POSSESSION 4 - MARXIST IMPERIALISM (3)
Recall that I wrote that, ultimately, it wasn't the ideological labels that people use, it's who they are as psychological monsters that really determines how history shakes out. For the most part. You can have a guy siding with the GOP his whole life, simply because he has a few extra coins, or wants a few extra coins, or appreciates the police, or such, but his underlying meaning is to have a PLACE in the family, which often is contrapositional to the PLACE of some other sibling.
Conversely, you've got a poorer sibling, always mistreated, angry, who decides to side with Dems for life, but really it's for similar reasons as those used by his other sibling.
So, you get sibling rivalry for parental attention, and that gets transferred INTO the broader society, via projections, sibling proxies, parental proxies, bottlenecking, passive aggressive tit-for-tat, labelling, etc. And this is where the great popular waves come from - waves of GOPpers, waves of Dems, etc. Everyone in each waves assumes he shares so much with the others in that wave, because of the shared ideology, but really it is the psychological pathos which they share.
Wokesters, BLM, destructionsists, and so on.
So, this is a way of seeing that, yes, Marxism is an extension of capitalism, and vice versa: Both ideologies are substantially bullcrap. Based on the will to power.
Another way of seeing that Marxism is an extension of capitalism, and vice versa, is by looking at some of their similar objectives. Why do people spend money? Soemtimes, it for similar reasons as to why Marxists want revolution..
Not in all cases, by any means. Most capitalists want to mind their own business, gradually growing and profitting through predictability and patience. If that's similar to anything Marxists do, then they are pre-revolution Marxists, hiding in the shadows.
But, in the first post of this series, we saw how some people can get bored with things and, instead of buying things for the sake of things, they buy things or means which can be used to hurt or harm other people. Or, they can spend money on cheating to get ahead. Or, they can spend money towards tearing down systems or people. These are all similar to what revolutionary Marxists like to do, their whole point being to upset and overthrow.
But, the ideals of Marxism preach that Marxists only want equity for the poor, the marginalised - healthcare for all - kindness and fairness - equal distribution of wealth - a safer climate - and all this humanitarian goodness, so many of them having once been jaded Catholics. Well, if these things are truly what Marxists want, then these things have some similarity to what many capitalists spend some money on, as well.
Capitalists spend on humanitarian causes in a few ways: 1 - Direct donations to charities. 2 - Contributions to their churches. 3 - Discrete assistance to the disadvantaged. And via the assumption that a free and fair market makes things fairer for the most people possible. (This assumption can reach absurd heights, with the belief than the more wealth they aquire for themselves, then somehow the more wealth they are giving away). They also spend money on gas, etc., getting to their jobs, which often serve other people in that society.
But, humanitarian objectives may be shared between capitalist and Marxist alike. And so this is another area where the two ideologies can blur into each other.
However, Marxism normally fails to manifest most of these ideals in reality, during or after the revolution. And here are some reasons why:
Marxism violently overthrows the preexisting system. Pretty hard to keep a humanitarian head in a time of bloodshed. Pretty hard to set up stable and safe systems for food distribution in such times. During the BLM riots, we saw Soros and Schwab and Buffet setting up tables of bricks and frozen water bottles, to be used in the violence. And, maybe they also set up food tables. But, they are all three billionaires, born from capitalism.
Marxist theory once assumed that the existing state would be dissolved by rust and social entropy, and so communism would just magically grow out of that - peacefully. As if planned, that idea was quickly abandoned, and all subsequent promoters of communism have been supporters not only of mass violence but also of some period of State Control, or market and need irrationality.
Let me just add some keywords for any future search: "Why communism doesn't work." / "Why Marxism can't work."
By seeking to spread equity of outcomes, and thus lowering everyone to common denominators of achievement and output, then the smarter and more creative people in society lose their motivation, and so industrial and farm output, overall, goes down under communism, just by this dismotivation factor. In capitalism, many people are motivated by personal competition. The idea of getting out of bed to serve some abstract "social good" doesn't really feel natural to those people.
