박근혜는 구속, 안희정은 불구속

金平祐(변호사·前 대한변협 회장)

전과(前科)가 있는 안희정은 범죄를 부인해도 도주나 증거인멸의 우려가 없고, 전과가 전혀 없는 박근혜는 구속하지 않으면 도주나 증거인멸의 우려가 있단 말인가? 왜 똑같이 범죄를 부인하는데, 앞의 박근혜 등 40여 명의 선량한 시민은 모두 “구속 안하면 증거인멸의 우려가 있다”고 판단하고, 반대로 안희정은 “불구속해도 증거인멸이나 도주의 우려가 없다” ”구속하면 방어권 행사에 제한이 있다”고 판단하는가?

대한민국이 다시 태어나는 그날, 우리는 법관이 구속영장을 발부하는 제도를 없애자. 그리고 컴퓨터에 정의를 위임하자. 컴퓨터가 양심을 파는 5류 법관들보다 훨씬 더 싸고 공정하다. 불구속 수사의 헌법규정, 형사소송법 규정이 제대로 지켜지려면 도주나 증거인멸의 우려가 있다 없다를 검찰이나 법관이 자의적으로 판단하지 않고 객관적 통계와 선례에 따라 컴퓨터가 투명하게 판단하는 제도를 도입하자. 컴퓨터로 재판했으면 박근혜 대통령은 분명히 도주나 증거인멸의 우려가 없어 불구속 되었을 것이다. 안 그런가? (발췌)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

탈북자 단체들이 2일 강화도에서 쌀과 이동식저장장치(USB) 등이 들어 있는 페트병 500개를 바다에 던지고 있다. 출처: VOA

------------------------------------------------------------------

국민의 알궐리라고?? 알권리가 아니라, 혹세무민 거짓 여론선동으로 다시한번 개돼지국민들에게 박통을 최악의 XXX로 낙인찍기 쇄뇌를 완료하겠다는 것이지. 소위 종북좌익정권의 개가된 사법부가 자신들이 저지른 참담한  헌정유린사태의 잘못을  승자의기록으로 만들고 영원히 거짓의산에 묻어버리겠다는 천인공노할 만행인 것이다.  ~박근혜 선고때 법정 불출석전망 ~  사기탄핵 언론들이 요렇게 친절하게 주석까지 달아주는거 봐라. "우리가 이겼어" 박근혜를 꼼짝못하게 맨손으로 때려잡았다고 기고만장 날뛰는 중이다. 그리고는 이제 마지막과정으로  박근혜가 감옥에서 빨리죽기를 바라는 일만 남았다고,,,그날이 천문학적 보험금 수령의날이라고,,,

[출처] 김세윤판사의 "박통 선고판결 생중계 허용--악랄하게 난도질후 확인사살 일환인듯,

-------------------------------------------------------------------
인민재판이 아니라 공개 처형이다.


박 대통령에 대한 공개 재판을 우파 일부에서는 인민재판이라고 비난하고 있다. 하지만 재판은 이미 끝났다. 이건 인민재판이 아니라 공개 처형이다. 공개 처형은 반대파에 겁을 주고, 자기들끼리는 결속력을 다진다. 이번 박 대통령에 대한 공개 재판도 같은 목적을 같고 있다. 좌파들끼리의 결속을 굳건히 하고, 우파들에게는 그들의 힘과 세력을 보여서 겁을 주는 것이다. ---자유의남신


---------------------------------------------------------------------

對美수출이 제한된 상태에서..

미국의 압박에 의해 중국이 달러를 풀어 환율까지 떨어지면..

 

대한민국 경제의 50%이상을 차지하고 있는 수출 감소로 인한 경제불황과..

중국이 푼 달러 때문에 한율이 올라 외국인 관광 감소 등..

 내수감소와 함께 물가 상승으로 이어지게 되어있다.

 

수출과 내수가 함께 줄어든 대한민국 경제는 더욱 지옥으로 빠지게 된다.

비트코인으로 거덜난 2030세대는 어떻하지??

청년실업자들은 어떻게 해야 살아가지??

