Comrade-Bashing (Or, Destroying The Foundational Principles Of Marxism)

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.]

45 thoughts on “Comrade-Bashing (Or, Destroying The Foundational Principles Of Marxism)

  1. from my comment on a previous post

    -A paperboy who works for a newspaper company is not a capitalist. Neither is a lemonade selling little girl. They both don’t have employees to work for them.

    You are losing the debate so you have to start name-calling and demonizations that can be applied to anyone. For instance the crusades and bringing religion to the new world enslaved and killed many people, plus the spanish inquisition. Does that mean all that pain, suffering and death can be attributed to Jesus.

    if animal behavior is natural law, than natural law is a horrible thing, ducks rape, penguins are gay, bulls are polygamous, hell they even lack a concept of marriage, cannibalism among animals, hamsters eat their babies, frogs and toads attempt to mate with dead frogs and toads.

    If natural law is self-defense and striving for survival, does not a bear violate a trout’s right when it eats the trout, yet the bear has a right to eat trout. Similarly does the working class have the right to the means of production to better the situation of the working class even if it violates the “rights” of the bourgeoisie? Or are only the bourgeoisie allowed to control the means of production and the working class has to “deal with it.”-

    on the question of class identity
    You can be an ex-worker or ex-bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie are the people who make money off of employees. If a scientist is earning 200k, I have no problem with that. If a man in India is making 10k off the labor of factory workers. Then there might be a problem.

    “As to the claim that ‘working class’ is real, I simply asked this reader to get this ‘working class’ on the phone for me.”

    haha, good one. You claim a god is real and it still hasn’t given me a call.

    Apparently natural law has proven life and labor can be private property to be taken by the bourgeoisie. With the example of the trout spending all those years getting fatter and then one day a bear comes and eats all its property, labor and life, in the form of its body. If natural law allows for class conflict, why keep the workers from engaging in the same class conflict as the bourgeoisie.

    • Karl,

      You do not even realize it, but you just stumbled upon a strong piece of evidence for the existence of something else you claim does not exist — GOD!

      You see, you are mocking me because you realize the stupidity of apply moral claims tot he behavior of animals. Yet you turn right around and make moral implications about how much one person makes compared to another. Well, if there is nothing wrong with a bear eating a fish, and there is no God, then there is nothing wrong with me making $1 million and you making $5 — even if I make it off your labor. You’re just the fish and I am the bear. But you DO make moral claims — all the time — and that implies the existence of a universal moral law. Now, here is the part that you can no longer escape:

      If there is a universal moral law, THERE MUST BE A GOD!

      This is a simple and inescapable FACT of logic. Thanks again — for yet another admission that you are just looking for a way to justify stealing the property of other people.

      • There is nothing wrong in any of those actions, because there is no divine eternally true morality. So, there is nothing wrong with the working class seizing the means of production. I just want the working class to realize their power.

        • “There is nothing wrong in any of those actions, because there is no divine eternally true morality.”


          If you believe that, THEN SHUT YOUR PIE HOLE ABOUT CAPITALISTS!

          If there is no morality, then the Capitalist is doing nothing wrong.

          Karl, you are so blinded by selfishness, greed and envy that you cannot see you just nuked the foundation of your own argument — and proved my assertion correct at the same time, no less.


          • The capitalist aren’t doing anything “wrong.” But they are in the way of working class power. I never claimed there was morality, Only a class struggle for the means of production. I of course support my economic class in this struggle.

            • Karl,

              You do not have a “class.” Next to the average person in China or India, YOU are the bourgeois.

              This entire notion of “class” is an arbitrary and ARTIFICIAL construction designed to justify your argument for theft — period!

              Besides, you just said there is no right/wrong, so sit down, shut up and accept your lot in life as the fish while the bears dine on you. You have no justification to speak up — and this is by your own construction, as well.

        • BTW:

          If this mythical ‘working class’ you keep trumpeting COULD run the means of production without the Capitalist, they would have. But Uncle Lenin showed you what happens when you idiots try to live your pipe-dreams: you get shot because you do not know what to do, and then even less competent people get put in your place.

