Karl Marx in Hell

Interviewer: It’s nice of you to take time out from your busy schedule for an interview.

Interviewer: Really? So tell me, what’s Hell like? I don’t see any demons, no flames, no lakes of boiling lead, no being jabbed with tridents.

Marx: Naw, that’s not how it is. What Hell is really about is seeing all your handiwork. In my case, I had to sit here and watch the 20^th century pass by. Do you know about 200 million people were murdered because of my ideas? I had to watch that. Now that’s Hell.

Interviewer: Interesting. Could you give me some specifics as to why you’re wrong?

Marx: Well, for only thing, I got human nature completely wrong. Completely backwards, actually. I didn’t realize that human nature has both good and bad in it. You can say, roughly speaking, that a liberal is someone who thinks human nature is good and society, bad. A conservative thinks the opposite; human nature is bad and society, good, because it represses all the bad in human nature. A liberal usually thinks that if you get rid of oppressive society, then all the natural, innate goodness of people will automatically bloom.

I thought if society was changed, along socialist lines, then the essential “goodness” of human nature would automatically turn all of us into gods. The exact opposite happened. Socialism appeals not to the best in human nature, but the worst: greed, envy, hate, theft, murder. It appeals to the animal in us, the bad part. Civilization, I realize now, is just a thin, fragile film on top of a lot of badness in people. And civilization is easily destroyed. And socialism will always destroy it.

Socialism believes that State should control everything. But when the State controls everything, the absolute worst – the ambitious, power-mad and amoral – rise rise to the top. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Lenin, Castro, Pol Pot....all of them socialists.

Marx: Socialism is based on envy, which is without a doubt the most trouble-making feeling in the world. Let’s look at the story of The Garden of Eden. The serpent is actually a symbol of envy, and he wants to bring Adam and Eve down because he envies the fact they are favored by God. That what envy always does, attempt to bring people down. So he talks Eve into breaking the rules, and she talks Adam into it. When they’re caught, Adam blames Eve, and Eve blames the serpent. I think the story makes the most sense if you consider them to be about five years old, neither taking responsibility for their actions and instead blaming someone else.

What this story shows is that envy is responsible for people blaming others for their problems. It’s scapegoating. “It’s because of you that I’m poor. Because you’re rich, I live in poverty.” Envy leads to murder, theft, greed...all kinds of horrible things. It’s always about trying to level everyone and make everyone the same, so no one will be better than anyone else. This, of course, is impossible. The only way people can be the same is if they’re identical, like two pennies. Only if you’re completely identical can everyone be the same.

In the Garden, envy is ultimately what brings evil into the world. One of the Ten Commandments prohibits envy, and the first murder – Cain and Abel – was because of envy. So socialism, since it is based on envy, will always lead to terrible tragedies.

Marx: None whatsoever. It’s evil to the core. Socialists should stop trying to change society and change themselves. That’s the problem, really. They’re flawed – as we all are – but they blame their problems on society. That’s human nature, to blame your problems on someone else. No society is perfect, but a socialist society is the least perfect of all of them. I now realize socialism is a truly childish system, one that creates children instead of adults. Do you know what Thomas Hobbes said? “The evil man is the child grown strong.” People like Hitler and Stalin weren’t adults. They were children. For that matter, I never grew up, either. I was a child all my life, blaming my problems – and the world’s – on “capitalism.” If I had been born rich there never would have been a Marxism. I admired only aristocrats, anyway. I used to wear a monocle and go on fox-hunts.

All socialists, deep down inside, know they’re wrong. They can’t admit it because of self-deception. That’s why they keep trying socialism over and over, even though it never works. “Just one more time, then we’ll make it work.” One of the saddest but most true definitions of insanity I’ve ever heard is “to try the same thing over and over and expect a different result.”

Marx; Yes, that’s true. Do you know I’ve actually seen The Who a couple of times from down here? I’m so far away I’ve never gotten a good view of them, though.

Interviewer: Let’s discuss your ten-point system for changing society. Could you go through them and explain why they’re wrong?

Marx: Sure. Let’s take the first one, “Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.” If no one owns the land, then everyone will exploit it, because they think if they don’t someone else will. It’s called “the tragedy of the commons.” And that’s exactly what happens. People really only take care of things when they own them. I realize now that private property is the most important basis for civilization.

Then there’s the second, “A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.” One of the problems with this is that when you tax people’s money away, they’ll cease to work, save and invest. This is why when taxes are cut, the economy always gets better, and when taxes are raised, it always gets worse.

Interviewer: What about the third, “Abolition of all rights of inheritance”?

Marx: Why should people build up a business if they can’t give it to their children? And as for the fourth, “confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels,” a rebel is only defined as what the State doesn’t like. As for emigrants, the only time there is mass emigration is when the country absolutely stinks as a place to live. How many people are trying to get into America as compared to those trying to get out? And you sure aren’t going to be any productive immigrants, not if they believe all they own will be stolen if they ever leave. Of even if they stay.

