The Worst Man In Modern History

Authored by Alasdair Macleod via GoldMoney.com,

It seems extraordinary that in defiance of all factual history and philosophical knowledge anyone should celebrate the bicentenary of the birth of Karl Marx. More than anyone, through wrong-headed ideas, he bears responsibility, indirectly admittedly, for the deaths of an estimated one hundred million people in the last century, and the severe suppression though economic and social servitude of fully one third of the world’s population. And if you also include those who have suffered under the yoke of Marxist-inspired modern socialism, the philosophy that says the state is more important than the individual, you could argue nearly the whole world is influenced by Marxian philosophy today.

That might seem an extreme statement, but you only have to ask almost anyone anywhere, which do they consider is more important, the individual or the state, to see if this supposition is correct. The only explanation for the continued adoration of the man is that with such universal influence, there are bound to be legions of supporters remaining, ignorant of and blind to the reality. However, during his lifetime – he died in 1883 – he was hardly known. It wasn’t until the Russian revolution thirty-four years later that Marx began to be taken seriously.

How did Marx achieve this powerful posthumous position? It was not through his economics, though they are often quoted and form the core principles of his Communist Manifesto, but through his philosophy, old ideas from forgotten men such as Hegel (1770-1831), which he rehashed into a socialist philosophy that is still accepted by many today, despite the accumulated evidence against it. The difference with Hegel is Hegel strove to establish that historical evolution would lead to increasing individual freedom, while Marx strove to prove the individual played no role in historical evolution.

Hegel argued that all reality is capable of being expressed in rational categories and can be reduced to a synthetic unity by dialectic reasoning within a system of absolute idealism. In plain English, he concluded we all take our cue from our social and cultural surroundings and circumstances, and that they in turn are set by historical events. This became the basis for Marx’s extreme philosophy of class structure, which, in common with Hegel, denied any role to the independence of human thought.

His philosophical stance was comprehensively set out in his book, A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, published in 1859. The fundamental principle behind Marxism is stated early in the preface, where he defines his deduction from the Hegelian dialectic: “It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness.” In other words, social organisation takes precedence over the individual, and it therefore follows that the individual is subordinate to the social organisation.

It follows from this logic, Marx argued, that the classes that formed on the back of material interests forces members of those classes to think and act in their narrow class interests and not independently in their personal interest, there being no such thing. For Marx, ideologies evolved on class lines, where the interests of the minority, the bourgeoisie, dominated. And as the bourgeoisie profits from the labour of the proletariat, it is in their interest to keep the proletariat suppressed. The accumulation of wealth in the hands of the bourgeoisie was entirely due to the exploitation of the proletariat.

Marx’s world was a black and white one of haves and have-nots, the exploiters and the exploited. As Emmanuel Kant (1724-1804) had said, “If one man has more than necessary, another man has less”. The only way this apparent wrong could be righted would be through the collapse of the capitalist system, which led to these imbalances in the first place. The final solution was a classless society of the proletariat, handing them the means of production administered on their behalf by a revolutionary government.

If proof was needed, it came for Marx in the increasingly disruptive economic slumps over the course of his lifetime. Slumps hit the proletariat hardest, leading to unemployment and starvation. Initially, Marx was convinced that with the slumps getting progressively worse, a communist revolution would eventually be triggered, and the socialists (i.e. Marx himself) would take command from capitalist governments on behalf of the proletariat. Unfortunately for Marx, this never happened, and he increasingly turned in favour of a violent revolution to hasten the ultimate solution, reflecting his growing impatience and desperation.

Above all, Marx despised, even hated other socialists with an irrationality that can only have been fuelled by fear of competition. This hatred remains with us today, with communists loathing all forms of national socialism. Marx’s line of reasoning also freed him from criticism, because dissenters were always labelled bourgeoise, and were therefore dismissed as arguing on class lines. They were unmasked as bourgeoise, whatever their dissenting view, and therefore not qualified to comment on matters that affected the wider proletariat. The only answer was for the bourgeoisie to join the proletariat or to be made to do so, then their interests would be forcibly aligned.

