Wednesday, August 2, 2017
(Updated 8/7/2017)
(Updated 8/7/2017)
Karl Marx: Pretender Atheist With An Agenda
PART I
Marx: Christian Theist
Contradicting the accepted narrative that Karl Marx was an atheist in his adult life, in fact throughout his life Marx accepted as true the existence of God, only feigning atheism in his adult life for the purpose of, to paraphrase Marx, bring unprecedented havoc into the world. As a youth Marx was quite eloquent in his poetic observations of the Christian religion, the religion he grew up into after his father converted from Judaism…
Union with Christ could give an inner elevation, comfort
in sorrow,calm trust, and a heart susceptible to human love,
to everything noble and great, not for the sake of ambition
and glory, but only for the sake of Christ.1
This touching prose on Christ by the young Marx was written for a high school assignment, but could it be a subterfuge, a cover for a Jew living in a Christian nation that wouldn’t allow his father continue in his legal profession unless he converted to Christianity? Was the young Marx merely mimicking devotion to Christ as instructed by his father? Was the young Marx also feigning theism? The answer to both questions can be found in the poetry composed during Marx’s university period…
Thus Heaven I've forfeited,
I know it full well,
My soul, once true
to God, Is chosen for hell.2
With disdain I will throw my gauntlet
With disdain I will throw my gauntlet
Full in the face
of the world,
And see the collapse
of this pygmy giant
Whose fall will
not stifle my ardour.
Then will I wander
godlike and victorious
Through the ruins
of the world
And, giving my
words an active force,
I will feel equal
to the Creator.3
If indeed Marx had discarded religion during his days at university, or had been feigning theism all along, he would never have confessed that he would devote the remainder of his life in waging a war with God and bring chaos to God’s creation on Earth. And if Marx had been feigning Christianity in order to pass as a Christian in a Christian nation that discriminated against Jews, Marx would never have mentioned that he was chosen for hell. The concept of everlasting damnation in Hell is a product of errant Christian doctrine that wasn't Church doctrine pre-5th Century, and is nowhere to be found in Judaism,4 informing us that Marx indeed accepted Christ as the Messiah. In fact it is also possible that Marx wasn’t a Christian at heart, but remained a Jew who accepted Christ as the Messiah. When Jesus began His ministry, the first to recognize His Supreme credentials were the Temple authorities who witnessed the Roman immobilization within the Temple cloisters and adjacent Antonia Fortress, immobilized as Jesus wrestled control of the Temple complex from its Roman overseers, where one-hundred Roman soldiers were located within the cloisters themselves during Jewish festivals such as Passover in order to immediately react to anyone who might cause a disturbance that could lead to a rebellion during such times of heightened religious passions. This knowledge may have been known to Marx too, but if not it doesn’t negate the fact that Marx in his declaration of war against God declares war citing the Christian doctrine of everlasting suffering in Hell.
PART II
Marx’s War With God
Karl Marx obviously believed he had committed a mortal sin, and accepting as true that all such sinners go to Hell for eternity, he cast his lot with Satan...the great deceiver. Marx became the great deceiver on Earth. In the following, Marx feigns atheism...
...and...
...and...
PART III
Karl Marx's Economics Begins In The Middle Because There Can Be No Beginning For A Lie Thought Up By A Satanist Who Desires To Bring Havoc To God's Precious Creation--The Human Species
Marx’s Gordian Knot
Marx’s definition of capital is surplus value (surplus value, and capital, says Marx, being peculiar to capitalist production: "Hitherto we have investigated how surplus-value emanates from capital; we have now to see how capital arises from surplus-value."…“But this production of surplus-value completes but the first act of the capitalist process of production…”), surplus value merely equaling a company’s profits, a company’s profits equaling the portion of wages Marx said labor isn’t paid. Of course, before there existed the capitalist economy, there was no surplus value that capitalist production could operate on for its capital base, meaning Marx’s labor surplus value-based capitalist economy couldn’t have come into existence, proving that there first existed a non-surplus value based capitalist financial system that set in motion capitalist production! Marx’s writings on economics places the mule before the cart!