Trying to equalise everything - because of humanitarian or tyrannical intentions - under one state, has the effect of perverting the values, transport, acquisition and use of certain goods. And, we have discussed this before. Top-down control encourages a rise in entropy or real expense overall. This is exacerbated by poor, centralised planning and subsequent climactic or genetic disruptions of agriculture, etc.
Not to worry, though! Centralised Statism, under, "communism," also happens when capitalism gets too stagnant and top-heavy, and moves towards corporatism, and then fascism, and then Statism - in which similar problems arise as discussed above, under, "communism." So, when economies and governments rigour-mortify, then they can also blur into each other.
And, the road to rigour mortis is called dysfunctionalism, an economic and psychological term. All great civilisations tend to go through phases of dysfunctionalism, especially before they collapse / and go to war.
And what happns, socially, during phases of dysfunctionalism?...
Things like competition for its own sake. Using people as means. Putting ends before means. Spending money on destroying people. Harmful passive aggression. Repeated Mistakes. Relentless stupidity. Elevation of idiots into positions of authority. Contagious narcissism, psychopathy and mass psychosis. Reactivity instead of creativity. Imitation instead of originality. Petty politics instead of fruitful investments. And so on.
Dysfunctionalism is a kind of social, slow-rolling warfare - a slow revolution, if you will. Which is why Marxism always tends to grow in its filthy soil.
So, very much so, both capitalism and Marxism can blur or transform into forms of each other via the route of dysfunctionalism. In such cases, then capitalists are often spending money on similar things as to which Marxists are devoting their violence. And vice versa. So, there you go.
Now, we get (back) to the subject of supplanting...
I had a religion teacher who said that the very worst thing you could do to a person was to act like that person doesn't even exist. Well, that strategy would have various effect, depending on how self-actualised is the target person. And, sorry to say, part of being self-actualised involves having sufficient MEANS by which to escape the controls and dehumanisations of others - and the BANGS and STOMPS of others. Well, the best way to attain such means is to attain land, which, under law, affords a person the safeties of independence and empowerment. As said, by the security of land, farmers can make their trades, and get their dogged work done.
But in more urban environments - where all the problems come from - where most people are renters or homeless or airheads - psychologically stunted adolescents - a milieu of dysfunctionalism encourages people to spend money on trying to take credit for the work of each other... To take or borrow their things.... To compete with the Jones' until the Jones' get sick and die... To snub and ban the slightest of offenders... In other words, to SUPPLANT target people... Especially people who are envied, resented or hated. For whatever confabulated reason.
You cannot supplant a person on his own land, too easilly. But you can supplant more vulnerable renters, and such.
When capitalism degrades more and more into games of competition between retarded sibling proxies, then supplanting - a symbollic kind of murder - one step away from murder - generally becomes the name of those games. Fah fah fah Fashion.
In capitalism, devils must be patient, and save up their money, so they can afford to pull the land out of some envied sibling proxy's feet. Not so in more urban environments, where Marxism generally thrives, with all of its vain ideas and false promises.
Under revolutionary Marxism, on the other hand, the rationalities of coins becomes irrelevant... And the false nationalities of ILLOGICS become substituted - as ratiionalisations to TAKE land, or to KILL people, and so on. It's a hole big ball of nonsense which justifies emotionally-driven revolution and bloodshed, and that should be plain enough to see.
But, you can also see some connections between the two ideologies: They both orient towards SUPPLANTING, and they both want to pull the land out from under peoples' feet. Because of racism 500 years ago. Or because whites are horrible. Or because of gender hate. And so on. Whatever they can come up with.
"Give me your lawn-mower!" Said Commie Gardener. And off he went. With my lawn-mower. In his perfect world.
So, this is an IMPERIALISM in revolutionary and state Marxism, isn;t it? An assumption that the Reds know better than everyone else, and then have some superman right to take property and slaughter tens of millions of people. But, remember, it usually grows right out of the CORRUPTION of stagnating capitalism, as a way of keeping an illusion of GROWTH going - of feeding already set, superstitious and narcissistic expectations, yes?