We cannot gloss over the inconsistencies here, where on the one hand the bourgeoisie can only pursue a rigid class interest, yet its members are capable of the independent interest required to migrate to another class. And we must also mention that Marx himself, along with his supporter Engels, was a member of his so-called bourgeoisie, so according to his own strict doctrine, was unable or unqualified to align himself to the proletarian interest.

Marxian dogma was riddled with such inconsistences. Partly, this was due to the state of human knowledge at that time, and which formed the basis of any dialectical debate. Darwin contemporaneously proposed his evolutionary theory, pronouncing that humans evolved from the apes, and therefore were merely a higher form of animal, not a species apart favoured by God. This played neatly into Marxian philosophy.

It was also before the development of psychology by Sigmund Freud and Josef Breuer. It was believed that all human brains were the same, just as we have other internal organs with specific functions within the corpus. The concept, that humans differed in their intelligence, their acuity, was unknown. Even mental illness was believed to be a disorder emanating from the body. To Marx the philosopher, drawing on Hegel’s dialectical approach, it could have seemed logical that we are all the same, and that the obvious social differences are down to our upbringing in one or the other class.

He never defined class, which is too slippery a concept to pin down. Instead, he separated humanity into the exploited majority, the proletariat, and the minority that controls the proletariat, the bourgeoisie. He expected the proletariat to eventually rebel, forcing the bourgeoisie into the lower class, to be ruled over by a socialist administration. He believed that this would happen, because under capitalism, the impoverishment of the workers was inevitable, leading to a workers’ revolution. Yet, at the same time, he believed in the iron law of wages, most associated with David Ricardo. According to this law, wages were set by the availability of labour and the payments required to subsist. Higher wages than this basic level would lead to an increase in the availability of labour over time, while lower wages would reduce the labour pool. In this way, the cost of labour was expected to rebalance at a subsistence level. Labour was regarded as a simple commodity, whose supply was regulated by its demand. However, Marx’s belief in the iron law of wages is at odds with his supposition that the proletariat would be gradually impoverished. You cannot subscribe to both.

Subsequent improvements in economic knowledge have disproved both theories anyway. Marx’s approach was to arrogantly assume workers are unthinking work-slaves, which they are not. They are individuals with individual aspirations, and as Freud and Breuer showed later, they have brains separate from the corpus, with individual mental abilities that govern the corpus. Marx even despised the trade unions of the day, arguing that striking for higher wages was colluding with members of the bourgeoisie by negotiating with them, when instead they should be seeking their destruction. His thinking had evolved from the proposition that the destruction of the bourgeoise class would occur naturally in time, to encouraging a violent class revolution to bring it about. Workers going on strike compromised both alternatives.

Marx also cooked up a theory of dialectical materialism, a concept based on Hegelian dialectics and the materialist philosophy of Ludwig von Feuerbach (1804-72), whereby the material productive forces were meant to propel society through the class struggle towards socialism. Materialism, in this sense, is the doctrine that all changes are brought about by material entities, processes and events, and that all human ideas, choices and value-judgements can be reduced to material causes, which one day will be explained by the natural sciences.

Marx, the man, and Engels, his financial backer, came from the bourgeoisie, and had nothing in common with the proletariat. Their motivation was fundamentally dishonest. After expecting the destruction of the bourgeoisie through an evolution out of capitalism, they actively sought a violent revolution, and there can be little doubt that they impatiently expected to emerge as the leaders of the new order. They despised other socialists, who were seen as rivals. Far more famous in Marx’s time was Ferdinand Lassalle (1824-64), who shared the basic Hegelian philosophy, but helped Bismarck defeat the liberals in Prussia. To Marx, this cooperation with a government was anathema, just as national socialism was to Marxists in the next century.

To Marx, world communism could only have one leader and other socialists must be denounced. As von Mises wryly put it, the worst thing for a socialist is to be ruled by a socialist who is not your friend.

Marx and Engels despised both nationalism and national socialism, because they sought a global revolution so there was no place for national characteristics or cooperation with governments. It was, in effect, their bid for world domination, cooked up in the reading room of the British Library. A decade after the Communist manifesto was published, Marx stopped advocating peaceful revolution, in favour of civil war in all countries to destroy the bourgeoise class. Marx and Engels sought to provoke and benefit from it. The plotting with Engels increasingly took that direction and Engels studied military science in preparation for his role as commander-in-chief.

