The idea life: Being a wealthy Marxist, a Red capitalist

Post Reply New Topic

So I used to be this big Puritan. I'd see young people party, and live for sex, and it utterly disgusted me to my stomach. At first I was religious, but then I saw Marxism as a way of scientifically solving theological problems.

But having watched a lot of King of the Hill, I kind of see Hank Hill as leading the good life, He is totally unalienated from his community.

I was pretty funny adventurous, guy back in middle school and high school kind of a weird popular. And I gave that up because I wanted to be tough over everything to be taken seriously.
But I discovered that life is a tragedy for those who feel and a comedy for those who think.

The best way to live this life is to be a comedian, and to pursue sex, money and power ruthlessly, while rooting for the other side. That way if capitalism lasts you make yourself rich. But if the revolution comes your a leader.

I can use my comedy, my adventurous spirit, and my intellectual concentration to advance. I have ability to force myself to be interested in things and then study that topic fanatically.

For Schumpeter of the Austian School class war was between entrepreneurs who were the new Napoleons and intellectuals who lived on resentment. Eventually the intellectuals not workers would bring socialism. What we need is the intellectual entrepreneur. Someone who competes and puts his intellect towards capitalist conquest, and then applies his capital towards his socialist objective.

Do you think its a good idea to try to become rich in the capitalist system while also rooting for Marxism

I'm sympathetic to the idea of egalitarianism. To me the brotherhood of man is more beautiful than individualism.

But at the same time I accept the idea of Maoist Internationalist Movement that American white workers are bought off labor aristocrats who are parasites off the 3rd world.

So if I can't rely on American white workers, I got to just let Marxist economic determinism do its job.

So I figure the best thing for me to do now, is to live the good life under the capitalist system. For example its pretty easy to be a ladies man, in a patriarchal system. Just be jokey and act like your an adventurer and you get laid. Don't get me wrong I think its evil that man sleep around a use women like pieces of meat. But by ME doing it, I'm exposing what a lie "love" and "faithfulness" are in a capitalist system, and thus helping women's liberation. So by having loose sexual morals with young men and women, I'm actually advancing the day of sexual purity.

So I figure I'll get a computer engineering degree and MBA. But I'll also post anonymously communist blogs. I will also study theory and old Soviet texts. I will cheerlead from behind the scenes.

For now I will support the far left of the mainstream, because its not yet safe to be an open Marxist. But I will position myself so that I'm in a position of leadership if the country does move to the left.

In the meantime, I'm just going to try to get rich at any cost in the social darwinist world of capitalism. I don't owe anything to my workers since they are parasites off the third world anyway. If I do make it big I can always use the money to advance my causes.

So for now the best way for me to advance Communism, is through sex, money and power. The three things I wish to abolish.

Who says that it is best? Best seems like a moral claim, but you don't cite a single moral fact. I suppose it could potentially be rational for an economic actor who is amoral but favors his best gain, but that is about it.


Well, I am not sure that Schumpeter's analysis would yield much towards the idea of an intellectual entrepreneur. I think Schumpeter's argument is more along the lines that the intellectual class emerged because of capitalism and were given lofty positions that allowed them to use their talents to criticize the system that allowed them to exist, while entrepreneurs were the true beating heart of society. The issue is that I'd think that an entrepreneur in this Schumpeterian view, would be able to see that he really did change society, and appreciate that role, as from what I've heard, Schumpeter is similar to Nozick in that they both just considered intellectuals in society to be a bunch of whiners who did not appreciate all that they have been given. You may have read Schumpeter's book though.


You're not really rooting for Marxism then, as under Marxist ideology, the rich suffer from being overthrown by the poor. Schumpeter's analysis was utterly different though, as he thought that capitalism would be choked away by intellectuals. In fact, the ideas are somewhat opposing, as Marxian thought is what Schumpeter considers to be capitalism's poison, not a problem in capitalism itself.

Heck, your later comment is a rejection of your apparent Schumpeterianism:



I hate other people. They sicken me, and are certainly not my brothers. I am left with doubt that those who preach "the brotherhood of man" actually know much about their fellow man, as I cannot see how people regard other people without some level of disgust.


Umm... no you wouldn't.

Here's the issue:
1) I think you think that getting laid is easier than it probably is. I mean, if getting laid was an easy thing, then why are there so many prostitutes? And you can go get those, but it sort of undermines your comment about how easy it was.

2) You doing it just means that you get sex, as nobody would know that you are a secret communist, and nobody would care, and a communist seeking sex under capitalism proves as much as a terrorist blowing up a structure, as you are trying to attack the structure. In any case "love" and "faithfulness" aren't usually at the center of carnal relationships, like the ones you are trying to start. In order to mock those, you would have to express monogamous practices, or only have sex with people who claim to have monogamous relations with a partner of theirs. Both of which are hard, and only the latter proves something, and even then not that much, as it has to be proven that love and faithfulness under capitalism is less than that under other systems, and people have always been jerks, and have always engaged in elicit sex. I mean, French nobility before the revolution was infamous for their sexual excursions, and many societies had kings with tons of concubines, with most of these women being expendable, and you want to prove that capitalism is worse? Seems rather difficult to me.

In any case, I somehow doubt you are advancing much. Marx is in favor of free love: "thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalized system of free love." and I imagine that most communists are in favor of more open sexual norms than puritanism. In fact, what I have seen from the radical left is a strong desire for open sexual relations to be allowed.



Honestly, I really just think you prefer to reach rather absurd conclusions. In any case, I can only see the latter 2 being effective, and even then not so much so, as the people who *want* to get power often have a hard time at it.

