6 Comments

The first time I read Marx the thing that struck me most was the absolute distain for human nature. I say distain, because nothing he wrote supported it. The Marxist systems of Socialism and Communism are fantasy without the absolute destruction of human nature.

As you point out, both systems can work on a small scale, with likeminded people, but that's where it ends. Maren Schmidt came up with The Rule of 150 based upon human observation and study, which I believe to be true and the fundamental reason Marx was just a lazy bum that didn't want to work.

Expand full comment
author

Yes, it's ironic, isn't it? That a system which espouses to be based upon a sense of shared humanity, of looking out for each other's best interests, of "power to the people", is so willing to sacrifice the human nature of "gratification through success". I try to be respectful of the views and choices of others, recognizing that even those with which I disagree still add to our overall diversity, strengthening us as a species. But the shortsightedness of socialist support truly baffles me. Recent polls show a measurable - and growing - percentage of people who would volunteer to place limits on the 1st amendment so that everyone can be spared the discomfort of exposure to disagreeable opinions and ideas. Of course they fail to grasp (somehow) that laws which would "protect" them by silencing my voice would eventually apply to theirs as well to "protect" me. Well, I might loathe what they have to say, but I don't need - or want - protecting from it.

Expand full comment

Great essay. Adam has certainly put together a great platform for writers who get to the meat of their subject without the fat that is really piling on some otherwise excellent substack writers. I used to get a newsletter on architecture. One proposed project received an award for envisioning an apartment building with a large garden to feed the tenants which would alleviate the problem of food shortages. The garden would be tended by the tenants. I can't remember the exact phrasing but it could have been written by Karl Marx himself. It was chilling to say the least, especially as it presumed food shortages. At the time I thought what did that architect know that I don't know? Well I know now as well and it is pretty scary.

Expand full comment
author

Thank you for your kind comments. That's the scary part, isn't it? The transformation is gradual and sneaky, pretending to be beneficial and taking advantage of tough times to promote an exchange of freedoms for policies which purport to be humanitarian. Many of its future victims go along happily and willingly at first, much as we are seeing in America today. Appreciate your input. ZL

Expand full comment

I appreciate the analysis and the post as it shows I am not alone. I feel like a very annoying Paul Revere trying to warn the Neo-Marxists are coming (already here.) Pelosi said about ten years ago or so said something about people getting the chance to pursue artistic endeavors and I thought how strange people as it seemed untethered to the need to find good-paying jobs. I didn't know about Neo-Marxism then and guaranteed income but I could tell something nefarious was in the winds.

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
author

That's true, of course. My article only glosses over the generalities, and it is bolstered by the input of researched specifics like you have presented. Which only serves to illuminate the point, that so many people believe what they want to believe and are unwilling to peel back the onion layers to find deeper truths. They listen until they've heard what they want to hear, and then shut down communication past that point. Embracing ignorance is a sad way to live. Thank you for your input, Maura. ZL

Expand full comment