          In reality, all that would happen if you guys ‘took over’ would be that EVERYONE would be poor. Hey! Wait a minute, that IS what happens when you guys try this crap — every time. Imagine that, Natural Law at work. Who’d a thunk it? 😀

        • Karl, your contention that there is nothing wrong with the working class seizing the means of production because there is no eternally true morality … wouldn’t it also mean that there is absolutely nothing wrong if the capitalist kills the work class for attempting to seize what he perceives as his property.

          You see, you can’t have it both ways. If there is no morality, then there’s no right or wrong. Period! I make you a nice cup of tea or I pour the boiling hot water over your head — these are equal behaviors, neither worthy of condemnation if IF there is no morality.

          • I oppose anti-working class actions not because they are “wrong,” but because they work against my economic class. Moralism falls apart when people try to justify immoral actions to do moral actions. Such as killing in self-defense. Killing is always wrong, unless you are getting mugged. Though it would save a life to just give the thief your purse, and not commit murder. So moralism is defined by man and has no logic behind it, it is changing and not everlasting. A man like Jefferson who maybe espoused “natural law and rights” owned slaves. Is that in accordance with natural law, or is it in accordance with natural law jurisprudence of the 1700s

            • Karl,

              You are suffering from being having more intelligence than your ability to understand (i.e. lack of common sense). You do not see that you consistently contradict yourself and make assertions that are counter to objective reality that everyone knows to be real because they can observe them in their daily lives.

              You say there is no natural law: then why haven’t you flown off into space yet? And why do species continue to breed? Why do you even write to us? If there is no natural law, then we can’t even understand the chicken scratch you pound out of your keyboard (logic is part of natural law, and language is based on logic).

              I’ll keep saying this — even though I understand people will think it rude — YOU ARE AN IDIOT! A selfish, envious and greedy idiot!

              • so Joe’s logic is natural law. I didn’t know Joe was the almighty ruler of nature and the universe. Joe please abandon your natural law idea. the law of gravity is not equivalent to the “natural law” against taxes. Taxes exist, a supposed impossible feat, just like the earth losing gravity, without losing mass. Joe please understand if it is possible it is in accordance with natural law, and if it is impossible it is not in accordance with natural law. income taxes are paid everyday, a machine with an energy efficiency of over a hundred percent does not exist today.

                • Karl,

                  There is no Natural Law against taxes — but there IS against theft and it DOES enforce itself. If the masses are over taxed long enough, tea gets dumped into the harbor and the tyrant is overthrown. SO you missed — again.

                  The claim that, if it is possible, it is part of natural law is an ignorant assertion uttered out of arrogance. It is “possible” for you to defy gravity — by flying. But once you run out of gas, the Natural Law of physics will re-assert itself. Hence, it is “possible” to over-tax the people — for a time. But the Natural Law against theft (i.e. the right to your life, labor and property property) WILL — eventually — reassert itself. This is why Marxism/Socialism has NEVER worked.

                  So, nice try, but — as usual — you missed your mark. Face it, Karl, history is on my side and speaks against you in every instance where your ideas have been forced on others.

                • Seriously, I don’t defy gravity when I am in a plane. If natural law is so re-asserting how come the German people didn’t overthrow Hitler, or the Iraqis overthrow Saddam. Feudalism lasted for more than a thousand years. Slavery didn’t end at the hands of the slaves.

            • “Killing is always wrong, unless you are getting mugged. Though it would save a life to just give the thief your purse, and not commit murder”

              Murder? MURDER? BY DEFINITION, murder is a moral statement. It rests on the notion that one owns his/her life, and that taking that life is wrong. So why does Karl use this word, or say that killing is murder? BECAUSE HE KNOWS MORALITY EXISTS!

              Which brings us back to the truth: ALL Marxists are selfish, lazy, envious and greedy. They are also cowards. They want what belongs to other people, but they do not have the courage to take it themselves: they want others to do that for them, too.

                • I meant killing, i guess murder is “wrong” killing. but the lack of existance of morals, does not mean people don’t get killed.