Let's clarify the paragraph above by starting the capitalist mode of production, according to Marx...
What do we need? We need capital, of course. So let's get some capital, shall we? I'm looking, but I can't find any? Oops! I forgot, we need surplus value to create the capital. Okay, let's look for surplus value. It's not there because surplus value emanates from capital!
There's nothing there! Not even a circular logic argument is present! Obviously the Marxist leadership know this, because I couldn't be the first person to stumble upon this huge discovery.
In Capital, Marx begins his analysis with an already existing capitalist economy. Marx can't explain how the capitalist economy came into existence because such an economy couldn't come into existence according to Marx's peculiar analysis of the capitalist economy where surplus-value created capital must first exist, but since surplus-value doesn't exist yet, there can be no capital to begin the capitalist economy.5 To overcome this inherent contradiction in Marx's "investigation", he begins Capital where we find an already existing capitalist economy...
The wealth of those societies in which the capitalist
mode of production prevails, presents itself as “an
immense accumulation of commodities," its unit
being a single commodity. Our investigation must
therefore begin with the analysis of a commodity.6
Let's rewrite that first paragraph from Capital, correcting the errors...
The wealth of those societies in which the capitalist
mode of production prevails, presents itself as “an
immense accumulation of capital," its unit being the
rate of interest. Our investigation must therefore begin
with the analysis of interest rates.7
Addendum
Between the publication of Capital, Volume I, in 1867 and Volume III in 1894, a period of twenty-seven years, Marx and Friedrich Engels refused to disclose the critical linchpin that resolved how different rates of of surplus value within companies of a particular industry evened out - different rates due to the different capital magnitudes that the various companies have - culminating in an average rate of profit for each industry. Marx recognizes the problem, hinting that the solution will be in Capital, Volume III:
We have in fact assumed that prices = values. We shall,
however, see, in Book Ill., that even in the case of average
prices the assumption cannot be made in this very simple
manner.8
In other words, Marx hadn’t figured out how to resolve the paradox where his peculiar surplus value is turned into an average rate of profit! If he had solved the problem, necessarily it would have been placed in Capital, Volume I, thereby ensuring his rightful place in being the discoverer of the equalization of profit process, and not another who published the solution before Marx did. In fact, such was the desperation of Marx and his camp that between 1885, the year Capital, Volume II was published (Marx died in 1883), and 1894, the year Capital, Volume III was published, an annual monetary prize essay competition was held on the “average rate of profit” and its relation to the “law of value”.9 Friedrich Engels provides his critiques of the essays in the Preface to Capital, Volume III,10 but nowhere critiques Marx’s incredulous refusal to delay the ‘solution’ until the third volume. Though it was claimed by Engels that no one succeeded in carrying off the competition prize,11 that isn’t the same as none of the contestants solved the contradiction.12
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Hell
5. Before Mercantilism, Marx referred to the earlier 'primitive accumulation of capital' period (see page 365) that replaced Serfdom, where the newly freed peasants sold their labor to farmers, hence their products being what Marx called a "commodity", where the full proceeds of their labor wasn't provided them, just the wages paid by the owner of the farm. We have the same problem, however. One can't have a capital base that assists in creating the commodity because surplus value is needed first to create the capital! The same dilemma goes for Mercantilism.
12. Ironically, years before the implementation of the annual prize essay competition, Eugen von Bohm-Bawerk had already figured out the process for the equalization of the various unequal surplus values within a specific industry's companies and how those surplus values arrive at a unique average rate of profit for each industry (see page 28 of Karl Marx And The Close Of His System):
Many years ago, long before the abovementioned
prize essays on the compatibility of an equal average
rate of profit with the Marxian law of value had appeared,
the present writer had expressed his opinion on this
subject in the following words: "Either products do
actually exchange in the long run in proportion to the
labour attaching to them–in which case an equalisation
of the gains of capital is impossible; or there is an
equalisation of the gains of capital–in which case it is
impossible that products should continue to exchange
in proportion to the labour attaching to them."
The last suggestion by Bawerk - "there is an equalisation of the gains of capital" - was Marx's solution!
Comments
Post a Comment