I’m sorry, folks, but I just have to take a moment to post a public dressing down. This is in response to a specific RNL reader. He/she will know who they are. But I thought I would post this in a general form and throw it out for discussion by the entire board. The subject is the foundational fallacies of Marxism/Applied Communism.
We have a poster who has been espousing an almost text-book-perfect defense of Marxism. This reader says there is no such thing as natural law, but the ‘working class’ is a real thing with an identity unto itself. I want to address both of these claims; or rather, refute both claims.
As to the claim that ‘working class’ is real, I simply asked this reader to get this ‘working class’ on the phone for me. So far, I have not received the call, but I have noticed this reader keeps speaking for this ‘working class.’ It leads me to wonder whether or not this reader thinks he/she is ‘the working class.’
Now I ask this reader to define the ‘working class’ for me. If the Capitalist works, doesn’t that make him/her a part of ‘the working class?’ After all, if the Capitalist works, then they are – by definition – part of the very class our reader claims to represent. So why is this reader attacking himself/herself?
So let’s assume that ‘the working class’ is somehow defined in connection to the means of production. I suspect this is what the reader would tell me: the Capitalist is not part of the ‘working class’ because he owns the means of production. But this raises a few more questions. I am a business owner, but I have worked for another company in the past while running my own business at the same time. So, was I a Capitalist, or a member of ‘the working class’ – or both? It seems to me that, once again, this reader will find himself/herself at odds with himself/herself. How about the paper boy and the little girl selling lemonade: are they Capitalists? So does that mean they are at odds with their parents, who might be part of ‘the working class?’ How about the government worker? They do not own the means of production: government doesn’t produce anything. What’s more, in a representative republic, the people – worker and Capitalist alike – own the government, so, are government workers not part of the ‘working class?’ And, if the government is going to be defined as a ‘means of production,’ then doesn’t that mean all Americans are Capitalists – even if they work for someone else? And wouldn’t that put our worker right back in the self-contradicting position he/she keeps finding themselves when we actually apply logic to their ideas?
But there is one more question. If ownership of the means of production is what makes a person a Capitalist, and the ‘working class’ is exploited because the Capitalist exploits their labor, isn’t that an admission that the ‘workers’ labor is actually part of the means of production? And, if this is the case, then does the ‘working class’ own its own body? If so, then doesn’t that mean the ‘working class’ actually does own part of the means of production? And, if so, then we are back to that self-contradiction – again.
Now, as to the claim that there is no Natural Law: this poster uses the words ‘my’ and ‘mine’ in his/her comments. This is a claim to ownership of their life and body. So, that not only confirms that this reader does own part of the means of production (their labor), thus, placing them in contradiction with themselves – as we just demonstrated – but it also affirms this reader’s belief in private property. After all, if this reader is claiming sole ownership of their life and body, that is the very definition of private property. This is very convenient, as it is an affirmation of one of the foundational principles of Natural Law. So, our reader does believe in Natural Law, he just wants to claim the authority to change it to suit his/her desire and to then force those changes on the rest of mankind. And there is the confirmation of my assertion: that Marxism is nothing more than an intellectual attempt to justify the violation of Natural Law against theft and coercion (note: our reader has already said that coercion is – quote – “a good thing.”)
One more thing: if our reader still insists there is no such thing as Natural Law, I would like him/her to go play with mama grizzly’s cubs. If they will be so kind as to do this in front of mama bear, they will provide us all with a clear demonstration of the Natural Right of self-defense, followed by the Natural Right of self-preservation which will be demonstrated when mama and her cubs eat our reader’s corpse.
[NOTE: our reader represents the epitome of the most lethal force known to mankind: that of the Statist's urge to save people from themselves. No matter what the form, the Statist's 'justification' always rests on their idea of what is best for all of society. They believe they are the only person in the world who knows what is best, and that this gives them a moral imperative to implement their ideas -- even if they have to use force. It is also how they come to justify the murder of any and all people who oppose them. They have a moral obligation to kill because the people opposing them are evil: they are trying to prevent the Statist from achieving their moral imperative. And that is how the Statist has justified the murder of more than 120 MILLION individuals in the last 100 years, and why they will continue to murder in the future.]