                  • Ah, better. So why would you have a problem with killing? There is no morality, so we should all be out killing anyone who gets in the way of getting what we want. And since there is no morality (i.e. Natural Law), and man-made law against killing would be irrational — stupid — an obstruction to getting what we want.

                    And that brings us to the other of the inevitable two outcomes of Marxism: either dictatorship and tyranny, or ANARCHY and tyranny.

                    Once again, Karl, thank you — for brilliantly illustrating the depravity of your ideology.

                • Karl,

                  You do NOT get to redefine words to meet your needs. Murder carries the inherent notion of being wrong, and wrong is a moral judgment. Therefore, by using the word, you betray your inherent sense of right/wrong, and that is the foundation of the universal moral law — NATURAL LAW — that governs all of us.

            • So it’s immoral for me to mug you, but not necessarily immoral to you to mug me if you perceive that I make more money than you?

              Yeah, that’s not self-serving at all.

              As for Jefferson — he opposed slavery and floated the idea of making it illegal in the United States. He inherited his slaves and hated the institution. He couldn’t afford to free his slaves unless all the other planters did the same because slaves were a financial asset. It would have been a lot like a car dealership giving away free cars. The dealership doing that would go bankrupt while his competitors would weather the temporary storm of not being able to sell their cars.

              Really, Karl, try reading a book not written by Karl Marx. And, btw, most people in the US are “working class” by definition in that we work for someone else. Even the capitalist works for someone else — his/her customers.

  2. Text-book is a good term for it. I know folks who have lived in communist societies. They don’t get nostalgic for Marx. Generally, they’d like to dig him up and abuse his corpse for what his ideas did to them and their families. The only folks I know who think Marx had a great idea have just read about Marxism in textbooks. Having lived their lives in the relative “liberty” of the United States or Western Europe, they snark at what they perceive as the failures of capitalism while not recognizing that many of those failures grow from the state.

    Example — why is it so hard to become a capitalist and actually make a living doing it? Is it because capitalism is too hard or is it because regulations (some necessary, but much of it entirely unnecessary) complicate the process and drive up the cost? Twenty-five years ago, my husband owned a small furnace repair business. He paid $200 for liability insurance worth $100,000 in case anything went wrong. Total outlay to start the company — about $1000. He worked the business part time for about six years, then quit to go to school to get his electrical license. In the two years while he was out of the business, the State of Alaska changed the law and now it would cost him about $45,000 to start that business and that’s just for licensing and bonding, not liability insurance, tools, a truck, advertising, etc. Yet, he’d still be the same guy with the same training doing the same work he was doing 25 years ago.The additional cost doesn’t make anyone safer, it just prevents new companies from competing with the established ones … the larger of which were the ones who pushed for these new licensing and bonding requirements.

    That’s statism being used as a means to control society..

    • Right now what you see is a state controlled by the bourgeoisie using it the state to screw workers and petit-bourgeoisie. That is what happens in a free market, those with the gold make the rules. Sadly the petit-bourgeoisie still defend the free-market system.

      • WRONG — again!

        Right now, we see the TRUE Marxist (the one who has SEIZED the power of govt.) controlling the Capitalist AND “worker” alike.

        Karl, if this were NOT true, then how did Obama manage to force big business to do so many things that they did NOT have to do by law? The auto bailout, the financial/banking bailout, even the BP ‘settlement” were ALL extortion — not business dictating to govt., but govt. dictating to business.

        This is called fascism, and it is a sibling of communism. I don’t see why you don’t LOVE things the way they are now. After all, it is the inevitable end of the ideology you are pushing.

        • You prove UR bravery once again by engaging in this excercise in futility with “Karl”.

          The Dialogue ( ala Bongino and accepting the Language of the Left ) serves the Left’s Purpose. Not YOUR dialogue…..but ALL dialogue which uses their terms. Marxists and all modern Liberals speak about people with Labels and these labels serve to DIVIDE people into competeing groups…..who as people would find they DON’T have such a difference between them.

