Skip to main content

The Way Marxists Think



Sometimes when I am lacking in the level of initiative and motivation I need to sustain to achieve all my goals short term and long range, I go onto message forums and Facebook groups and join in some debates with Marxists and socialists to get my head right.

Just to think, if I keep staying unmotivated and uninspired long enough, my mind could atrophy so badly I end up like one of these blighted souls! It's a real gut check.

Well recently some one started off a debate asking for some Marxists to justify their belief that wage labor and the employer-employee relationship are inherently exploitative.

One happily obliged:

"Wage labour pays only a fraction of what it's worse. [I think he meant to type "worth"] That's where the exploitation happens. Your wage isn't the whole value of your work, most of it is retained by the boss as surplus, or profit."

To which I responded:

"Of course the labor is worth more than the wages to the employer. That's why the employer willingly exchanges the wages for the labor.

But by the same token, the wages are worth more than the labor to the employee. That's why the employee willingly exchanges the labor for the wages."

And a fellow economic literate and clear thinker agreed further down the discussion:

"Wesley's first comment ends the entire thread tbh."

But the Marxist would not relent. Here's how Marxists think:

"Wesley, you're ignoring the threat of homelessness and starvation. There's no willing exchange in the majority of employment"

My obvious answer:

"Who's making that threat? The employer? No that's the default human condition. Our ancestors came down from the trees. They had to work to eat too. A LOT harder than we do."

The Marxist's retort:

"There's nothing natural about poverty. It is man made and can be undone by men, it is capitalists and their system which benefits from it

Default human condition, same thing. I think we're a bit too late on in history to try and compensate for our downfalls with cave dweller logic"

And my final answer was:

"I guess you're right that the worker must work or face homelessness and starvation, but that's a cry against the nature of reality, not a critique of employers and employees exchanging wages for labor.

The employer has to keep paying workers and exchanging goods for payment or else go out of business and be homeless and starve, right? No willing exchange on her side either? No body engages in willing exchange? Because we all have to make an effort to live?

That's a cry against God take it up with him."

The Marxist stopped commenting after that.

Popular posts from this blog

Obama keeps pushing the bipartisan religion of interventionism

Michael Scheuer is deadly accurate - foreign interventionism is a bipartisan religion (or disease, whichever you prefer). Too often, I believe, Americans think about Washington’s interventionism only as the actual physical intervention of U.S. military forces abroad in places where no U.S. interest is at risk. That activity certainly is intervention, but President Obama’s despicable decision last week to have his administration leak intelligence claiming that Israel has concluded an agreement with the government of Azerbaijan to allow its use of Azeri airfields for an air strike on Iran is just as much an unwarranted intervention by the United States government. Readers of this blog will know that I carry no brief for Israel, that I believe it is a state that is irrelevant to U.S. national interests, and one whose U.S.-citizen supporters are disloyal to America and involved in activities that compromise U.S. security and corrupt the U.S. political system. That said, Israel — l...

Ron Paul’s Devious Plan to Steal the Presidency

This is an absolute hoot! Ron Paul hating Republicans are in panic mode. The website Hillbuzz.org includes in its blogroll Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin and Conservatives4Palin. Hillbuzz is so utterly revolting that I may just have to subscribe to its updates. Up until yesterday, I really hadn’t taken the Ron Paul campaign very seriously. Most non-Paul voters probably felt like I did, and laughed him off as that “kooky Uncle” who didn’t have a chance in hell to win the Republican nomination for President. Well, I’ve changed my mind. Big time. Yesterday I attended the Republican organizational convention for my Senate district here in Minnesota, and what I witnessed was an organized take-over of our nomination process by Ron Paul cultists. They came to this convention with the sole intent to take over as many of the delegate seats as they could, and sadly, they succeeded. Read the rest here Hillbuzz 

How Thorough a Brainwashing

Saw this on Facebook: Left this comment: It's more thorough of a wash job than that. They don't just believe they are not brainwashed, the question has never occurred to them and as long as they keep reading TIME and watching MTV, it's *impossible* for the question to occur to them. Oh brave new world, that has such people in it. EDIT: And one more thing-- don't ever stop considering what questions it is currently impossible to occur to you . This is what I've been thinking about a lot lately and I'm worried just how large and numerous my own blindspots are. The only solution is to be as intellectually curious as possible. To learn voraciously. To read things that challenge us. To read things that are hard for us to understand and then try to understand them. To expose ourselves to ideas far removed from our present culture and place on the timeline. Read old books. Read foreign books. Turn off the TV. You have already absorbed its biases and blindspots. ...
–––As Featured On–––