영세업자와 서민들은 뭘먹고살지??

 

다시, 박정희 시대의 보릿고개.. 꿀꿀이죽 시대로 돌아가야 하나??

[출처] 對美수출이 제한된 상태에서.. 中國이 달러를 풀어 환율까지 떨어지면.

-------------------------------------------------------

일베의 한 필자는 위의 사설을 쓴 사람이 숨어 있는 사회주의자일 수 있다고 말하고 있다.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

이성에 의해 만들어진 도덕 외에, 도덕의 2가지 원천이 있다. 첫째는 우리의 본능(연대의식, 이타심, 집단적 결정 등)에서 나온 도덕으로, 거기에서 출발한 도덕들은 현재의 확장된 질서와 그 인구들을 유지하는 데 미흡하다.

두번째는 진화된 도덕(저축, 사유재산, 정직 등)으로, 이것들이 확장된 질서를 창조하고 유지해왔다. 그런데 이 도덕은 본능과 이성의 중간에 위치해 있는데, 본능과 이성이라는 거짓된 2분법에 의해 그 존재가 가려져 있었다.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

확장된 질서는 진화된 도덕에 의존하는데, 역사적으로 볼 때 이런 도덕 규범을 준수하던 집단들이 다른 집단에 비해 인구와 부(富)를 증가시켜 왔기 때문에, 그런 도덕이 발생하게 되었다.

다시 말해 확장된 질서는 인간의 생존에 기여했다.  

------------------------------------------------------------------------

좌파들이 전통에 반대하는 이유.

우리는 전통 도덕을 완전히 이해할 수 없고, 그것들이 어떻게 작동하는지 알지 못한다. 도덕을 준수한다 해도, 우리가 사전에 구체적으로 명시할 수 있는 목적을 만족시키지 못하고  , 또 곧장 관찰할 수 있는 효과를 만들어내지 못한다. 따라서 그것이 혜택을 준다고 판단할 수 없다. 또 어떤 경우에도 완벽히 알거나 예상할 수 없다.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

그들의 주장을 요약하면, 인간이 자기 행동의 관측 가능한 효과를 사전에 알고, 완전히 구체적으로 명시할 수 없다면, 그는 자신이 무엇을 하고 있는지 또는 자신의 목적이 무엇인지 이해할 수 없다는 것이다. 행동이 합리적이라면 반드시 의도적이고 그 결과를 예측할 수 있어야 한다는 것이다.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

 출처: 일베

--------------------------------------------------------

확장된 질서의 다른 제도도 그렇지만 시장에서는 의도치 않던 결과가 지배적이다. 자원의 분배는 비인간적 과정에 의해 이뤄지는데, 자신의 목적을 위해 행동하는 개인들은 그들의 상호 작용의 결과가 어떻게 나올지 알지 못하고 알 수도 없다.

---------------------------------------------------------

만일 기타 도덕 전통이나 제도들처럼 개별적 행동들의 시장 조정이 자연적, 자생적이고, 수많은 특정 사실들에 적응하는 자기 질서화 과정에서 나온다고 한다면,  이런 과정에게 정의로워야 한다든지 도덕적이라고 요구하는 것은 순박한 의인관(擬人觀)적 사고의 발로일 뿐이다.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

받는 사람에게도, 주는 사람에게도, 복지는 원칙이 없다.복지는 특정 사실에 종속적이어서 보편적 규범이 될 수 없다. 자발성이 번성하려면 보편적 규범이 지배해야 한다.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

문명은 진화의 산물일 뿐 아니라 그 과정이기도 하다. 보편적 규범과 개인의 자유라는 기본틀을 마련함으로써, 문명은 계속해서 진화해 나간다. 이 진화는 누가 이끌어갈 수도 없고, 종종 인간들이 요구하는 것을 만들어내지도 않는다. 진화는 정의롭지 않다.
---------------------------------------------------