          Bourgeoisie….Workers…..these are B–S–T terms. In the case of “workers” for instance the Term has pretense of being “descriptive”…..but it is really used as a reverse Perjorative. It implies that those not in this Marxist defined Group …do not work. Which is beyond absurd and truely needs no other comment other than to show what the Marxists are trying to do.

          And yes a Girl selling Lemonade and a Paper boy can be Capitalist … in orientation ( motivation for engaging in the activity) and in Practice depending on how they deploy their money (ie Capital)………The ignorance of those who follow Marx is astounding ….. the malicious intent of those who UTILIZE Marxism is obvious and Sickening.

          • Don,

            Now I’m confused. I “thought” I had been doing a decent job of illustrating all the points you just made — if not out-right explaining them. Why do you think I used the term “working class?” I have done everything I know how to do to undermine Karl’s argument AND language — right down to calling him what he is: a selfish, greedy, envious tyrant who just wants to be the one who controls the rest of us.


            • No you’re not confused……..Maybe….there’s a slight possibility Karl is.

              The excercise in futility is the Blank Brick wall that is Karl’s rationale. These are good dialogues to illustrate to those younger readers the fallacies of Leftist ideology and from where they originate. The Statist Hyperbole and outright lie needs to be repeated over and over …. just like the Progressives have repeated their lies over and over to our kids for Decades.

              It is phenominal how little our youth has been taught…..truely shocking. They don’t even know what communism is or it’s history. Some don’t even know THAT it exists.

              • Don,

                Brother, my friend, do you REALLY think I have been doing this for Karl’s sake? 🙂

                Dude, ALL of this has been for the benefit of the other readers. Karl has been nothing more than a self0-motivating illustration of my points. 😉

                • Yes… I DO know that….my words as well.

                  I feel really Depressed …. Talking with some high school Juniors and Seniors who couldn’t tell what communism is and a couple who’d never heard the term … or maybe they had but “Didn’t remember if they had or not “……. .:- 0 !!!

      • Yes, under Marxism, instead of a free-market we would have government brownshirts picking those who would get to succeed and those who would serve. What we have right now is a market in bed with the state because the state has the power to pick the winners and losers and if you want to be winner, you have to play the statist game.

        If this were a free market, the guy/gal with the best service and/or product would be the winner and the consumers would decide that based on their own judgment.

        • You don’t understand anything. Are you saying it is the job of Marxist to have a private employee exploiting entity such GE and GM, retain market share against fellow vehicles of bourgeoisie profit, through the help of a state? How could you think such a thing world be a worker’s paradise?

    • Aurora,

      You just described a on of the gross violations of Natural Law that even the Right has accepted: that we need “permission” (in the form of a ‘license’) just to earn our living.

      I think there is another post in your comments — if only I can find the time 😦

      • Yes, it’s a major problem all over the country. I’m not saying we don’t need some certification system to assure that — for example — doctors know what they’re doing. My husband is far less-likely to burn down your kid’s school as a licensed electrician than he was before he went to school and before he apprenticed. But why does the government need to do it? In reality, electricians in most states are licensed upon passing a test created by the National Fire Protection Association based on their publication of the National Electric Code. NFPA is not a government organization. In order to pass a building inspection in most jurisdictions, the work has to be done to the NEC standard. So, why don’t we eliminate the government part of this and allow organizations like the NFPA to set standards and provide certification for electricians, etc? If I want electrical work done, I should be smart enough as a homeowner to ask — let me see your certification. No certification and I don’t hire that electrician. Simple and vastly more affordable.

        • Aurora,

          If the Courts actually worked, we would have NO need of “licensing” — at least, not by the govt. Private companies would spring up to handle that, and I would pay to be listed with the one handling my industry. This way, the business pays to assure customers they meet certain standards.

          But even without such a system, if I could actually sue someone who caused me REAL harm due to REAL negligence, and I got the money — not the govt. courts and lawyers — and the person found at fault had to pay, and actually do jail time where appropriate, then all this would fall away because the crooks and idiots would quickly get sorted out.

          Natural Law 🙂

          • This is actually for Karl’s consumption.

