Why Marxism is Evil


Steven Crowder released a video rebutting a seemingly innocent look into Marxism. I suggest you watch it.

Let me explain some things from my viewpoint. First, here is why Marxism is not only wrong, but evil.

  • Marxism treats people like machines. It doesn’t account for the fact that people have free will and can choose for themselves. It assumes that all people are alike, or react similarly, or are equally hopeless or whatnot. If you believe in diversity, then you cannot believe in Marxism. If you believe in freewill, then you cannot believe in Marxism. If you were to believe in Marxism, then you could not believe in freewill. This alone makes Marxism evil.
  • Marxism assigns people to roles in society, and then judges them not based on their actions, but on their roles. This entirely absolved people of guilt and reduces them down to labels. That is, whether I do good or not is irrelevant in Marxism. Only my role or label matters. This is completely contradictory to pretty much everyone’s understanding of morality, and if you think of it this way, exposes why Marxism is evil. For instance, it never gives anyone a chance to change or redeem themselves.
  • Marxism builds a wall between people in different roles rather than bringing them together. For instance, it pits business owners against employees as if they were locked in mortal combat or eternal enemies. The truth is that neither would enter into an agreement if they did not feel they were getting some benefit out of it. While Marxism focuses on the gains that business owners get out of hiring people to work for them, it does not explain the gains that employees get from working for an employer, and it does not compare the alternatives, which employees obviously find less beneficial. Marxism, in short, sets people up as enemies and does not show why they are really working together. Marxism causes war and fighting and discord, and so it is evil.
  • Marxism sponges off of the success of capitalism, but does not restore what it takes. It’s a nice idea that people can own their own work, or that some central actor can plan things out, but in no case does Marxism provide any material benefit over capitalism. Marx does not propose that his reforms will make people wealthier. Instead, it says quite the opposite: it intends to eliminates one of the “evils” of capitalism: surplus wealth.
  • Marxism labels the act of creating wealth as stealing. That is, when someone creates wealth out of practically nothing, it calls such a person a thief. If I went out into the middle of nowhere and built a successful farm, then Marxism would label me a thief. Profit is, in short, every good that ever was in the world. Even Jesus himself in the parable of the talents explains that we must turn a profit, meaning, we must take what we have and double it or more. If we do not profit, in Jesus’ eyes, then we will have what little we have taken from us and given to those who profit the most. Marxism calls good evil and so it is evil.
  • Marxism labels the act of theft as good and desirable. That is, taking something you did not create by force and living off of it, which in any other context is obviously robbery and banditry and thievery of the worst sort, is the ultimate ideal of Marxism. This also makes it evil.
  • Marxism cannot work without government to force people to comply, often involving things like emotional, mental or physical abuse, torture, imprisonment, enslavement, or murder. This is also obviously evil.

It isn’t very hard to see the evil within Marxism, even when people try to dress it up. It is obvious to those who value freedom why Marxism is evil, as well as obvious to those who have at least a rudimentary understanding of basic moral issues and rights.

Because of the way Marxists argue, I cannot attack Marxism without defending capitalism. I don’t know why this is; perhaps they feel that Marxism is less than or equal to the evil of capitalism. But let me defend the morality of capitalism.

  • Capitalism is freedom. You own what you own, and you do with it whatever you think is right. No one can force you to do things you don’t want to do with your things. Some argue that capitalism forces you to go to market to get things you want, but this simply isn’t the case. You are free to obtain those things however you wish, as long as it doesn’t involve taking it from someone else without their permission.
  • Capitalism has a proven track record of producing real wealth. Capitalism has given us every modern invention and lifted us out of poverty into insane wealth. Capitalism is so successful everywhere it is tried that the only complaint people have is people get too rich or have too much surplus. Since capitalism produces things that people need, even to excess, it cannot be considered evil.
  • Capitalism empowers people. At the heart of every transaction in capitalism is free will on every side of the transaction. You are free to barter away your things, but you don’t have to and no one will force you to. Instead, you are free to find those transactions that will benefit you. Indeed, if people act in their own self-interest, then every transaction will be mutually beneficial. IE, the baseball bat manufacturers will trade their bats for the baseball manufacturer’s balls, so everyone can play baseball.
  • Capitalism is the only real solution to poverty. Poverty is caused by people being incapable of producing enough to sustain themselves and to prosper. Capitalism says people get what they make and what they trade for. This may seem to unfairly advantage people who are better than others at producing the things people want, but in reality, comparative advantage means that it is in everyone’s best interests to give work to those that are best at doing that thing, no matter how unproductive they are compared to everyone else. That is, everyone, no matter how unfit for productive labor, has a use in a capitalist society. As long as they do those things they are best at and that are most productive for themselves, everyone benefits maximally. Again: The poor, the lame, the blind, the deaf, the disabled, everyone who has every advantage, no matter how severe, will be productive under capitalism because of comparative advantage.
  • Capitalism doesn’t preclude any other form of economic interaction, provided that it relies on free will and not coercion. If you want to form a charity and spend all your hard-earned money on helping the less-advantaged, capitalism says “Cool!” Indeed, because capitalism is so wildly productive, people do have surplus that they can either use to make ever more stuff, or they can spend on charity.
  • Under capitalism, everyone can be insanely wealthy. For instance, take a look at the poorest of the poor here in America. They have access to things that simply didn’t exist a few hundred years ago, making them wealthier, by far, than anyone living in that era. A hundred years from now, if we continue with capitalism, the poorest of the poor will be far wealthier than the wealthiest among us. We might complain about the fact that one person has a billion times more stuff than someone else, but we cannot deny that the poorest among us have much more than our ancestors ever could dream of having.

