novum opus hominum

amodernmanifesto:

sinidentidades:

We got to talking about Thomas Carlyle, and my professor made the assertion that Carlyle was like Ron Paul and also had better ideas than Marx. 

I involuntarily shook my head in disagreement at him, and he called me out to make my case against his statements, so I did, 

“Well, Ron Paul doesn’t like the state taking care of everyone. He wants people to take chances with their general well-being. He wants the bootstraps mentality to prevail. He’s an anti-federalist. So, really, he supports authoritarianism at the locale. Carlyle romanticizes the idea of regressing back to a Middle Ages feudal system. He wanted barons and captains of industry to use their capital to help the people within their respective communities. The people being their workers. Like Ron Paul, he too supports authoritarianism at the locale, but with a little more compassion mixed in. And like Ron Paul, he makes the assumption that all people are inherently good and want nothing more than just help out one another. That kind of mentality is dangerous, especially in a system like that where the wealth is concentrated in one place. With wealth concentrated in one place, it’s likely the person holding the wealth adopts the idea that they are a self-made person, so they would just like everyone else to do the same since they did it too. Of course, they don’t even account for the fact that no wealthy person is self-made because the laborers or the workers that they employ are really the ones making the products or providing the services, so their labor can be exploited for some loose change.”

He stood there, and said, “Well, then, what would you do with the wealthy?” 

And I retorted, “There would be no wealthy in a Marxist society. Everyone would live at a similar standard of living dictated by the amount of work the society actually does. The transitional phase before communism is a people’s dictatorship, as Marx described it. It’s an unfortunate name, but try to pay not attention to that. In essence, it’s a people’s democracy. It’s a society that works for itself, you know, the greater good. There is no need for capitalists, captains of industry, or the wealthy to create jobs or maintain society. Just look at the mess we are in now.” 

My professor stood there and said, “So, it sounds like Marx really wanted some kind of anarchy then, huh?”

And I responded with, “Well, yeah, but I’m not sure if you really understand what anarchy is. Earlier, you said it was a chaotic, Darwinistic society, which can be the case for certain types of psuedo-anarchism. But real anarchism is just anti-hierarchy. No hierarchy. You know, the whole no gods, no masters etc. It’s what puts people directly in control of their respective societies without any middlemen to go through. The work they do is the work they all benefit from. There is no profit margin or status quo to meet. It’s all about people coming first.” 

My professor stood there and said, “So communism is —” 

Some girl interjected, “People owning people.” 

And I laughed and said, “Oh, you must be talking about capitalism, dear, because that’s what that is. People owning people. Profit over people. Nothing matters when it comes to the laborers or workers because you have to generate that profit!” 

Surprisingly, a lot of the class started echoing my sentiments, and then my professor got back to me and said, 

“I really want to disagree with everything you just said, but I absolutely don’t know how.” 

He then awkwardly tried to continue the lesson, but kept turning away from my section every time he made eye contact with me. 

I’m pretty sure I scare everyone in that class now, but do I really care?

Not really.

Why?

Because of this: 

Can I marry your mind.

And that image. 

Why are you so beautiful?

Beautifully said :)

(via tayman)