Despite Marx’s theories and subsequent plotting with Engels, Marxism was exposed by events, even from the outset, as a failure. In the years following the publication of the Communist Manifesto until his death in 1883, despite the boom and bust cycles following the middle of that century, the lot of the proletariat improved immeasurably. Something was going horribly wrong with Marxist predictions, and the chief architect had passed away into obscurity. He had, however, set the template for Lenin, who took up the Marxist banner with the Russian revolution thirty-four years later.

We now know what happened, though much of it was kept from us until the Berlin Wall was dismantled. Just as Marx strove for a global communist revolution, destroying nation states as well as the bourgeoisie, Lenin had the same Marxian objective. It persisted into the post-war era, with the annexation of Eastern Europe, and persistent attempts to undermine Western Europe. Soviet spies were everywhere. Not only did we have the Cambridge five, and left-wing economics professors promoting socialism in the top universities, but even Harry Dexter-White, a very senior US Treasury official who founded the IMF and the World Bank, was a Soviet spy.

Marx was a dead-beat plotter, who should have simply sunk into obscurity. But like Keynes in the following century, he made his half-truths sound eminently plausible. His training as a philosopher imparted a respectability to his theories. Even at his graveside, Engels eulogised him thus:

“Just as Darwin discovered the law of development or organic nature, so Marx discovered the law of development of human history: the simple fact, hitherto concealed by an overgrowth of ideology, that mankind must first of all eat, drink, have shelter and clothing, before it can pursue politics, science, art, religion, etc….”

How can you not respect, even adulate a man expressed in these terms? You cannot say that a philosopher, who discovered the law of development of human history, who recognised that man needs food, water, shelter and clothing is wrong, or bad. This is in strict contrast with the title of this short essay, that Marx was the worst man in modern history. If it hadn’t been for developments long after his death, this epitaph would not be worth challenging. There have been far worse perpetrators of human misery in their lifetimes, with a roll call that goes back to the beginning of recorded history.

No, the reason Marx was a thoroughly bad man, even evil, was he plotted not just the domination of one country, but the whole world by advocating the destructive forces of civil violence. He was a poor parody of a Bond villain. And as is the case with all socialists, he wanted total domination. You could take the view that he was a latter-day Don Quixote, delusional and mad, and that Engels was a sort of financial Sancho Panza without the wit. This would be incorrect. Marx was a failure as a philosopher, and instead of rethinking and recanting, he moved from a position of preparing himself for a leading role in what he saw as inevitable, to advocating violent social destruction.

It was Marx’s wrong-headed philosophy that led to the deaths of a hundred million souls, perpetrated by those he inspired, as well as the enslavement of most of the population of the Eurasian land-mass. And if we are to identify his catastrophic error in the simplest terms, it was the brief sentence in the preface to his A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, referred to above. If instead he had correctly concluded that,

“It is the consciousness of men that determines their existence, and not their social existence”

the world would be a far better place today, with ordinary people free to have delivered economic progress to their fellow men and women without bearing the burden of Marx’s failed philosophies.

He is my nomination for the worst man in the modern history of humanity, and we should remember this and only this on the bicentenary of his birth.
 

Comments

IridiumRebel Dr. Engali Fri, 05/11/2018 - 23:12 Permalink

She’s a man baby!

Had a student ask if communism is good or bad. Two minutes later and the deaths of about 80-120 million remembered and he understood why it’s kinda bad.

He also understands that a day job may be needed to support the goal of “youtube blogger”.

Fun fact: a few of Marx kids died from malnutrition due to his voracious appetite to write his manifesto .

In reply to by Dr. Engali

revolla IridiumRebel Fri, 05/11/2018 - 23:16 Permalink

Agree. A man whose ideology inspired the destruction of so many souls deserves no less than a righteous judgment of condemnation.

He transferred his Talmudic Jewish upbringing of hating others, as opposed to the Christian one of Loving One Another, into his politics. 

And the result has been catastrophic, to say the least.

Sadly, his ways have infected the USG with the deadly anti-Christ virus of HATE.

In reply to by IridiumRebel

J S Bach revolla Fri, 05/11/2018 - 23:20 Permalink

At last!  A headline on ZH that posits truth whereas I do not have to type a contrarian opinion!