I don’t know what the “ideal” economic system will look like. However, I do know a few things:

  • Forcing people to do things they don’t want to do is wrong.
  • Forcing people to not do things that won’t hurt themselves is wrong.
  • Calling people evil because they belong to a group is wrong.
  • Calling people evil because they create wealth is wrong.
  • Allowing people to choose their own life is right.

That said, the next complaint I can already hear is: “What about the poor?” To those who have ignored everything else I wrote, let me call this out specifically.

  • Under capitalism, there is a lot of surplus wealth that can be donated for the benefit of the poor. Under Marxism, there is no surplus wealth to use to help the poor.
  • Under capitalism, even the poorest among us has some economic use due to comparative advantage. Because they have use, they get paid. Under Marxism, they have no freedom to find the thing they are best at and so don’t necessarily benefit others. Indeed, it is in Marxist systems that people talk about eliminating the undesirables.
  • Under capitalism, the poor are free to invest and save their wealth. Those who start out poor don’t end up that way. Under Marxism, there is no hope of ever becoming wealthy. The wealthy are considered evil.

One more note: Families and such. Under capitalism, people have a self-interest to get married, raise their kids properly, save for the future, and do other “boring” stuff that makes society a nice place to live in for all involved. Even the greedy and selfish find that there are powerful economic and personal reasons to join themselves together. Under Marxism, there is no such motivation. I think this is why we find that hard-core Marxists have no moral compass and seem to be involved in all sorts of perversions and don’t seem very interested in raising the next generation.

2 Responses to “Why Marxism is Evil”

  1. Jason Says:

    Marxist theory very much represents Marx himself. It is completely in line with his race (Jew), age (late 1800s), class (petty borgeois) and nationality (German).

    A common thread at the time was a deep misgiving about industrialization. Almost everyone of all political stripes felt it in one way or another. Things were thought to be somehow better on the farm amongst kith and kin. From the founding fathers to Adolf Hitler, many thinkers saw farms and local tradesmen as the ideal lifestyle, breeding virtuous, moral people.

    I think that Marx saw the deepening divisions between the haves and have nots and was justly morally alarmed. For example, when henry ford opened his first factory he tried to recruit from the local population of blacksmiths, machinists, etc.

    The locals wanted nothing to do with his factory.

    For good reason. Imagine working when you wanted, how you wanted, without a boss. If your kids wanted visit you at work they just needed to walk to your workshop. Your wife would bring you lunch. You could take a nap after. It was great. You were the king of your castle. Beholden to no man.

    Contrast that with factories where you did a boring, repetitive task under the harsh eyes of a foreman for hours on end. Working six days a week. Never around your family. Treated like a piece of machinery.

    No wonder Americans said “no thank you” and immigrants were brought in to work the factory in comparative slavery.

    Before we talk about them being poor, remember that the wright brothers both survived off a bicycle shop and still had enough time and money to take months off and build airplanes. They were not poor. Most local tradesmen had lifestyles we would be envious of and a high standard of living.

    Marx’s ideas very much made sense if you saw what he saw. He saw local tradesmen go to work at factories to become materially and spiritually poorer while the factory owners became fabulously wealthy. The workers suffered while the capitalists had a life of never before seen luxury and splendor. It all looked very suspicious and wrong to most people at the time.

    Something was broken but no one knew quite what.

    The factory arrangement still seems suspicious. If you look at the long span of human history, we find that the quality of human life has gone down over time. Hunter gatherers barely work, a middle age serf had 6 months off a year. We, on the other hand, sacrifice our entire adult life, our relationship with our kids, most meaningful experiences just to make another group rich.