모든 미래의 변화는 정의로워야 한다고 주장하는 것은 진화를 멈추라는 말과 같다. 진화는 그 도덕적 내용이 무엇일지 미리 판단할 수 없음은 물론이고, 우리가 의도하거나 예상할 수 없는 것들을 불러온다. 만일 과거 어느 시점에 어떤 마술적인 힘이 평등주의적인 또는 인간적 가치에 따른 조치를 취했다면, 문명의 진화는 불가능해진다.  따라서 롤스가 주장하는 그런 세계는 절대 문명 세계가 될 수가 없는 것이다.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

대부분의 지식은 직접적인 경험이나 관찰에서 얻어지는 게 아니라, 학습된 도덕을 계속해서 점검함으로써 획득된다. 그런데 이를 위해서는 도덕 전통을 개인들이 인식하고 따라야 하는데, 합리주의적 전통으로서는 이를 용납할 수 없다.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

전통과 관습을 만든 선택의 과정은 개인들이 인식하는 것보다 더 많은 사실적 상황들을 참작할 수가 있고, 그 결과 전통은 어느 면에서 인간의 이성보다 우수하거나 현명하다.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

행동의 결과 나타나는 직접적인 효과는 진화의 선택에서 중요하지 않다. 그보다 장기적으로 행동 규범에 의해 인도된 결정들의 결과에 따라 선택이 일어난다. 이 결과들은 개인들의 사적인 영역을 확보해주는 사유재산과 계약에 주로 의존한다. 인간은 행동 규범들을 채용하기 전에는 그 혜택을 미리 예측할 수가 없다.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

"획득된 전통은 미지의 세계에 대한 적응이다"라는 말은 글자 그대로 이해되어야 한다. 현대의 시장 잘서가 계속해서 적응해가는 사건의 총합(總合)은 아무도 알지 못한다. 개인이나 조직이 미지의 세계에 적응하는데 이용하는 정보는 단편적이고, 수많은 개인들을 거친 지표(예를 들면 가격)로 전달된다. 그런데 이렇게 단편적인 지표들에 의해 전체 행위의 구성체가 어느 개인도 알지 못하는 또는 예상하지 못한 조건들에 적응해나간다.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

경제학의 기이한 임무는 인간이 그들이 계획할 수 있다고 상상하는 것들에 대해 사실은 얼마나 무지한지 알려주는 것이다.

----------------------------------------------------------------

김미영


도태우 변호사 박근혜 대통령 재판 생중계 제한 가처분 신청
규칙 남용하여 헌법 권리 침해해선 안 된다!------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------

 --------------------------------------------------

도시의 생물들이 빠르게 진화하고 있다.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

지구 온난화 주창자들이 회의론자들만 보면 도망가고 있다.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

석유업체들이 지구를 파괴하고 있다고 법원에 호소했는데, 법원에서 지구 온난화가 인간에 의해 초래되었다는 근거를 대라고 하자, 막상 온난화 주창자들이 대답을 하지 못하고 있다고 한다.
------------------------------------------------------------------

합리성을 재는 척도는 지식인들에게만 관련이 있는 지적 구성체가 아니라 생존이다. 따라서 단순한 생활의 요령으로 세상을 살아가는 일반인들을 비웃는 것은 자기 자랑에 지나지 않는다.  -----> 위에 번역한 하이에크도 이 점을 지적하고 있다.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

막스는 왜 개인주의를 혐오했나?

 

독일의 법률 사학자인 프리드리히 사비니는 법은 인간에 의해 쓰이지 않았다고 주장했다. 법은 신비한 방식으로 전체의 영혼에 의해 쓰였다고 말했다.

막스와 엥겔스의 눈에 개인은 국가를 놓고 볼 때 미미한 존재였다. 그들은 개인이 역사의 진화에 역할을 했다고 믿지 않았다. 물질적 생산력이 개인들의 의지와 상관 없이 그것들의 길을 갔다는 것이다. 그리고 역사적 사건은 필연적인 자연의 법칙에 의해 일어났다.

막스는 산업혁명을 단순히 자본가들에 의한 노동자의 착취라고 보았다.