Yes, indeed, Marx was a fraud, (just as his descendant Sigmund Freud)!  His ideology has been proven to be unworkable, unnatural, immoral, and unjust.  And yet, our institutions of higher learning as well as our public school curricula STILL flaunt this evil dogma as something to be learned, emulated, imbued and passed on to our children.  A more insane course for our progeny's future could not be written.  Seriously... this ideology has to be burned out of existence... literally.  Those who espouse it must be excoriated and imprisoned.  History has proven its "ineffectiveness".  We, of sane minds, must fight for the future of our children.  This toxic insanity must end.

In reply to by revolla

T-NUTZ PrayingMantis Sat, 05/12/2018 - 00:17 Permalink

Marx was worse than mass murderers such as Stalin, Hitler?   dude, that is the most retarded article I've ever read.  Marx never advocated socialism and was not a socialist.  He did not advocate murder or violence.  Marx was describing what late stage capitalism would produce:  corruption and revolution.  

looks spot on to me.  wake up.

In reply to by PrayingMantis

a Smudge by an… LiteBeeer Sat, 05/12/2018 - 04:03 Permalink

Funny how there are diffences of opinion. I saw the headline and I thought about Stonewall Jackson the enthusiastic killer of my native people. His name is pretty much synonymous with words like "Satan Lord Of Darkness" and "Reaver" and "Death".

 

He is famous to you guys for being the guy who tried to take on the banksters. He said "By God I shall root thee out".

 

I would like at this juncture to say that Jackson failed at both of his life missions: he did not manage to kill all of us indians and he sure as fuck failed at fighting the banks.

 

That right there makes the man a total loser by all accounts.

In reply to by LiteBeeer

Rapunzal BennyBoy Sat, 05/12/2018 - 10:53 Permalink

Marx just wrote a Book, he was a Freemason like most of the elites are. It’s ruling banking elites who creates political systems that struggle and compete. The Rockefellers/Rothschilds supported Lenin/Trotzki. The same way they supported Hitler later. They are parasites taking over movements to stay in control, by financing them. All politicians are puppets.

In reply to by BennyBoy

FBaggins Jackprong Sat, 05/12/2018 - 11:44 Permalink

Wake up. Look at the facts. What is the true history of Marxism. When the cabal took over Russia and Eastern Europe they vigorously tried to stomp out Christianity in all of its forms.  The same group has with their funding supported the Frankfurt School and spread cultural Marxism all through the West, with the same objective of ridding the world of Christianity as their bolder Bolshevik comrades. 

________

http://puppet99.com/page_id/30

Rothschilds Brought Us Communism – Funded Lenin and Trotsky

“The Rothschilds along with Jacob Schiff created the major events of the 20th century by providing the key funding for the Bolsheviks, Lenin and Trotsky. This was largely accomplished through Jacob Schiff who, while a force in his own right, was part of the Rothschild Empire. The Russian Revolution of 1917 eventually led to the domination of Eastern Europe by Communist Russia after World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War and all conflicts associated with the Cold War. All these wars served to undermine nationalism and led to the formation of the United Nations, the IMF, the World Bank, etc.—international governments which moved the Rothschilds toward their goal of One World Government (i.e. The New World Order).
 

The Rothschilds also had a multi-generational feud with the Czars of Russia, the only royalty who would not cooperate with the Rothschilds. In the American Civil War, Abraham Lincoln invited Czar Alexandra II to send his fleet over as protection (which he did) in order to foil a plot by the Rothschild’s which would see France and Britain intervene on the side of the South. In Russia’s war with Japan, Jacob Schiff (part of the Rothschild Empire) made it impossible for Russia to borrow the money to finance the war and, even more ruinously, he financed Japan. The Russians suffered a humiliating defeat.
 

The Bolsheviks ended the feud in 1918 by butchering Czar Nicholas II, his wife, his son and his four daughters. As if to say, “Let that be a lesson”.
The Rothschilds Money Power creates the events which will become the history of our planet.”

________

https://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=166582
HOW IS IT MARX DIDN'T COMMENT ON ROTHSCHILDS AND INTERNATIONALIST CAPITALISM??#14727174

By david.findley -  17 Oct 2016 12:38

“I also give some weight to the argument that the original Communist revolutions in Russia were successful in part to Internationalist funding, to overthrow a Czar who was resistant to a privatization of central banking in his empire. 