I have an equally if not more cynical view of humanity, than you do. But you celebrate all the flaws of humanity you have grown to hate, by promoting individualism. IT is because I don't trust the masses, that the revolution has to come from above. I'm always surprised when people do good deeds, having bought in to so much of the social Darwinist point of view. From my depraved view of humanity it is a miracle when someone returns your wallet. And so what greater miracle can their be than the triumph of Christianity? The meek shall inherit the earth. The sheep over the wolf. But its not so hard to understand if the weak are put to the next life. It is a rather obvious mode of domination. The true miracle of human history is the Soviet Union, yes with all its flaws, the promise of the meek inheriting the earth, in this world, is the miracle of a million returned wallets. It defies explanation in my cynical view of the world.

Sex,money and power, mean nothing to me. But they are the objective measures of power in the world as it is. And any subjective measures are meaningless. If you understand human nature as well as you claim, than of course you see that revolution from above must in the last measure depend on brute power.

As for sexual relations. By being promiscuous with the young, I reveal the inherent hypocrisy of the capitalist system. By revealing the complete evaporation of morals, I advance women's liberation.

Marx was being sarcastic about free love, saying that polygamy and free love already existed for men.

We must take up sex, money and power to abolish them.

Abolishing money and power seem quite a goal but abolishing sex is, I'm afraid, unattainable with unmutilated humans. Might as well just vaporize them all with a bomb. That way you solve all the problems in one fell swoop.

What is objectively a flaw? I hate that people are people, and this kind of hatred exists no matter what kind of organization we put people into. If people are all indoctrinated in their church, then they are to be hated for their dogmatism, but if they are left free then they are to be hated for the idiocy of their free thoughts. If they are taught to defer to their betters, then they are to be hated for being idiotic dogs at the table of the great, but if they are not taught to do this then they are just rebels without mission or purpose. If people are taught to be kind, not only will they fail at this kind of teaching during the worst moments to fail, but they will pervert it as their cover, but if they are taught to be cruel then of course they will relish that and apply this teaching at the worst possible moments.

This isn't a matter of sheep over wolves, or meekness. This is a matter that the human beings are deeply flawed, or perhaps existence itself is flawed. It is not just an issue of some social change. That is an absurdity!

What is the difference between a good deed and a bad deed? In addition, society has always been somewhat Darwinian, so to claim that our society is worse on that ground, we need to ignore efforts in past societies to weed out the weak, and to promote the sexuality of the strong.

Ha! The Soviet Union isn't a miracle, neither is the popularity of Christian ideas. You seem to mistake the noble lie with the bitter truth if you think either is a miracle. Both of these ideas are easy sells to those who are weak and want the power, I mean, if you are a poor peasant who hates his master, what will you side with? Your master, or the man who wants to kill him? Assuredly the latter, and it is upon that which the USSR rose to power.


Sex doesn't give power though, it is a display of power, but it is not itself power. If anything, sex undermines power, because it only shows the brutality of the man who covets this sex, it costs resources to get the desired sexuality, and it provides nothing other than the experience.


No you don't. There is no hypocrisy because capitalism is not a set of stable moral values, as it is on that stance that Marx is partially wrong. I mean, the Objectivists, the most capitalist group, is also indifferent to these sexual norms. So, showing a lack of morals, does not do anything for capitalism, nor does it do much to liberate women, as it does not attack income inequality and it certainly reinstates the idea of a female as a sex object which negatively impacts women's liberation, so I do not see how there is much to gain here except perhaps from your mythical view of the system.


I doubt that. He did say that they had already existed, but his point that I referenced was clear on the matter that he only wanted to abolish the hypocrisy about this. He was not opposed to free love, nor are most modern members of the extreme left, which, y'know, if they are to be in your revolutionary movement(being your only possible supporters) will undermine your own aims. Which means that you are screwed on your puritanism issue as far as I can tell.


Why must we do anything? Not only that, but honestly, I don't even see your point. If the USSR, despite it's horrors that make it worse than the current society, is a miracle, then why do you seek to repeat such a folly? Not only that, but your notion of sex seems wrong, as I really just think that you are trying to justify an aesthetic vision of being your devil to create what you consider good, but not doing a rational analysis. The same thing I would fault you for with your statement of the need for Kantian radical evil in your last thread. Unnecessary.

In any case, I think this entire thing is just a childish rant and folly. I mean, here are the issues:
1) You think that you can personally make a difference by willing something you do not want to will, even though those who will these things willingly don't make a difference. It is furthermore unrealistic even without taking this into account.
2) Your analysis is really just a desire for defilement more than it is much of an analysis it seems, as you continually emphasize sex, when this would likely make the system all the stronger, given it's indifference to this, and how greater freedom in this would equalize society, thus strengthening the system as far as I could tell.
3) The reasoning is more emotive and not so much a rationalistic analysis. This might partially be due to some continental influence, but the issue is that it leaves you foundationless. I mean, yes, you apparently support some aspects of Marx's view of humanity, but why should others agree with your analysis? Why are your particular opinions universal things? You seem to impose your mind upon the world, rather than seeing it, not that anyone truly sees it, but with some people, this problem seems more apparent than others. And so on....

Power is something that will always exist in some way or another. If one tries to 'abolish' it, it will resurrect again, since there is nothing hindering it not to...

Money? Without money we would have to rely on barter, and I think it's quite safe to say that it's the basis for any civilization.

Sex is something I agree is very overrated, but I must say I'm uncertain what makes you want to actually abolish it...