It is not only a kind of imperialism - it is imperialism pretty much of the same stripe as that of capitalism, or of monarchy, or of tribalism, or of Martians.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3LT89eth6Y
Conversely, you've got a poorer sibling, always mistreated, angry, who decides to side with Dems for life, but really it's for similar reasons as those used by his other sibling.
So, you get sibling rivalry for parental attention, and that gets transferred INTO the broader society, via projections, sibling proxies, parental proxies, bottlenecking, passive aggressive tit-for-tat, labelling, etc. And this is where the great popular waves come from - waves of GOPpers, waves of Dems, etc. Everyone in each waves assumes he shares so much with the others in that wave, because of the shared ideology, but really it is the psychological pathos which they share.
Wokesters, BLM, destructionsists, and so on.
So, this is a way of seeing that, yes, Marxism is an extension of capitalism, and vice versa: Both ideologies are substantially bullcrap. Based on the will to power.
Another way of seeing that Marxism is an extension of capitalism, and vice versa, is by looking at some of their similar objectives. Why do people spend money? Soemtimes, it for similar reasons as to why Marxists want revolution..
Not in all cases, by any means. Most capitalists want to mind their own business, gradually growing and profitting through predictability and patience. If that's similar to anything Marxists do, then they are pre-revolution Marxists, hiding in the shadows.
But, in the first post of this series, we saw how some people can get bored with things and, instead of buying things for the sake of things, they buy things or means which can be used to hurt or harm other people. Or, they can spend money on cheating to get ahead. Or, they can spend money towards tearing down systems or people. These are all similar to what revolutionary Marxists like to do, their whole point being to upset and overthrow.
But, the ideals of Marxism preach that Marxists only want equity for the poor, the marginalised - healthcare for all - kindness and fairness - equal distribution of wealth - a safer climate - and all this humanitarian goodness, so many of them having once been jaded Catholics. Well, if these things are truly what Marxists want, then these things have some similarity to what many capitalists spend some money on, as well.
Capitalists spend on humanitarian causes in a few ways: 1 - Direct donations to charities. 2 - Contributions to their churches. 3 - Discrete assistance to the disadvantaged. And via the assumption that a free and fair market makes things fairer for the most people possible. (This assumption can reach absurd heights, with the belief than the more wealth they aquire for themselves, then somehow the more wealth they are giving away). They also spend money on gas, etc., getting to their jobs, which often serve other people in that society.
But, humanitarian objectives may be shared between capitalist and Marxist alike. And so this is another area where the two ideologies can blur into each other.
However, Marxism normally fails to manifest most of these ideals in reality, during or after the revolution. And here are some reasons why:
Marxism violently overthrows the preexisting system. Pretty hard to keep a humanitarian head in a time of bloodshed. Pretty hard to set up stable and safe systems for food distribution in such times. During the BLM riots, we saw Soros and Schwab and Buffet setting up tables of bricks and frozen water bottles, to be used in the violence. And, maybe they also set up food tables. But, they are all three billionaires, born from capitalism.
Marxist theory once assumed that the existing state would be dissolved by rust and social entropy, and so communism would just magically grow out of that - peacefully. As if planned, that idea was quickly abandoned, and all subsequent promoters of communism have been supporters not only of mass violence but also of some period of State Control, or market and need irrationality.
Let me just add some keywords for any future search: "Why communism doesn't work." / "Why Marxism can't work."
By seeking to spread equity of outcomes, and thus lowering everyone to common denominators of achievement and output, then the smarter and more creative people in society lose their motivation, and so industrial and farm output, overall, goes down under communism, just by this dismotivation factor. In capitalism, many people are motivated by personal competition. The idea of getting out of bed to serve some abstract "social good" doesn't really feel natural to those people.
Trying to equalise everything - because of humanitarian or tyrannical intentions - under one state, has the effect of perverting the values, transport, acquisition and use of certain goods. And, we have discussed this before. Top-down control encourages a rise in entropy or real expense overall. This is exacerbated by poor, centralised planning and subsequent climactic or genetic disruptions of agriculture, etc.