..And so I come to the conclusion, that either Marx was hideously ignorant of this giant shadow of the International Financiers, an element of economy of paramount importance -- or that Marx was collaborating with the Rothschild family !

Of course this collaboration of philosophers in Marx's tradition, with Rothschilds, at least goes back to FWJ Schelling -- who in his 'System of Transcendental Idealism' asserted World Government as a natural consequence of dialectic, (implying sympathy or collaboration with then-secret society Illuminati, which Rothschilds either founded or propagated, that it's tenets still echo even today!)”

In reply to by Jackprong

HopefulCynical FBaggins Sun, 05/13/2018 - 14:12 Permalink

Capitalism is a word Marx used to disparage free market economics, a system for which he had nothing worthwhile to contribute. Today, we call bankster-fuelled cronyism "capitalism" and argue whether it's better than "communism." Both suck donkey balls, and both are used by globalist parasites to be de facto ranchers of humanity itself.

End The Fed.

Hang The Banksters.

Repeal the 16th.

Let Freedom Ring!

In reply to by FBaggins

fleur de lis Jackprong Sat, 05/12/2018 - 11:47 Permalink

Marx was a parasite by nature.

Up until his existence, parasitic behavior was recognized at all levels by latching on, taking advantage, cheating, and forming rackets -- all of which were socially despised although they were a chronic part of the human condition.

Marx's contribution to humanity was that he mapped out on paper how to implement mass parasitic behavior at the administrative level.

This way a parasitic lifestyle became acceptable and eventually respectable.

Look no farther than our Elysian Fields of Academia for the pinnacle of parasitic behavior.

Those parasites were at one time sophisticated and smart enough to keep quiet about ripping off the taxpayers for all the easy money and bennies, but they have devolved into  illiterate, destructive, slovenly, and unproductive parasites who are destroying the host.

Furthermore they have devolved into inferior and stunted thinkers, so they don't even have the survival mechanism to shut up.

So they leave their safe and vernal preserves, and venture out into the streets among the taxpayers who up until this point do not notice them.

They act aggressively in broad daylight, joining and goading protests, signaling to their caregivers and feeders that they are ready to fight them, and furthermore creating chaos that the taxpayers must clean up.

That gets the taxpayers thinking, and clear thinking is not something that is advantageous to academia.

Academia uses big, fancy word salads to obfuscate anything and everything, creating a mirage of superior intelligence, and using risible academic titles to justify looking down upon their feeders and getting whatever it is that they want.

Then the taxpayers start to weigh things like cost/benefit, deficient post graduate employment rates, and huge tuition debts gone down a money pit that the taxpayers are forced to pay.

The academic parasites are now dodo birds who fancy themselves smart.

All this because Marxism poisoned their ability to think clearly.

Now Darwin is observing.

 

In reply to by Jackprong

bluez fleur de lis Sat, 05/12/2018 - 13:18 Permalink

How many here actually read Das Kapital? It was an amazing hodge-podge of all kinds of seriously radical, yet apparently unrelated concepts. Many people call it "economics" today but that's nuts. There is a ton of Biblical prophesy. And it eventually goes on to predict the withering away of the state. It's all in there!

It's really too bad that so many Napoleonic types like Stalin and Mao latched on to it and spoiled it for the rest of us. If he believed all that stuff himself he had to be a very odd piece of work, but I don't blame him for how it all went sideways. I know who is really to blame:

Abraham Lincoln. It was Lincoln who invented industrial warfare. The rest of the world merely perfected it. If Marx never existed the lunatics in Europe and China would have simply latched on to some other excuse for mass mayhem. Maybe "national socialism" or something like that. The human is a bloody animal.

In reply to by fleur de lis

snblitz warpig1 Sat, 05/12/2018 - 19:36 Permalink

Not so.  At least not in the original meaning of capitalist.  Today's capitalists are simply thieves hiding behind the word capitalism.

