9

Marxism: The Thieves’ Manifesto

Thievery and mass murder in the name of the proletariat

“What if we don’t distribute things equally to implement some rewards for a job well done? Well, that’ll require private property and laws against theft, else the unequal distribution will be meaningless, but then we’re halfway there to capitalism.”

“We’re not quite there yet, still stuck in the old ways, in the old industries, but at least the system makes sense now concerning motivation. Add free trade and the ability to control what you will with your invention (up to a point) and now you have some form of capitalism.”

“That’s it. That’s capitalism. It’s not some evil invention designed to exploit workers, whatever that means. It’s basically about free trade (choice), trading your inventions, products, and services with others’, basically letting the supply and demand dictate the trades.”

“Marxism is not a cooperative enterprise at all, but mutually hostile, antagonistic, even murderous. Capitalism is the true cooperative enterprise, where people cooperate to maximize mutual benefit by selling your specialty for others’.”

“It rewards the innovators who find a way to supply the things people want as cheaply as possible, the inventors that enrich people’s lives in ways they didn’t even imagine or demand, the problem-solvers that make obsolete the obstacles we all face.”

“They’re rewarded precisely because they make our lives better, and in proportion to how much they make our lives better, as voted by each trade, each transaction, that determine their success, and the amount of success.”

“If someone’s very successful, that’s because they provided so much value to so many people, at least when the system is healthy and is working as it’s supposed to. But what makes the system healthy? And why should capitalism involve any more than this?”

“Capitalism can’t exist in a vacuum, can’t exist without laws that protect private property, including intellectual property, without laws that punish theft and fraud, without the necessary social and political infrastructure that make up a stable society.”

“At its core is the cooperative free trade that’s beneficial to everybody, that encourages innovation and specialization, something that no one can find fault with, neither morally nor economically, as far as that goes.”

“But such a thing cannot prosper in anarchy. If intellectual property is not respected or protected, no one will spend years, decades, developing something innovative, something truly spectacular, since there’s no reward.”

“Anyone who claims that intellectual property is not property at all, and therefore can be stolen at will, is either a thief or a moron. If they’re not protected, there will no longer be any innovations, any art, any invention to steal because there will be none at all.”

“We’ll go back to the dumpster fire that is Marxism where no one works, no one gets paid, no one invents anything useful because there’s no point, no reason, no reward whatsoever, because everything will just be stolen anyway.”

“So thieves can prosper, even temporarily, only in capitalist systems because there’s nothing worth stealing in Marxist systems, but they must be hunted down, punished, persecuted like the cancer they are if the capitalist system is to survive.”

“The thieves’ propaganda is self-defeating in the long run because if everyone accepted their lies, there would no longer be anything to steal and they would perish, along with everyone else that listened to their lies, the natural progression of lies into death.”

“And that’s also why the entrepreneur controls the production in their business, because it’s their business, something they invented by risking their resources and time for the potential reward of what the business might become.”

“Why should the workers control it when they had nothing to do with its creation except as contracted labor? That would be stealing, and this reveals the true nature of Marxism as the propaganda of shameless, entitled, gaslighting thieves.”

“I mean, who has the audacity to steal what you’ve worked for tirelessly all your life and then turn around and accuse you of being the thief because what you’ve created rightfully belongs to the workers and not you?”

“When it wouldn’t even exist if you didn’t create it, if you didn’t struggle with the ideas, with the execution, if you didn’t risk your resources and invest your time, no, it’s not yours, you don’t get to control it or direct it or even reap benefits from it.”

“No, the people who had nothing to do with its creation, yeah, they’re the ones who should control it, to reap benefits from it. How does any of this even make sense unless you’re a thief, unless you’re already in the mindset of a parasite?”

“This culture of thievery further explains the economic paucity of the Marxist systems: These parasites do not work, they don’t want to put in the work, they just want the fruits of others’ labor, discipline, and creativity, even if it means outright stealing.”

“And because everyone’s a thief, because no one puts in the work, there’s nothing to steal. Parasites cannot prosper in a society full of parasites since there’s no one working, no one to take advantage of, no one to steal from, because no one has anything.”

“The common Marxist complaint, that the rich got rich by stealing from the poor, is not so much a complaint as it is a goal. That’s what thieves wish they could do, full of envy and resentment, that’s why Marxist dictators are rich and do not care about the workers or the poor.”

“And when they ‘nationalize’ a private company or an industry, it’s for themselves, not ‘for the people.’ That’s just an excuse to rationalize the theft. Indeed Marxism is the rationalization of thievery, a guide to ‘how to look morally superior while stealing from others.’”

“Because even the excuse doesn’t hold up. How are you justified in stealing just because you’re doing it for others, or on their behalf? So if I’m a hitman and only murder for others, that’s OK? If I’m a professional liar, like the media, that’s OK because it’s for others?”

“There isn’t even some pretense of a moral dilemma, like Robin Hood stealing from the rich to give it to the poor who are starving, exploited, and abused without any protection or representation, really any say in the system at all.”

“Because they’re not giving it to the poor but only to themselves. The excuse is not only unjustified but is not even true because it has nothing to do with the people. This is true more broadly of Marxism, exposing the Marxists as liars, thieves, morally bankrupt charlatans.”

“Why are there so many poor? Why are the workers still exploited, still without any power? Workers don’t have any control of production, the Communist Party does, the dictator more specifically. It’s a classic bait-and-switch and you fell for the scam.”

“But it’s not supposed to work that way! you say. Really? How is it supposed to work? What’s in the theory that guarantees that the dictator will give the workers the control, that he’ll share the wealth (what little there is) fairly?”

“That’s right. Nothing. Absolutely nothing. And you wonder why the Marxist dictators have all been such a despicable lot. If the only thing you can pin your hopes on is the dictator’s good intentions, you’re lost, because power corrupts, rendering the ideology irrelevant.”

a monologue about social, political, and moral philosophy cleverly disguised as a dialogue between me and my imaginary daughter Annie: first, next.