막스는 자본가들이 생산물의 일부를 노동자들로부터 착취해 그들에게 돌려주지 않는다고 말했다. 그로 인해 노동자들은 전체 생산물을 소비할 수가 없고, 결국 생산물의 일부가 소비되지 않는다. 그래서 과소 소비가 일어나고, 불황이 정기적으로 일어난다.

막스가 산업혁명의 거대한 재앙이라 부른 것은 사실은 시민들의 생활수준에서의 커다란 개선이었다.

만년의 막스는 자본주의가 발전할 수 있도록 방임하자고 주장했다. 자본주의에 개입을 하면 오히려 사회주의의 도래를 늦출 수 있다고 생각했기 때문이다.

 

Why Marx Hated Individualism

 

•Ludwig von Mises

 

 

Liberals stressed the importance of the invidual. The nineteenth-century liberals already considered the development of the individual the most important thing. “Individual and individualism” was the progressive and liberal slogan. Reactionaries had already attacked this position at the beginning of the nineteenth century.

 

The rationalists and liberals of the eighteenth century pointed out that what was needed was good laws. Ancient customs that could not be justified by rationality should be abandoned. The only justification for a law was whether or not it was liable to promote the public social welfare. In many countries the liberals and rationalists asked for written constitutions, the codification of laws, and for new laws which would permit the development of the faculties of every individual.

 

A reaction to this idea developed, especially in Germany where the jurist and legal historian Friedrich Karl von Savigny [1779–1861] was active. Savigny declared that laws cannot be written by men; laws are developed in some mystical way by the soul of the whole unit. It isn’t the individual that thinks—it is the nation or a social entity which uses the individual only for the expression of its own thoughts. This idea was very much emphasized by Marx and the Marxists. In this regard the Marxists were not followers of Hegel, whose main idea of historical evolution was an evolution toward freedom of the individual.

From the viewpoint of Marx and Engels, the individual was a negligible thing in the eyes of the nation. Marx and Engels denied that the individual played a role in historical evolution. According to them, history goes its own way. The material productive forces go their own way, developing independently of the wills of individuals. And historical events come with the inevitability of a law of nature. The material productive forces work like a director in an opera; they must have a substitute available in case of a problem, as the opera director must have a substitute if the singer gets sick. According to this idea, Napoleon and Dante, for instance, were unimportant—if they had not appeared to take their own special place in history, someone else would have appeared on stage to fill their shoes.

 

To understand certain words, you must understand the German language. From the seventeenth century on, considerable effort was spent in fighting the use of Latin words and in eliminating them from the German language. In many cases a foreign word remained although there was also a German expression with the same meaning. The two words began as synonyms, but in the course of history, they acquired different meanings. For instance, take the word Umwälzung, the literal German translation of the Latin word revolution. In the Latin word there was no sense of fighting. Thus, there evolved two meanings for the word “revolution”—one by violence, and the other meaning a gradual revolution like the “Industrial Revolution.” However, Marx uses the German word Revolution not only for violent revolutions such as the French or Russian revolutions, but also for the gradual Industrial Revolution.

 

Incidentally, the term Industrial Revolution was introduced by Arnold Toynbee [1852–1883]. Marxists say that “What furthers the overthrow of capitalism is not revolution—look at the Industrial Revolution.”

 

Marx assigned a special meaning to slavery, serfdom, and other systems of bondage. It was necessary, he said, for the workers to be free in order for the exploiter to exploit them. This idea came from the interpretation he gave to the situation of the feudal lord who had to care for his workers even when they weren’t working. Marx interpreted the liberal changes that developed as freeing the exploiter of the responsibility for the lives of the workers. Marx didn’t see that the liberal movement was directed at the abolition of inequality under law, as between serf and lord.

 

Karl Marx believed that capital accumulation was an obstacle. In his eyes, the only explanation for wealth accumulation was that somebody had robbed somebody else. For Karl Marx the whole Industrial Revolution simply consisted of the exploitation of the workers by the capitalists. According to him, the situation of the workers became worse with the coming of capitalism. The difference between their situation and that of slaves and serfs was only that the capitalist had no obligation to care for workers who were no longer exploitable, while the lord was bound to care for slaves and serfs. This is another of the insoluble contradictions in the Marxian system. Yet it is accepted by many economists today without realizing of what this contradiction consists.