A true capitalist wants to profit off the back of the person he is trading with.  The cool thing about voluntary trade is that both parties think they are winning.

https://www.finitespaces.com/2018/01/01/has-capitalism-failed-and-are-the-other-isms-better/

In reply to by warpig1

Giant Meteor a Smudge by an… Sat, 05/12/2018 - 06:32 Permalink

I'm thinkin you were meaning Andy Jackson, a.k.a "Old Hickory." He was the injun slayer.

Stonewall was into killin yankees ..

And ole Stonewall was apparently good at it too. A very pious man who rumor has it tried butter once on his daily bread but never had it again because he liked it too much. Now that is going to extreme lengths in self denial ..

In reply to by a Smudge by an…

fx a Smudge by an… Sat, 05/12/2018 - 07:52 Permalink

It is evidently clear from the article that the author hasn't read much that was written by Marx. If he read anything at all.

Marx was a very sharp observer, trying to connect all the dots from all the science available at that time. Btw, he NEVER wrote that some "avantgarde party should kill all their opponents". A lot of the stuff he wrote was descriptive, not necessarily a call for action. For instance, he never claimed that the working class would or could act as a whole, like a uniform body. He used these class terms merely as decriptive category. One of the big mistakes by subsequent applicants of Marx' theories was to somehow assume that "the working class" should or could do this or that (and since this obviously didn't work, the avantgarde party" was invented to tell the working class and everybody else what was best for them and later on, to violently enforce their views).

 

As for his descriptions of capitalism, its workings and inherent contradictions and flaws, it is remarkable how much of it is still valid, 150 years later with the www, IT, AI, global central bank QEs and all that stuff.

Capitalism's inherent tendency to conentration of wealth and power and the tendency of the profit rates to fall over time and that capitalism ulitmately has to eat up itself, are spot on. cEntral banks and insane amounts of credit creation have temorarily halted and reversed the process, but guven how unsustainable they are, they cannot prevent the inevitable.

 

To tout Marx as "the most evil guy of xxx centuries" is as intellectually poor as to blame the disciples of Jesus (and the apostels) who wrote down the bible for the crusades, the witch burnings and all that. Seriously?

 

In reply to by a Smudge by an…

nmewn fx Sat, 05/12/2018 - 08:48 Permalink

"cEntral banks and insane amounts of credit creation have temorarily halted and reversed the process, but guven how unsustainable they are, they cannot prevent the inevitable."

Are you saying that you think central banks are capitalist? So what did he mean by this?

"Number 5: Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly."

In reply to by fx

HomeOfTheHypocrite nmewn Sat, 05/12/2018 - 11:12 Permalink

So the question is, does the State, in our society, have an exclusive monopoly on the creation of credit? Since private banks all over the country are constantly lending money, then how is it reasonable to claim that the government is exercising an "exclusive monopoly" on the creation of credit. We have long ceded that authority to private banks through the fractional reserve system.

In reply to by nmewn

bshirley1968 HomeOfTheHypocrite Sat, 05/12/2018 - 10:16 Permalink

The main flaw in this discussion between what is worse, communism or capitalism......Marx or some other philosophical goober, is the complete disregard for the influence of morals and character on a society coupled with the rule of law based on the foundation of logical, common law that has been with man since the beginning.

No matter what form of societal organization you call it, it is wrong to covet the property if another to the point you will steal it, cheat them out of it, or kill them in order to take it. When that moral code is forsaken....on any level of societal structure, you are left with a system of lawlessness that is used by those with the power to take from those without the power to defend themselves and their property. You can complicate the discussion by throwing in the various levels of government and the mechanism by which it operates, but in the end you are left with the simple basis of the strong robbing from the weak.....and using the weak as slaves to continue to produce for the strong.

This type of society comes about from the lack of morals and character. Marx and Darwin could discuss such things as "survival of the fittest" and "wealth redistribution" because they lacked a moral compass and had the character of chimpanzees.

There is a "simple" solution. "Love thy neighbor as thyself." Sometimes that means having nothing to do with them because, if you were your neighbor, you wouldn't have any dealings with yourself.......but this code NEVER justifies the use of force by you or anyone acting on your behalf taking what belongs to your neighbor. This includes paying off politicians to pass illegal laws to take your neighbors property for you.

We have lost our morality. We have no moral compass. All has become "relative". When a capitalistic system loses its moral compass, it will degenerate into the lawless butchery of collectivism.....be it socialism, communism, fascism, etc.

