Karl Marx spent a lifetime avoiding being caught up in a ‘working class’ lifestyle. To put it bluntly, he was a ‘work-shy boy.’
Was he as brilliant as many of his worshippers believe? Not at all, actually.
At the least, his characterization of what he called ‘capitalism’ amounted to a misreading of historic conditions. At the most, his Progressive worldview was nothing but another White Supremacist apology for people of European descent running roughshod over the rest of the world.
So, let me spell out a few things for his worshippers:
First of all, there is not really such a thing as ‘Western’ civilization. Europe was repeatedly invaded by people from Asia. Ionian, Doric, and Corinthian invaders from Northern Anatolia, for instance, are the ones who established what is known as ‘Greek’ civilization. Slavic Peoples likely invaded from Northern Africa. Who knows where Romans came from? They started out as Pirates on the Tyrrhenian Sea, and possibly came up from Africa as well.
The only remnant European culture in existence today is found along the Northern borders of France and Spain – the Basques. Everyone else adopted Asian cultural norms – such as Christianity.
What Marx described as ‘capitalism’ is – in truth – not much dissimilar from Medieval Feudalism. Which is only slightly different from Asian Feudalism.
So –
Under feudalism, all lands belong to the King, who is seen as one and the same as the State (or territory). However, the King grants lands for his underlings to rule over, on his behalf. But, first, they must prove their fealty to him.
Service to the King, or some action worthy of his attention is required before someone is granted the right to rule over some land in the name of His Majesty.
With the coming of the era of the Nation/State, many of the powers of the King have been allocated to entities within the structure of the State – and land grants are awarded nowadays by Banks, rather than royal proclamation.
Yet, just how different is this from the feudal system?
In order to qualify to rule over a piece of land, one must still perform a Deed. In the current era, this Deed is usually the payment of a certain amount of money to a Bank, or some other legal entity, like a local government. In some cases, the local government grants ownership of some amount of land to some entity or other for a specific purpose. Land grants often are the foundation for the establishment of a University, for instance.
So, once a Deed is acknowledged by a land-owning person or entity, a Title is bestowed upon the new custodian of some land. Just as in Medieval times, a person granted the right to look after a certain property owned by the King was given a Royal Title. Depending on the person’s prior status, the least of the Titles was that of Knight.
Though the ranking system has changed somewhat, the qualifications have not. In order to be granted a Title, one must have made good on a Deed.
Just because the Deed these days generally has to do with the payment of a certain amount of money, little has really changed. The Bank which issues Deeds and grants Titles does so with the blessing and oversight of the State.
In medieval times, a homeless person was known as a ‘freeman,’ who owed no allegiance to a land-owner, nor was obliged to perform labor or pay rent on a landlord’s property. And – to this day – this is why people who do pay to have a place where they can legally dwell resent the homeless.
Those who did pay a landlord in order to live in some sort of security, but did not have a title, were known as ‘serfs.’ Serfs basically came along with the property. If one had a Title and a little land, one also had the Serfs who lived there.
Today, wage-slaves – those who must pay for their security – do not see themselves as slaves at all, despite the requirement to keep working and/or paying rent, paying a ‘deed,’ or paying local governmental entities Taxes, in order to keep ahold of ‘their property.’
As always, I did not attempt to write an exhaustive argument when I began typing this, but wanted to give others something to think about.
What I hope readers would take away from this is that Marxism is an unnecessary and irrelevant observation by someone who has been dead for long enough that his cockamamie ideas should be rotting alongside his body.