 

According to Marx, capitalism is a necessary and inevitable stage in the history of mankind leading men from primitive conditions to the millennium of socialism. If capitalism is a necessary and inevitable step on the road to socialism, then one cannot consistently claim, from the point of view of Marx, that what the capitalist does is ethically and morally bad. Therefore, why does Marx attack the capitalists?

 

Marx says part of production is appropriated by the capitalists and withheld from the workers. According to Marx, this is very bad. The consequence is that the workers are no longer in a position to consume the whole production produced. A part of what they have produced, therefore, remains unconsumed; there is “underconsumption.” For this reason, because there is underconsumption, economic depressions occur regularly. This is the Marxian underconsumption theory of depressions. Yet Marx contradicts this theory elsewhere.

 

Marxian writers do not explain why production proceeds from simpler to more and more complicated methods.

 

Nor did Marx mention the following fact: About 1700, the population of Great Britain was about five and a half million; by the middle of 1700, the population was six and a half million, about 500,000 of whom were simply destitute. The whole economic system had produced a “surplus” population. The surplus population problem appeared earlier in Great Britain than on continental Europe. This happened, first of all, because Great Britain was an island and so was not subject to invasion by foreign armies, which helped to reduce the populations in Europe. The wars in Great Britain were civil wars, which were bad, but they stopped. And then this outlet for the surplus population disappeared, so the numbers of surplus people grew. In Europe the situation was different; for one thing, the opportunity to work in agriculture was more favorable than in England.

 

The old economic system in England couldn’t cope with the surplus population. The surplus people were mostly very bad people—beggars and robbers and thieves and prostitutes. They were supported by various institutions, the poor laws, and the charity of the communities. Some were impressed into the army and navy for service abroad. There were also superfluous people in agriculture. The existing system of guilds and other monopolies in the processing industries made the expansion of industry impossible. In those pre-capitalist ages, there was a sharp division between the classes of society who could afford new shoes and new clothes, and those who could not. The processing industries produced by and large for the upper classes. Those who could not afford new clothes wore hand-me-downs. There was then a very considerable trade in secondhand clothes—a trade which disappeared almost completely when modern industry began to produce also for the lower classes. If capitalism had not provided the means of sustenance for these “surplus” people, they would have died from starvation. Smallpox accounted for many deaths in pre-capitalist times; it has now been practically wiped out. Improvements in medicine are also a product of capitalism.

 

What Marx called the great catastrophe of the Industrial Revolution was not a catastrophe at all; it brought about a tremendous improvement in the conditions of the people. Many survived who wouldn’t have survived otherwise. It is not true, as Marx said, that the improvements in technology are available only to the exploiters and that the masses are living in a state much worse than on the eve of the Industrial Revolution. Everything the Marxists say about exploitation is absolutely wrong! Lies! In fact, capitalism made it possible for many persons to survive who wouldn’t have otherwise. And today many people, or most people, live at a much higher standard of living than that at which their ancestors lived 100 or 200 years ago.

 

During the eighteenth century, there appeared a number of eminent authors—the best known was Adam Smith [1723–1790]—who pleaded for freedom of trade. And they argued against monopoly, against the guilds, and against privileges given by the king and Parliament. Secondly, some ingenious individuals, almost without any savings and capital, began to organize starving paupers for production, not in factories but outside the factories, and not for the upper classes only. These newly organized producers began to make simple goods precisely for the great masses. This was the great change that took place; this was the Industrial Revolution. And this Industrial Revolution made more food and other goods available so that the population rose. Nobody saw less of what really was going on than Karl Marx. By the eve of the Second World War, the population had increased so much that there were 60 million Englishmen.

 

You can’t compare the United States with England. The United States began almost as a country of modern capitalism. But we may say by and large that out of eight people living today in the countries of Western civilization, seven are alive only because of the Industrial Revolution. Are you personally sure that you are the one out of eight who would have lived even in the absence of the Industrial Revolution? If you are not sure, stop and consider the consequences of the Industrial Revolution.