In conclusion, it is not the system that determines the success or failure of a society, but rather the implementation of that system by people with a hard, fixed moral code that respects the property of others......AND a legal system of enforcement that is also driven by the same moral code and cannot be bought off or corrupted. Without a principled, moral based people, with a high degree of character a society will quickly devolve into a scenario of predators and prey where "force" is the only rule of law. This is why our government today is obsessed with being an unchallenged force in the world and within our own country.....so it is NEVER questioned that they have the ability to come and take what the "let" you use, anytime they want it. Now, I ask you, what is your "title" of that description? Titles are meaningless, morality is everything. When man is the determiner of his own moral code, LAWLESSNESS is all you will ever get.

This is how we know there is a God that gave to man a "moral code" that is above the world of the animal kingdom. If man was the sole, final determiner of what is right and wrong, then man would always "legislate" by committee or direct edict that taking the property of another is justifiable even to the point of killing others when necessary to take the property desired.....for the purpose of wealth, power, control or all combined. If there was no God-given moral code written in our conscience at our creation, EVERY ONE of us would have ZERO problem with "only the strong survive" and "survival of the fittest". We would daily seek to kill and take the things we desired with ZERO thought of right or wrong.......like so many people in charge of the world today.

So how do we get here? 1. By turning our backs on the teaching and reinforcement of that moral code at an early age. 2. By allowing people to commit acts of disregard to that moral code....and even rewarding them for it....with no punishment or consequence. Look at the lawlessness of our government today, and they are rewarded and praised for their lawlessness and treachery......so that a large portion of society seeks to emulate their behavior.....and get rewarded. Whether you are collectivistic or individualistic in you societal philosophy, we all seek that which can only be attained by adherence to a God-given moral code.

In reply to by HomeOfTheHypocrite

bshirley1968 HomeOfTheHypocrite Sat, 05/12/2018 - 13:59 Permalink

As with everything in life the best we can EVER hope for to maintain balance of "good over evil".

There will always be germs, bacteria, viruses, etc. There will always be parasites....roaches, termites, rats, and other vermin. The problems come when your white blood cell count is low.....when bacteria become concentrated.....when roaches and rats aren't controlled.....when termites aren't kept away from structures you want to keep.

You cannot focus just on the bad, wicked, and evil and say there has never been a moral compass or that morality in this country has always been at the same level.....that is ridiculous and I will not waste time giving examples.

Furthermore, do not equate God with man's idea of Him. When men use a tool or reasoning to commit evil, it does not make the tool or even the teaching bad or evil.....unless you believe guns kill people?

If I killed someone and told everyone that you told me to do it, does that make my lie reality...or you the bad person?

I don't mind explaining these things but you should really start looking for TRUTH on you own and figuring this stuff out. Fact: There is a moral compass that finds its origin outside the mind of humanity. Fact: Man's disregard of that moral compass doesn't mean it does not exist.....it just means man has chosen to ignore it.

We have reached a point in this country were the MAJORITY call evil good and good evil......either actively by living that way or passively by not condemning it and taking pleasure in it or profiting from it.

In reply to by HomeOfTheHypocrite

HomeOfTheHypocrite bshirley1968 Sun, 05/13/2018 - 10:15 Permalink

I respect your right to your opinion, but I strongly disagree that it is FACT that morality exists apart from man. The only morality that exists in nature is the law of survival.

I believe that man is the arbiter of what is Good and Just and what is Evil, and that shirking from that duty and laying it at the feet of some god is a deterioration of man's character. A man is responsible for seeking the Just and the Right. He should not have be instructed to do so by a deity.

In reply to by bshirley1968

bshirley1968 HomeOfTheHypocrite Mon, 05/14/2018 - 12:58 Permalink

I am sure you are an evolutionist that believe man is just part of the animal kingdom as well.  You can't have it both ways.

Animals do not have a moral code.  A conscience cannot "evolve" from biological matter.  If you live long enough and open your eyes to the truth, REALITY will show I am right.  We are almost there now.  The "laws" that exist today give the "state" every right to take what is your......just short of killing you to get it done.  In some places and circumstances, killing you is perfectly acceptable.  It won't be long until killing is the norm.

