Monday, February 04, 2013

Marx, Rand or Keynes? Fuck all your economic prophets


A post on Twitter from Derek Wall drew my ire. Up front admission of judgment: I only read the first couple of pages of the preface from the linked document. But just read it for yourself. Regardless of what follows the author (note: not Derek) apparently lives his life from the perspective that all government, i.e. all structured human cooperation (that's what government is, fuckface), is A. Tyrannical and wasteful, and B. Well, I don't know if you need a 'B' after that flight of Angel-Dust inspired fucktardery. 

I mean what the blistering fuck?

Derek Wall had the grace to reply to my accusation of libtard propaganda propagation and admitted he hadn't read the doc but a couple of other Twits chipped in in response and demanded to know how the state is not an evil artifact of the ruling capitalist class and therefore TEH EVILLLLlLLL! To them I offer the  response of Mitch Benn to Clegg's similarly retarded proposal:

Yes, if you think the state is a fundamentally malign concept then why do you remain living under its iron jackboot instead of fleeing these oppressed shores to Somalia, the land of ultimate freedom and liberty?

The most bizarre thing, though, is that these comments seemed to result from Marxists, which is not an equation I've encountered heretofore (Marxism = libtardism). This set me thinking about Marx generally and how he's experiencing some sort of resurgence as a political alternative to fuckyounomics and I began to realise that Marxism is a kind of religion. You see, I've always wondered about Marx and his writings and the writings of those who built upon his ideas. I've always felt slightly intellectually inadequate in that I've never read any of his work, although I've read a lot of people who talk about his work in an interesting light. So I've always felt as if I'm missing a fundamental piece of knowledge which could open me up to a new and profound understanding of this diversely fucked up world. 

Then I drank some beer, had a shower and drank some more beer and realised that this was a rank crock of weasel piss. Marxism is just another fucking religion with a bunch of stories in some magic books telling tales of the great visionary. Crucially, I perceived that Marx died before environmentalism was born. And environmentalism changed everything: If your ideology excludes environmentalism, specifically the limits to growth, the laws of thermodynamics, the fundamental importance of energy to the growth of human civilisation and any of a hundred other subjects that highlight that resources and energy are the fundamental currencies of civilisation, not money, then you're a deluded wanker with no more intellectual credibility than some Hari Krishna selling enlightenment on the corner or any other religious outfit trying to sell you platitudes and mysticism from the mouths of their chosen one (Ayn Rand, anyone?). 

This would be a good point to draw attention to this outstanding and outreaching blog post from the Modern Monetary Theory blog of Bill Mitchell which attempts to rationalise this controversially robust fork of economics ( I don't want to call it that as that seems to sully it but that's the field he claims to work in). The post embraces steady state economics, limits to growth and 'biospheric homeostatic boundary problems' (?). I'm going to read it again because I was drunk the first time I read it but I retain a feeling of deep satisfaction that this represents a further entrenchment of ecological economics as the most robust and evidence-based alternative model to fuckyounomics, or Marx or Randian libtardism or whatever your particular chosen blend of misanthropy, delusion and mysticism is called. 

Here endeth ye sermon. Ye canst nowe all fucke off.


  1. Yeah the annoying thing about that book is that you can entirely separate his views on the state from his description of what the actual industrial revolution would look like. There's plenty of people who want the same thing but think the state can play a big party in it, like Michel Bauwens.

    What really annoys me about leftists who are completely anti state is the assumption that just because the state helped establish capitalist privilege the removal of the state will result in the fall of capitalism. I've never even seen anyone try to justify this they just state it and hope no one will notice.

  2. Marx wrote very little about the state but focused on capitalist relations. Marx and Engels basically thought that the state would whither away once capitalism was done away with not the other way around.

  3. Anon, your comment suggests Marx did not see the state as valuable or necessary, something fundamental to democracy. Then again, did Marx believe in (genuine) democracy?


Feel free to share your opinions of my opinions. Oh- and cocking fuckmouse.