 

The interpretation given by Marx to the Industrial Revolution is applied also to the interpretation of the “superstructure.” Marx said the “material productive forces,” the tools and machines, produce the “production relations,” the social structure, property rights, and so forth, which produce the “superstructure,” the philosophy, art, and religion. The “superstructure,” said Marx, depends on the class situation of the individuals, i.e., whether he is a poet, painter, and so on. Marx interpreted everything that happened in the spiritual life of the nation from this point of view. Arthur Schopenhauer [1788–1860] was called a philosopher of the owners of common stock and bonds. Friedrich Nietzsche [1844–1900] was called the philosopher of big business. For every change in ideology, for every change in music, art, novel writing, play writing, the Marxians had an immediate interpretation. Every new book was explained by the “superstructure” of that particular day. Every book was assigned an adjective—“bourgeois” or “proletarian.” The bourgeoisie were considered an undifferentiated reactionary mass.

 

Don’t think it is possible for a man to practice all his life a certain ideology without believing in it. The use of the term “mature capitalism” shows how fully persons, who don’t think of themselves as Marxian in any way, have been influenced by Marx. Mr. and Mrs. Hammond, in fact almost all historians, have accepted the Marxian interpretation of the Industrial Revolution. The one exception is Ashton.

 

Karl Marx, in the second part of his career, was not an interventionist; he was in favor of laissez faire. Because he expected the breakdown of capitalism and the substitution of socialism to come from the full maturity of capitalism, he was in favor of letting capitalism develop. In this regard he was, in his writings and in his books, a supporter of economic freedom.

 

Marx believed that interventionist measures were unfavorable because they delayed the coming of socialism. Labor unions recommended interventions and, therefore, Marx was opposed to them. Labor unions don’t produce anything anyway and it would have been impossible to raise wage rates if producers had not actually produced more.

 

Marx claimed interventions hurt the interests of the workers. The German socialists voted against [Otto von] Bismarck’s social reforms that he instituted circa 1881 (Marx died in 1883). And in this country the Communists were against the New Deal. Of course, the real reason for their opposition to the government in power was very different. No opposition party wants to assign so much power to another party. In drafting socialist programs, everybody assumes tacitly that he himself will be the planner or the dictator, or that the planner or dictator will be intellectually completely dependent on him and that the planner or dictator will be his handyman. No one wants to be a single member in the planning scheme of somebody else.

 

These ideas of planning go back to Plato’s treatise on the form of the commonwealth. Plato was very outspoken. He planned a system ruled exclusively by philosophers. He wanted to eliminate all individual rights and decisions. Nobody should go anywhere, rest, sleep, eat, drink, wash, unless he was told to do so. Plato wanted to reduce persons to the status of pawns in his plan. What is needed is a dictator who appoints a philosopher as a kind of prime minister or president of the central board of production management. The program of all such consistent socialists—Plato and Hitler, for instance—planned also for the production of future socialists, the breeding and education of future members of society.

 

During the 2300 years since Plato, very little opposition has been registered to his ideas. Not even by Kant. The psychological bias in favor of socialism must be taken into consideration in discussing Marxian ideas. This is not limited to those who call themselves Marxian. Marxians deny that there is such a thing as the search for knowledge for the sake of knowledge alone. But they are not consistent in this case either, for they say one of the purposes of the socialist state is to eliminate such a search for knowledge. It is an insult, they say, for persons to study things that are useless.

 

Now I want to discuss the meaning of the ideological distortion of truths. Class consciousness is not developed in the beginning, but it must inevitably come. Marx developed his doctrine of ideology because he realized he couldn’t answer the criticisms raised against socialism. His answer was, “What you say is not true. It is only ideology. What a man thinks, so long as we do not have a classless society, is necessarily a class ideology—that is, it is based on a false consciousness.” Without any further explanation, Marx assumed that such an ideology was useful to the class and to the members of the class that developed it. Such ideas had for their goal the pursuit of the aims of their class.