When men turn their back on God and become their own god society devolves into a murderous, perverse hell hole.  We are close now, give it some time.

Ask yourself this; why would one human being have no problem killing you and taking what you own, and another human being believes that would be completely immoral and wrong?  Do you think there are a glob of cells that exist in one and not the other that causes him to think murder is wrong while the other has no problem bashing your brains in?  No.  One has a conscience and the other has "seared" his conscience. 

If the only "morality that exists in nature is the law of survival", then there is nothing wrong with me killing you and taking what you have.....based on the survival of my family.  If you really believe that, then you are truly an idiot and lost as a human being.  Better get to know the God that made you before you stand before Him one day.  Man's greatest enemy is mankind.  Because, "The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked....."  No way man ever came up with, "Thou shalt not kill (murder)" as a universal moral code of mankind.

In reply to by HomeOfTheHypocrite

NYC_Rocks fx Sat, 05/12/2018 - 09:25 Permalink

You have it backwards and have stated an opinion that is a fallacy. 

Capitalism does not have "an inherent tendency to concentration of wealth."  Wealth is not a fixed pie.  It has expanded over time.  Those who are innovative, creative and/or just plain work hard have more wealth.  It's just storage of work.  We have much more wealth on the planet than 20 yrs ago and even more than 100 yrs ago and even more than 1000 yrs ago.  There is no power in a voluntary, free market as all trades are, well.... voluntary.  You can't earn wealth without trading with others, who have...wealth.  Power comes from force which is govt interference, laws and regulations. There are no instances of capitalism ultimately eating itself up but there are plenty of failed socialists states.  So no, not spot on.  And central banks BTW are state controlled (note the board of governors are formed through Federal Reserve Act which grants our central bank MONOPOLY POWER - to print currency etc). Govt is force/violence more than any other entity.  They have the army, police and ability to make and enforce laws.  Private sector doesn't have that, although they bribe the govt for advantages, protection and subsidies.  So blame govt, not the wealth.

In reply to by fx

NYC_Rocks bluez Sat, 05/12/2018 - 15:31 Permalink

You should move to venezuela.  You'll be happier there.  You don't seem to understand what the founders of our constitution were trying to do.  Govt is supposed to protect our liberty, not "beat down on the 99%."  And obviously that's not what govt is doing given they allowed the banks to be bailed out, and GM etc etc etc.

In reply to by bluez

Musum fx Sat, 05/12/2018 - 09:40 Permalink

As for his descriptions of capitalism, its workings and inherent contradictions and flaws, it is remarkable how much of it is still valid, 150 years later with the www, IT, AI, global central bank QEs and all that stuff.
Capitalism's inherent tendency to conentration of wealth and power and the tendency of the profit rates to fall over time and that capitalism ulitmately has to eat up itself, are spot on. cEntral banks and insane amounts of credit creation have temorarily halted and reversed the process

QE, central banks, concentration of power, Wall St. dominance, credit creation . . . That's not capitalism, but the handiwork of socialists, probably inspired by teachings like Marx's.

In reply to by fx

snblitz fx Sat, 05/12/2018 - 19:49 Permalink

I have read Marx and lots of others.

I will let you in on a secret.  Many people's writings, including Marx and Keynes, are just mindless rambling.  There is nothing there that can be reduced to something well defined at least as mathematicians, like myself, would look at it.  Nothing to implement and test in a finite arena.  Nothing you can demonstrate for yourself.

And I do not mean there is an inconsistency here or there. I mean all the verbiage simply does not say anything meaningful.  There is nothing there. 

In mathematics we generally start with little truths like 1+1=2 and work up to more complex concepts.

Keynes and Marx not only **do not** start with little concepts, there really are no concepts at all.

I do not mean to single out Keynes and Marx, plenty of other writers are just as bad.  But Keynes and Marx do have a lot of followers who believe there is something there when there is nothing there.

Adam Smith, the evil capitalist, at least starts out little truths that you can demonstrate for yourself.  For a compare and contrast, and to understand what I am trying to describe, try reading Adam Smith's  The Wealth of Nations and Karl Marx's Das Capital.  Even if you just read the first 50 pages of each book the difference should be clear.

In reply to by fx