Around the world, adolescents have taken up picket signs in
order to protest against corporate greed and inequality. These individuals feel
disregarded by a system that does not take
into consideration their basic needs and intrinsic human dignity. This of
course is in reference to the Occupy Movement.
For many misinformed denizens the world over, the Occupy movement has
become the new vehicle with which the clamour the downfall of capitalism. It has
been rather difficult to criticize the Occupy Movement as a whole because of
the ambiguous agenda of all its individual constituents, however many Occupy
protestors have cited Karl Marx, among others, as their main political
influence. Considering the left-leaning inclinations of many of the
demonstrators, it is easy to see how his philosophy could have inspired the
swollen aggregate of human flesh that is the Occupy movement. As influential as
he may have been throughout the years, many disregard the fact that Marx was a
racist, degenerate, anti-Semitic, envious piece of trash and that his ideas
represented the epitome of human evil.
Karl Marx, a racist? Indeed, from observing his private
correspondence with friends and family members, one could conclude that Marx
was an ardent racist and anti-Semite (although Marx himself was an ethnic Jew).
Marx’s racist views have been brilliantly summarized in Nathaniel Weyl’s 1979
book Karl Marx, Racist. Concerning
the adherents of the Jewish faith, Marx had once said “What is the object of the Jew's worship in this world? Usury. What is
his worldly god? Money”. In regard to one of his contemporaries, Marx wrote "it is now completely clear to me that he, as is
proved by his cranial formation and his hair, descends from the Negroes from
Egypt, assuming that his mother or grandmother had not interbred with a nigger”. Although by
no means does this ad hominem attack discredit his philosophy, Marx’s bigotry
paints him in a different light than the ardent lover of the people as he is so often portrayed.
His diverse opinions on human nature set aside; his
philosophy itself is the greatest testament to Marx’s lunacy. Essentially,
he conjectured that one day in the unspecified future, the proletariat would be
fed up with the unequal wealth distribution and topple the establishment of the
evil bourgeoisie. From this point forward, the proletariat would be free to
recreate a presumably more wholesome means of existence, free of their greedy
brethren. Marx’s ideal state would
function on the principle that everyone would work according to their ability
and the wealth would be pooled and then distributed according to everyone’s
needs. However, Marx’s idea of from each
according to his ability to each according to his need contains some of the
most destructive undertones to human development. It is fundamentally irrational
to reward individuals on a basis of need instead of what they contribute.
Nobody would be willing to put forth their maximum ability into their work if
they did not expect to be adequately compensated for that effort. A society
which would be allowed to persist on such a principle would end up with a
disproportionately high amount of people with needs versus those with abilities
and would eventually become unsustainable. Karl Marx was envious of those who
possessed genuine talents, and this twisted political philosophy was a
manifestation of his hatred of successful men.
It is somewhat ironic that the term capitalism was defined by Marx and Engels—the very people who
sought to destroy it. Capitalism never ceases to be misrepresented by those
eager to point out all its glaring flaws and supposed moral bankruptcies.
Socialists (like those of the Occupy Movement) revel in the romanticised
notion of fat corporate tycoons sitting around the board room, conniving and
elaborating new plots to undermine the core of human innocence. This is not an
honest representation of capitalism. Capitalism has nothing to do with keeping
down the proletariat, slavery, repression, or waging class warfare. The
subsidies and bailouts given by the government to prolong the inevitable
disintegration of big banks do not represent the ideals of capitalism either. Private
ownership of means of production and a free market with minimal regulations are
the two aspects that make Capitalism the most ethical and successful
social-economic policy ever implemented in human society. Private institutions
owning the means of production (for example, factories or textile mills) are
forced to compete with each other for consumers and are thus forced to accommodate
the interests of the public, increasing the standards of living for all. Those institutions
that become successful do so by discovering new technologies, finding more
efficient ways to do things, and providing cutting-edge medical developments. A socialist “utopia”
like the one that Marx’s philosophy alludes to provides the public none of
these things and would likely lead to gross technological stagnation if ever
implemented.
Capitalism has
produced higher standards of living across the board ever since its inception.
During the industrial revolution, those individuals previously destined to
lives of peasantry and destitute were given menial jobs in the industrial
sector. Those already enjoying middle-class employment were provided with
luxuries and amenities for which no prior generation could have ever dreamt.
Sure, some kids died in some coal mines, but that stuff happened in communist
countries too. Any man is better off working at the assembly line in an auto
factory than he would have been dragging his knuckles across the forest floor
in search of berries and kindling.
On a final thought, a government has no obligation whatsoever to
supply its citizens with employment. It is an expectation of many Occupy
protestors that the government ought to magically ensure the employment status
of all its citizens. However, it is the personal responsibility of the
individual to develop the skills that are in demand by the job market and will
thus result in a sufficient living. Those who choose to attend college in order
to study obscure topics and pursue useless degrees are ultimately the ones who
ought to stand accountable for their own lack of employability in the end. It
is not viable to give somebody a job if they have no skills or abilities worth
paying them for (women’s studies is not a skill). The individual must develop
the respective skill-sets appropriate for the line of work to which they aspire
to pursue. It is thrust upon the individual to achieve his/her maximum
potential through their own respective efforts and values. A job is not a right. Instead of adhering
to Marx’s idea that it is society’s responsibility to accommodate people’s needs,
the individual must accept that only he ought to provide for his own needs.
This is just common sense.