            What goes around comes around. In a free market, bad producers get weeded out by the consumers, who control the market through their purchasing power. In the old days, many industries were controlled by guilds who “licensed” their fellow craftspeople and merchants. It wasn’t impossible to start a business outside the guild, but consumers utilizing that business used it at their own risk. It might save them a few dollars to hire the unlicensed electrician, but their homeowners insurance might be voided if their house burned down, so they have an incentive to use the licensed electrician.

            Yes, people would have to regrow a frontal lobe. Here’s an Alaskan observation for you. My yellow Lab, who is NOT a SMART dog, knows to leave porcupines alone. If she can learn how to avoid pain, human beings with basic education should be able to navigate the free market without a lot of difficulty.

            The question is — are Americans smarter than a yellow Lab?

            • How many consumers have to get screwed for the bad producers to get “weeded out?” A rich bad producer can also hire attorneys and use capital to drive competitors out.

              • “How many consumers have to get screwed”

                Screwed? SCREWED? No one is getting “screwed” because THAT would imply a moral claim, and YOU said there is no morality. So no one can EVER “get screwed.” IDIOT!


                • The physical action of getting raped does not disappear because there is no morality. I’m just pointing out free-market utopianism. People aren’t against rape because it is wrong, they are against it because they don’t want to see themselves or their loved ones getting hurt, and hurt is a material phenomenon, unlike Joe’s natural law, a law that totally fails to prevent rape in murder in the human and animal world. Joe here is a hint, a man-made law has can be circumvented like financial scams, speeding and running a red light, a real natural law cannot be circumvented like thermodynamics and motion.

                  • “Joe here is a hint, a man-made law has can be circumvented like financial scams, speeding and running a red light, a real natural law cannot be circumvented like thermodynamics and motion.”


                    THANK YOU!


                    Karl just explained why the free market works (it is in line with natural law) and why Marxism has never and will never work (it is man-made and, thus, can NEVER controvert NATURAL LAW).


                    If you could see what you just demonstrated, you wouldn’t be AN IDIOT! 🙂

              • Consumers are not, when allowed to think for themselves, that stupid, Karl.

                And, actually, you’re wrong about the “rich bad producer”. That is a function of the New Deal. Prime example is Goodrich Tires. During the Depression, they had a competitor. A small upstart. I don’t remember the name now, but I’ll try to find it. They made better tires for less money and sold them at competitive prices. They were fixing to corner the tire market in, I believe, Atlanta. So BF Goodrich went to FDR and complained and FDR made it illegal to sell goods for less than the prevailing price which was set by the largest manufacturer in a market. BF Goodrich couldn’t have done that without the complicity of government.

                In a free market, Goodrich would be forced to compete with that small upstart and lower its prices. If Goodrich’s quality remained low, then the upstart would continue to gain market share as consumers wised up to the disparity. So Goodrich would either be forced to improve their product against their lower-priced competitor or … hey, go out of business.

                Instead FDR picked the winner. That socialism/marxism and its grossly unfair because the upstart had the better tires.

    • dak,

      Lenin and Stalin (numbers vary from between 25-65 million — they didn’t exactly keep records).

      Hitler (12 million just in the camps — doesn’t include the war)

      Mao (again, varies from 25-70 million, but I tend toward the higher side on this one)

      Pol Pot, Castro, Camera Rouge, etc.

      (I would also add 45+ MILLION to the PROGRESSIVE abortion agenda here in the U.S., but that’s just me)

    • Also Dak, Not Counting the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia….. the muder of South Vietmanese after the US left, the millions killed by the North Koreans, and the Forced starvation of 10’s of millions of Kulacks and Ukranians and Georgians by the Soviet regime. The death of millions in the East Eorpean countries including their own forced famine in Romania.

      If you take the midrange of Joe’s estimates and add in what I’ve highlighted you come to about 100 Million. Pol Pot is thought to have caused about 2 million deaths alone.

  3. Then add all the abortions in China the last 30 years as well. Over 1 Billion and counting since 1980. Abortion is the biggest act of genocide the world has ever experienced. See –

    Just me thinking now – You may get to meet some of them during the Millennium when Christ returns to rule with a rod of iron. Revelation 9:15 – And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.