Not to worry, though! Centralised Statism, under, "communism," also happens when capitalism gets too stagnant and top-heavy, and moves towards corporatism, and then fascism, and then Statism - in which similar problems arise as discussed above, under, "communism." So, when economies and governments rigour-mortify, then they can also blur into each other.
And, the road to rigour mortis is called dysfunctionalism, an economic and psychological term. All great civilisations tend to go through phases of dysfunctionalism, especially before they collapse / and go to war.
And what happns, socially, during phases of dysfunctionalism?...
Things like competition for its own sake. Using people as means. Putting ends before means. Spending money on destroying people. Harmful passive aggression. Repeated Mistakes. Relentless stupidity. Elevation of idiots into positions of authority. Contagious narcissism, psychopathy and mass psychosis. Reactivity instead of creativity. Imitation instead of originality. Petty politics instead of fruitful investments. And so on.
Dysfunctionalism is a kind of social, slow-rolling warfare - a slow revolution, if you will. Which is why Marxism always tends to grow in its filthy soil.
So, very much so, both capitalism and Marxism can blur or transform into forms of each other via the route of dysfunctionalism. In such cases, then capitalists are often spending money on similar things as to which Marxists are devoting their violence. And vice versa. So, there you go.
Now, we get (back) to the subject of supplanting...
I had a religion teacher who said that the very worst thing you could do to a person was to act like that person doesn't even exist. Well, that strategy would have various effect, depending on how self-actualised is the target person. And, sorry to say, part of being self-actualised involves having sufficient MEANS by which to escape the controls and dehumanisations of others - and the BANGS and STOMPS of others. Well, the best way to attain such means is to attain land, which, under law, affords a person the safeties of independence and empowerment. As said, by the security of land, farmers can make their trades, and get their dogged work done.
But in more urban environments - where all the problems come from - where most people are renters or homeless or airheads - psychologically stunted adolescents - a milieu of dysfunctionalism encourages people to spend money on trying to take credit for the work of each other... To take or borrow their things.... To compete with the Jones' until the Jones' get sick and die... To snub and ban the slightest of offenders... In other words, to SUPPLANT target people... Especially people who are envied, resented or hated. For whatever confabulated reason.
You cannot supplant a person on his own land, too easilly. But you can supplant more vulnerable renters, and such.
When capitalism degrades more and more into games of competition between retarded sibling proxies, then supplanting - a symbollic kind of murder - one step away from murder - generally becomes the name of those games. Fah fah fah Fashion.
In capitalism, devils must be patient, and save up their money, so they can afford to pull the land out of some envied sibling proxy's feet. Not so in more urban environments, where Marxism generally thrives, with all of its vain ideas and false promises.
Under revolutionary Marxism, on the other hand, the rationalities of coins becomes irrelevant... And the false nationalities of ILLOGICS become substituted - as ratiionalisations to TAKE land, or to KILL people, and so on. It's a hole big ball of nonsense which justifies emotionally-driven revolution and bloodshed, and that should be plain enough to see.
But, you can also see some connections between the two ideologies: They both orient towards SUPPLANTING, and they both want to pull the land out from under peoples' feet. Because of racism 500 years ago. Or because whites are horrible. Or because of gender hate. And so on. Whatever they can come up with.
"Give me your lawn-mower!" Said Commie Gardener. And off he went. With my lawn-mower. In his perfect world.
So, this is an IMPERIALISM in revolutionary and state Marxism, isn;t it? An assumption that the Reds know better than everyone else, and then have some superman right to take property and slaughter tens of millions of people. But, remember, it usually grows right out of the CORRUPTION of stagnating capitalism, as a way of keeping an illusion of GROWTH going - of feeding already set, superstitious and narcissistic expectations, yes?
It is not only a kind of imperialism - it is imperialism pretty much of the same stripe as that of capitalism, or of monarchy, or of tribalism, or of Martians.
Click to viewhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3LT89eth6Y