 

Marx and Engels appeared and developed the class ideas of the proletariat. Therefore, from this time on the doctrine of the bourgeoisie is absolutely useless. Perhaps one may say that the bourgeoisie needed this explanation to solve a bad conscience. But why should they have a bad conscience if their existence is necessary? And it is necessary, according to Marxian doctrine, for without the bourgeoisie, capitalism cannot develop. And until capitalism is “mature,” there cannot be any socialism.

 

According to Marx, bourgeois economics, sometimes called “apologetics for bourgeois production,” aided them, the bourgeoisie. The Marxians could have said that the thought the bourgeoisie gave to this bad bourgeois theory justified, in their eyes, as well as in the eyes of the exploited, the capitalist mode of production, thus making it possible for the system to exist. But this would have been a very un-Marxist explanation. First of all, according to Marxian doctrine, no justification is needed for the bourgeois system of production; the bourgeoisie exploit because it is their business to exploit, just as it is the business of the microbes to exploit. The bourgeoisie don’t need any justification. Their class consciousness shows them that they have to do this; it is the capitalist’s nature to exploit.

 

A Russian friend of Marx wrote him that the task of the socialists must be to help the bourgeoisie exploit better and Marx replied that that was not necessary. Marx then wrote a short note saying that Russia could reach socialism without going through the capitalist stage. The next morning he must have realized that, if he admitted that one country could skip one of the inevitable stages, this would destroy his whole theory. So he didn’t send the note. Engels, who was not so bright, discovered this piece of paper in the desk of Karl Marx, copied it in his own handwriting, and sent his copy to Vera Zasulich [1849–1919], who was famous in Russia because she had attempted to assassinate the Police Commissioner in St. Petersburg and been acquitted by the jury—she had a good defense counsel. This woman published Marx’s note, and it became one of the great assets of the Bolshevik Party.

 

The capitalist system is a system in which promotion is precisely according to merit. If people do not get ahead, there is bitterness in their minds. They are reluctant to admit that they do not advance because of their lack of intelligence. They take their lack of advancement out on society. Many blame society and turn to socialism. This tendency is especially strong in the ranks of intellectuals. Because professionals treat each other as equals, the less capable professionals consider themselves “superior” to non-professionals and feel they deserve more recognition than they receive. Envy plays an important role. There is a philosophical predisposition among persons to be dissatisfied with the existing state of affairs. There is dissatisfaction, also, with political conditions. If you are dissatisfied, you ask what other kind of state can be considered.

 

Marx had “anti-talent”—i.e., a lack of talent. He was influenced by Hegel and Feuerbach, especially by Feuerbach’s critique of Christianity.

 

Marx admitted that the exploitation doctrine was taken from an anonymous pamphlet published in the 1820s. His economics were distortions taken over from [David] Ricardo [1772–1823]. Marx was economically ignorant; he didn’t realize that there can be doubts concerning the best means of production to be applied. The big question is, how shall we use the available scarce factors of production. Marx assumed that what has to be done is obvious. He didn’t realize that the future is always uncertain, that it is the job of every businessman to provide for the unknown future. In the capitalist system, the workers and technologists obey the entrepreneur. Under socialism, they will obey the socialist official. Marx didn’t take into consideration the fact that there is a difference between saying what has to be done and doing what somebody else has said must be done. The socialist state is necessarily a police state.

 

The withering away of the state was just Marx’s attempt to avoid answering the question about what would happen under socialism. Under socialism, the convicts will know that they are being punished for the benefit of the whole society.

 

The third volume of Das Kapital was filled with lengthy quotations from the hearings of British Parliamentary Committees on money and banking, and they don’t make any sense at all.[Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, III (Chicago: Charles H. Kerr, Chicago, 1909), pp. 17, 530–677ff.] For instance, “The monetary system is essentially Catholic, the credit system essentially Protestant. . . . But the credit system does not emancipate itself from the basis of the monetary system any more than Protestantism emancipates itself from the foundations of Catholicism.”

 

Utterly nonsensical!

 

Excerpted from Marxism Unmasked: From Delusion to Destruction

---------------------------