Thor's Hammer Radio

You’ve heard it time and again – Marxism promotes equality, whereas capitalism promotes inequality. It’s been oft repeated to the point where most people just accept this without question. Even the arguments against it are framed in such a way that it goes something like “Marxism/socialism is equal amounts of poverty, and capitalism is unequal amounts of wealth”. While a good argument against socialism, it still has conservative and libertarian voices falling into the same overall premise – that Marxism is about equality.

Except that’s all a lie.

What if I told you that Marxism was never about equality? In fact, what if I told you that Marxism promotes the exact opposite? You’d probably have your head spinning at the very mention of that. To tackle this, let’s first define a few key things.

First, I need to define what equality is. Many have been taught that Marxism promotes equality because it is all about handing out equal portions of “stuff”. Equal distribution of material goods is what, apparently, makes Marxism about equality. However, what is described there is not equality – that is merely equal distribution. Equality is when every single person is treated the same, where everyone is subject to the same rules. This is where Marxism goes far astray from equality, because Marxism requires there to be class warfare, division, and strife. Most importantly, it requires an
“enemy” to attack and take from, in order to achieve their goals.

Which brings me to the next thing I will define: what is the core of Marxism? I’ve give you a hint – it’s not equality. The foundation of Marxism is summed up in the very first sentence of the Communist Manifesto: “the history of the world is a history of class struggle”. Marxism, at the root of it, is this dynamic of the oppressor v. the oppressed. The bourgeoisie are the “rich”, the “haves”, and who possess all the power, and therefore the oppressor. The proletariat are the “poor”, the “have-nots”, who have no power, and therefore are the oppressed. This dynamic is always present, no matter what flavor of Marxism is presented. In the racial version, white people are the rich and powerful, and thus the oppressor, whereas minorities (and in particular black people) are the poor and powerless, and thus the oppressed. Modern feminists use the sex version, where it’s men who are the oppressors and women who are oppressed. You can see this in the language that they use – the gender wage gap, the “patriarchal society”, etc. The faces and vehicles for promoting Marxism differ, yet the core dynamic of the oppressor v. the oppressed is always present.

So how does this conflict with equality? Karl Marx laid it out in his own ideology that certain people are to be treated differently than others. Some must be taken from, and struck down, whereas others are promoted and uplifted. This is clearly the opposite of equality, since this a far stretch from treating everyone the same and subjecting everyone to the same rules. And what drives this differing treatment is jealousy and envy – Marxism promotes the idea that it’s not fair for someone else to have what you don’t, and therefore are somehow justified in taking what’s not yours. In essence, Marx took the original sin of envy and morphed it into a political ideology. And to act on that envy and be rewarded for it, while others are made to suffer and loss – this is the antithesis of equality.

So since Marxism is not equality, what then does it ultimately amount to? I’ll sum this up simply and accurately: Marxism is a replacement aristocracy. The old aristocracy was of royal lineages, nobility, and the like; this new aristocracy would consist of Marxist academics, Marxist military elites, and of course Marxist political elites. Reading the Communist Manifesto, you will see that the “proletariat” and the “communists” are separated into two separate chapters. Marx describes the communists as having a general, broad knowledge (the big picture) and be the commanders and generals of the revolution. In other words, Marx set it up in his own ideology that the communists would be running the show, and that they were separate from the “workers of the world”.

Marxist politicians today continue this trend of being separate from those they claim to “fight for”, and regularly place themselves under different rules than everyone else. One need not look further than how these politicians abuse their political offices to enrich themselves. They do these things through investing in certain industries while pushing certain economic policies to benefit their investments, or sometimes through more brazen measures like seizing private assets (Hugo Chavez as a prime example). And never do they subject themselves to being investigated for their rampant corruption; different rules for the Marxists.

What I have described right there is the political elite, the Marxist political elite – the new aristocracy. And you might ask – why the obsession with money? It seems like these Marxists are fixated on material wealth, and they love to possess it themselves. That, too, is a simple explanation – the bourgeoisie are powerful due to their wealth (per Marx). In short, money equals power. So, the Marxist feels they are justified in obtaining as much wealth as possible in order to combat and overthrow the “oppressors”.

In reality, all the lunatic justifications of the Marxists amount to nothing more than greed, envy, and a lust to control others – hardly a foundation on which to foster equality.

Marxism, the antithesis of equality.

Marxism, the replacement aristocracy.

Think on that what you will.