology with making the peasants agriculture workers, in other words rural proletars. In fact, this policy ended with the complete destruction of the peasantry as a class. He achieved this grandiose goal with another large scale artificial famine, which has hit a five-six million victims at 1932-33. And it wasn’t the last. The nightmare is not over for Soviet citizens. Another horrific famine has broken out during 1947. Following the German occupation, vast territories of land came out of the regime’s control. Since feeding the people of the countryside was not solved during this period the locals took their destiny into their own hands with seizing areas from the common land to cultivate them. Now these areas had to be re-collectivized, which again met with fierce resistance. This could be suffocated with triggering another famine. The state is at war with its own people in peacetime. This phenomenon accompanies the whole history of communism.
However, the self-contradiction of ideology and the inoperability of the system ended this era, which will never come back. See the conclusion above.
Thanks for reading me!