Raaaaah! And back again after a long hiatus.
Actually… No, I lie. I’ve always been here, hiding under my pile of unfinished posts. Yes, lets see, thats about a million drafts (I even have a draft from 1999 for some reason). But I WILL finish this post. I have even written a draft on paper.

Anyways, while I was attempting to write a historical fictitious short story on the start of the Cultural Revolution (it centers around Mao’s insecurities getting the better of him, he feared his legacy being considered inferior to rulers of the past and immediately called for the destruction of all of “Old China”) my mind wandered. Why do social theories such as Marxism and its interpretations (Leninism, Maoism, Socialism, Communism etc.) fail so horribly in their implementation?

And, I came upon one argument that Marxists (especially those around my University. Did you know the Australian Socialist Movement is based on Melbourne? No wonder I keep getting bombarded by (now I realise) contradictory messages of “Support Marxism” and “Stop Conflict”, which I will get into later) like to bang on particularly noisily; that the bourgeoisie of society are the scum of the earth, only good for exploiting things for their own gain, not actually putting in any hard yards of themselves (well… In todays consumerist society that is partially true. Production is all based on information.).

But I investigated the origins of Bourgeisie further and came across a literal translation of the word. It literally means an inhabitant of the village. I suspect Marx worded his jealousy of others success into a theory on class, power, monetary and status upheaval. What Marx failed to realise (and Gerud (i think that’s who it is) did realise) is that the bourgeois were a class of their own and were also once of a lower status originally including any “inhabitant of the village” from serfs to merchants in the fuedal system. Only with the rise of merchant power did the definition of what was Bourgeois begin to warp. The “Bourgeois” began to evolve into a well off “Middle class” (more commonly referred to in Western societies), a form of economic revolution in itself and, in fact, the only instance in history of a successful “class” revolution.

Essentially, Karl Marx argued that society can only become a classless equal society through the upheaval of an “upper class” by a “lower class”. However, no matter the length of the struggle, in a world of vertically structured societies, what eventually happens is a new class of bourgeoisie is created and the vicious cycle continues (by the way, I will talk about the fallacies of “rights” and “equality” later).

So, if the final result of a governments (…in a true marxist society should a government really exist?) adherence to marxism’s criticism of a vertical class system is constant anarchy why did so many world powers adopt it? Why do so many backwards countries continue to adopt it?

Because the most powerful people in those countries were complete retards.

The ideals of this school of thinking are attractive both to the niave (equality in a classless society) and the tyrannical (a forced classless society was infinitely more controllable than a democratic one).

In the constant struggle for class superiority (under the guise of fighting for equality) a pseudo equality emerges. In anarchy no one entity can hold power for long enough to consolidate it before being pulled back into the morass that is the masses (like an extreme version of tall poppy syndrome Australians are notorious from suffering… Hey! We’re almost like communists! All for the Aussie Battler).

But in all this struggle, people forget – in a vertically integrated social order running on the scarcity provided by a monterary system, equality can never occur.

Just as nature intended, no one person is born and raised identical to another (yes… even you, twins); so it goes, no one person can fit into the “one size must fit all” mentality that emerges from Marxism.

Sure, we still hold some of the more attractive values to heart. Equality. Sharing resources. But, we are so far down the rabbit hole of laisse faire that we can never emerge from it (or… maybe in this economic climate we can be radical and forget about money all together… Nope, that’s never going to happen, people are too materialistically greedy… Like me!).

Lets look back. The most successful “so-called marxist” regimes have been dictatorships – the antithesis of equality. Starvation, poverty and terrible abuse of humans (notice I failed to use “rights”. What we fail to realise is that in a vertical society, “rights” only come to those who can afford to keep their dignity). Sure resources were shared but if you only have one bowl of rice between 10 people, no matter which way you look at it, noone is going to get fed.

Marxism and its derivatives have no place in the modern world. Marxism is synonymous with Anarchy. (Hey! I’m an Anarchist!)

“Equality = distribution of wealth =! motivation to generate more wealth = Everyone is equally worse off” – Chum, 26 May, 2009

Karl Marx didn’t explain his theories were an April Fools Joke