Marx: “Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.” When this happens the central bank – what you call the Federal Reserve – always inflates the money supply. This causes a fake economic boom. When it’s over, you get recession and unemployment. What’s little known is that the first people to get the inflated money, they prosper and buy everything up. The last people to get the money get devalued money and can’t buy much. Your dollar has lost about 99% of its purchasing money in the last 100 years, because of inflation. You have a small amount of enormously wealthy people. You know one of the reasons why? It’s because they were the first to get their hands on the inflated money. Without inflation, there are far fewer very rich, and far fewer very poor.

Interviewer: And the sixth, “Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state”?

Marx: Ah, yes. People only get to hear or read or watch what the State allows. That’s an attempt to brainwash people, to turn them into little robots who don’t understand their country and the State are two totally different things. They think “patriotism” means defending the State. It means defending your country. Of all the wars you’ve been in, how many were to defend an attack on your country, and how many were to defend the State’s interests? As for the “transport” part, that ultimately means you can only live where the State wants you to.

Marx: “Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.” All of them have the same fatal flaw: you’re supposed to work and give everything to someone else. No one’s going to do that. Everyone ends up thinking, “Why should I work if no one else is?” So everyone is poor. One of the best definitions of capitalism and socialism I’ve heard is, “capitalism is the unequal distribution of wealth and socialism the the equal distribution of poverty.”

The eighth? “Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially to agriculture.” Under the free market, if you don’t work, you don’t eat. Under socialism, if you work, you still don’t eat. I guess there’s some humor there, if you look hard enough. “Industrial armies.” Armies are for war, not peace.

Interviewer: What about the ninth, “Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the population over the country”?

Marx: Only the free market can decide what business should be combined. Combining agriculture with manufacturing? Exactly how? I didn’t think that one out too well, did I? As for abolishing the distinction between town and country, this can only be done if you shuffle people around at the point of a gun. Under this, people have to live where the State wants them to live.

Marx: “Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.” There’s no such thing as free education. People always pay for it out of their taxes. That’s a curious trait of humanity. They think if it’s from the government, it’s free. They often don’t realize the money can only be taken from someone else and given to them. It’s theft, really.

Public schools? They mean bureaucracies, with the resulting destruction of creativity, imagination and learning. Bureaucracies are a terrible thing, only most people don’t know it. One of the reasons Alexander the Great was so successful is that when he conquered a place he left the bureaucracies in place. Bureaucracies can bring civilizations down. What do you think they’ll do to public schools, given enough time?

When children’s factory labor was abolished, those children no longer had a way to make a living. Which is worse, a crummy job, or starving and homeless? The one about education and industrial production wasn’t too bad, as long as the free market does it, and voluntarily. When the State does it, either you do what the State says, or else.

Marx: No, it’s not. You just have to wait until all the bad things you’ve done have disappeared. When the day comes when not one person is the world believes in what I wrote, then I can leave.

Marx: Your guess is as good as mine. But I do think it’s going to be a long, long time.

Bob Wallace [send him mail], a former newspaper reporter and editor, and an incurable lover of puns, lives in St. Louis.

Do you know about 200 million people were murdered because of my ideas?

Either stalin is responsible for stalin's crimes, or marx is. but not both. Are we to blame the dark ages on aristotle? Or every person killed by free market policies on adam smith? i doubt it.

Interesting editorial, but it might have been better is he had defined some terms. Socialism is NOT the same as Communism. Communists are totalitarians; whereas you could have a democratic socialist state (although it's never really occurred).

Also, lest we think that capitalism is the perfect system, we don't practice pure capitalism even here in America. We are kept safe by gov't regulation of the workplace, anti-trust statutes, and SEC oversight. What we have here is a nice balance of capitalism and some socialistic gov't intervention, which of course the right and left are constantly fighting about. There is a good argument that pure capitalism is just as flawed as pure socialism and that a mixture, as we have here, is the best approach. That's my 2 cents, anyway : )

What we have here is a nice balance of capitalism and some socialistic gov't intervention, which of course the right and left are constantly fighting about.

Actually, there is a difference between social and socialist. That's what the right and the left are fighting about. Capitalism and Socialism are economic concepts. Republicanism and Communism are governmental concepts. We have a capitalistic economy with a Republican government. It is a good social situation that recognizes the responsibility the individual has to society. That's a good result. Taking it too far and making it socialist - where the government actually owns the means of production - is a bad result.

There is a good argument that pure capitalism is just as flawed as pure socialism and that a mixture, as we have here, is the best approach.

The better argument is that human nature is flawed and bears constant watching. That's why I agreed with the suggestion that Marx had human nature wrong.

Shalom.

No society is perfect, but a socialist society is the least perfect of all of them.

Socialism is wonderful...just look at Europe. Free health care, free education, free this, free that, lotsa vacation time.....simply paradise.

By the way, if anyone can send me some ammo to fling at the loony libs when they present me with the above argument in favor of socialism I would surely appreciate it.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.