    We compromise our humanity, voluntarily reducing ourselves to child-like serfs for the promise of more “stuff.”

    Sure we have more “stuff” now but stuff doesn’t make humans happy. Relationships with community and family does. I think Marx was very correct when he saw that the world was heading in the wrong direction.

    Unfortunately, his ideas got co-opted by academic weirdos and dictators.

    I think conservatives have an opportunity to look at Marx’s original misgivings and come up with a different set of solutions. But the key is to understand what made him come up with his theories. Understand the why of Marx then come up with a better how.

    One that restores humanity, not just gives people more stuff.

    Now, he was totally wrong on the nature of humans. We are not perfectable. We are not “blank slates.” I would suggest reading https://www.amazon.com/Blank-Slate-Modern-Denial-Nature/dp/1501264338 for a full account of the current state of thought on human nature. Seriously good book.

    Side note: on the eastern front of ww2 you had the communists and nazis slugging it out. Both ideologies were spawned from the same misgivings about capitalism but had slightly different solutions. Communists said kill the factory owners and nationalize the capital. Nazis wanted to retreat back to family and rural farming.

  2. Jason Gardner Says:

    “One more note: Families and such. Under capitalism, people have a self-interest to get married, raise their kids properly, save for the future, and do other “boring” stuff that makes society a nice place to live in for all involved. Even the greedy and selfish find that there are powerful economic and personal reasons to join themselves together. Under Marxism, there is no such motivation. I think this is why we find that hard-core Marxists have no moral compass and seem to be involved in all sorts of perversions and don’t seem very interested in raising the next generation.”

    The data shows otherwise. As people become more capitalistic the birthrate drops. Hard. As we moved away from the farm and into the city we stopped having children.

    The explanation that is commonly floated is that women have less children as they become more educated. It is correlated for sure, but I don’t think there is any causality there.

    I posit that the reason birth rate drops is:

    1) Under the current capitalist / economic model children are 100% burdens. You cannot take your children to work with you and your children cannot economically assist you. They are a net negative from a monetary point of view.

    2) Adults feel alienated from their own families. Family, as in knowing your place in your own family structure (where you fit with grandparents, great grandparents, aunts and uncles) is fast vanishing.

    3) Pride in family/culture/race, or even understanding your family/culture/race is strongly discouraged by both government and corporations.

    a) If you like your own heritage, you are a racist. If you enjoy your family and take pride in it you are just plain sexist and evil.

    b) Most people are bombarded by corporations with the message that your family is incomplete unless you buy a certain object or believe a certain way. Parents, especially dad, is viewed as inept at best or downright stupid at worst. (The reason, I believe, is that a parent that is wise and says no to product x is a threat to product x. Better to paint all parents as retards and rely on experts hired by the sellers of product x)

    4) The current economic model does everything it can to alienate people from their own families and inhibits new family creation.

    a) According to the corporations you are not a worthwhile woman unless you spend your fertile reproductive years getting properly trained for a corporate job (college) then actually work at a corporate job to reach the approved level of success. (You must pay homage to the corporations before you can have children or you are a failure.)

    Example: Facebook and similar high tech companies are offering to pay women to freeze eggs so that later they can be thawed and the woman can have children. Think about that… Facebook encourages woman to almost certainly forgo their own families (freezing eggs is very risky) so the Zuckerberg’s family can have a few extra bucks and share holders can make a few extra cents.

    b) People have a no sense of self or place anymore. Our great grandparents knew exactly who and what they were. The knew their own values, their communities values and what they were about. They were connected to the soil and to their own blood. Our generation, and those behind us, have no idea what they are or where they came from. They can only be good people if they have the right labels, eat at the right restaurants and get enough “likes” on Facebook.

    5) Destruction of nationalism and national character. Unfettered trade and the need for workers generally demands that nations lose their sovereignty and a nation’s people must be gradually degraded so that they are willing to work like slaves without complaint. The last thing a corporation wants is workers that advocate for themselves or demand accountability to the community. Even worse, imagine a workforce that puts their own family, country and race ahead of profits. Disaster! This must be destroyed….

    See, the thing is most people feel bad if they mistreat someone they care about. The solution to this is make people alien from themselves and the family/country/race so that they feel no allegiance to people that 100 years ago they would die for.

    All of this was done since capitalism took off in the early part of the last century. At least some of the destruction of our culture and families must belong to the corporations.

    Anyways, I think this is the new political paradigm. The global corporate and political elites who hate you vs. your family, country and race. Choose wisely!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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

%d bloggers like this: