Is it Time to Legalize Murder?

•2014 10 01 • Leave a Comment

Murder needs to be legalized. Illegal murder only pushes it into the black market, where cartels of thugs can overcharge and abuse their position given a lack of competition. Making murder legal also allows it to be taxed and regulated, so that murderers can work in sanitary and humane conditions, and revenues can be used to lower the budget deficits or increase spending on social programs.

It would also allowed small businessmen to enter the market and provide innovate murder solutions, with a focus on quality and diversity, all the while improving efficiency in murder techniques and devices.

Some argue that this is what the ‘defense industry is for’. My point exactly. Illegal murder only strengthens large providers and stifles competition, leading to unnecessary wars and also making legitimate murder targets like an annoying neighbor or a dickhead at work immune from market forces.

You see, if murder wasn’t illegal, we could attempt to kill each other to settle our differences. Or even better, we could reduce our guilt and increase effectiveness by hiring a trained professional to do it.

There would no doubt also be an incentive for firms to offer complementary guilt reduction service for instance by reassuring us that the killing was quick and painless. Alternatively, there would be the option to also increase our thrill by saying and/or doing the opposite, ie. that the person suffered greatly and his family wept for weeks.

The market would make such choices available, such that killing could customized to better fit an individual’s preferences, compared to now were only a few crude and highly expensive services exist in black market.

Listen, murder was illegal in Maoist China, and yet they had famine that killed 100,000,000,000.000,000 people. If it hadn’t been, people could have attacked and eaten each other much easier, or better yet kill Mao and the regime and thus prevent the famine from ever being engineered in the first place.

How does this help? Because the government restricts the emergence of a properly functioning market. If murder were legalized it could be regulated like any other market service.

Indeed, competition would provide the perfect driver of better murder solutions, insuring that for instance bile and internal organs were cleaned and perhaps donated to a local hospital.

“When you buy MRN Murder Services (TM), whether you realize it or not, you are buying into something bigger then just killing someone: You are buying into a murder ethics. Through our Koen Industries Shared Plutonas Program, we donate more organs than any company in the world: Insuring that poor children who are suffering get the organs they need. Moreover, we invest in and improve murder practices and death worship communities around the globe. It’s a good murder karma! On top of all that, little bits that remain of the dilapidated corpses help decorate our offices & community centers, spreading cultural and artistic awareness.”

There is also the possibility of trading on prospective murders and the economic impact they will have on the certain markets.

Murder options, puts on assassination contracts and the ability to trade such probability estimates in the derivative market have to be a near future option for this potential industry.

We may need an International death regulation act with a regulatory body (Mortality Control Authority) at some stage but they should be limited in power so as to not unduly pinion the free market.

One must also consider the massive spin off effects of this new growth area on the arms industry, pharmaceuticals and chemical firms, tremendously boosting market inputs into all these sectors.

Regulation and licensing of murder through the MCA should recoup significant taxation for various states as well as their increased taxation/ royalties from associated industries in the military industrial complex.

In effect murder makes everyone (of consequence) a winner.

The free market solves everything with no negative effects… ever. Right?

A Quick Refutation of Yugoslavia’s “Self-Administration” System

•2014 09 27 • Leave a Comment

A little while ago I did a Q & A video where I said that Tito was reactionary. I said that Titoists were ‘tankies’ (uneducated poor quality communist) given their very weak understanding of Marxist theory. Titoists obviously didn’t like this and a particular one took exception to it. Essentially his argument was two Tweets that gave the following:

“Yugoslavia differed from the USSR in a significant way, the workers ownership of enterprise.”

“The USSR relied on state-run collectivization. Marxism is against the state even existing…”

There are three things wrong with these statements. First the workers did not have ownership of the enterprises. Second, the USSR did not “rely” on state-run collectivization, they’re supposed to be state-run collectivizes by Marx and Engels own writings. Third, Marxism is not against the state “even existing”. Marx and Engels made it clear that the period between capitalism and communism is a phase of socialism in which the state holds power for the proletariat.

“Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.”

- Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme, Chapter 4

“Moving in class antagonisms, society up to now had need of the state, that is, an organization of the exploiting class at each period for the maintenance of its external conditions of production, that is, particularly for the forcible holding down of the exploited class in the conditions of oppression (slavery, villeinage or serfdom, wage-labour) given by the existing mode of production.”


“As soon as there is no social class to be held in subjection any longer, as soon as class domination and the struggle for individual existence based on the anarchy of production existing up to now are eliminated together with the collisions and excesses arising from them, there is nothing more to repress, nothing necessitating a special repressive force, a state. The first act in which the state really comes forward as the representative of the whole of society — the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society — is at the same time its last independent act as a state. The interference of the state power in social relations becomes superfluous in one sphere after another, and then dies away of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and the direction of the processes of production. The state is not “abolished”, it withers away.The dictatorship of the proletariat is the working class state which oversees the transformation of society from capitalism to communism. By state is meant a special repressive force. It withers away as repression becomes gradually unnecessary.”

- Frederic Engels, Anti-Duhring

The blatant anti-Marxist nature of “Titoism” is laid bare by its most ardent defender, its theoretician Edvard Kardelj. He described in detail Yugoslavoa’s departure from socialism in his work “Directions of the Development of the Political System of Socialist Self-Administration”.

What is the System of “Self-Administration”?

The basic theory of “self-administration” holds that socialism cannot be created by having the proletarian state owning the means of production. Instead “self-administration” claims that it is built through the fragmentation of state property into individual groups of worker collectives, who in theory, own and organize it themselves. To support this idea is to completely contradict both Marx and Lenin.

“The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class… “

- Karl Marx and Frederic Engles, The Communist Manifesto, Ch.2

Not carrying this out is a cardinal sin in Leninist theory as well. He made this point very clear when opposing anarcho-syndicalists who refused state ownership.

“…any justification, whether direct or Indirect, of the ownership of the workers of a certain factory or a certain profession for their specific production, or any justification of their right to tone down or hinder the orders from general state power, is a gross distortion of the fundamental principles of Soviet power and complete renunciation of socialism.”

- V. I. Lenin, On Democratisation and the Socialist Character of the Soviet Power

Tito actively opposed state ownership when he brought the “self-administration” law to the People’s Assembly of the People’s Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in June 1950.

“From now on state property in the means of production, factories, mines, railroads will gradually go over to the highest form of social ownership. State ownership is the lowest form of social ownership, not the highest form…”

“…the most characteristic acts of a socialist country [is] the transfer of factories and other economic enterprises from the hands of the state into the hands of the workers, for them to manage… “

“…the slogan of the action of the working class – Factories to the Workers! – will be realized.”

- “Factories to the Workers”, Prishtina 1951

This position by Kardelj and Yugoslavian “socialism” is the antithesis of Marxist-Leninist theory. This is however in line with anarchist theory; particularly Pierre Joseph Proudhon’s work “The Theory of Property” where he says:

“…the spontaneous product of a collective unit… can be considered as the triumph of freedom… and as the greatest revolutionary force which exists and which can be opposed to the state.”

In his work on “self-administration” Kardelj literally defends private property when he says:

“in our society such rights as… the right of personal property or, within given limits, also of private property… have special importance…”

On top of this the Yugoslav Constitution also defends private property.

“Private owners have the same socio-economic position, the same rights and obligations as the working people in the socio-economic organisations.”

In the Communist Manifesto Karl Marx states very clearly:

“The theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.”

- Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto

The Yugoslavian theory of “self-management” could not be more reactionary. It openly without shame defends private property when the whole point of communism (and socialism) is to abolish private property.

One of the most important things done by reactionaries in order to restore capitalism is to decentralize the management of the economy. Afterward eventually there would be a restoration of private property. This is what Yugoslavia did under Tito. All of this is shows that “socialist self-administration” is just anarcho-syndicalism. That’s exactly what Tito’s Yugoslavia was. (In addition there was the whole living off borrowed money from the imperialist nations.)

“Self Administration” in Agriculture

One of the most important aspects of socialism is the organization of agriculture into collectives. The Tito government did have collectives but they were of poor quality not well executed. They were eventually dismantled to become private property once again restoring the kulak class. That new system restored and gave benefit to the great landlords again. The method gave land back to the landlords without causing too much of a problem. At one point 90% of Yugoslav agriculture was in private hands.

Following that the state sold off machine and tractor stations to wealthy peasants and then placed heavy taxes on all peasants. The state owned farms were made into capitalist enterprises that took in foreign investment. Local private businesses made a ton of money from the foreign capital invested. Landowners could rent, buy, sell, and mortgage land. They could also privately buy machinery and hire workers pushing out smaller farms. This is what brought back the bourgeois class in the countryside.

“Self-Administration” Preserving Exploitation

Enver Hoxha adequately explains how capitalism was restored in this manner.

“In Kardelj’s book the individual is mainly considered as a chief element of society – the element which produces, the element which has the right to organise and to distribute production. According to him this element socialises work in an enterprise and exercises its leadership by the so-called workers’ council which are “elected” by the workers and which allegedly regulates – together with the instituted administrative functionaries – the whole fate of the enterprise, the work, the income etc., within the system of “self-administration”.

“This is the typical form of capitalist enterprises where in fact it is the capitalist who rules, surrounded by a large number of officials and technicians who know the situation about the production and organise its distribution. Naturally, the bulk of the profits goes to the capitalist who owns the capitalist enterprise, that is, he appropriates the surplus value. Under the Yugoslav “self-administration” a large part of the surplus value is appropriated by the officials, the directors of the enterprises and the engineering technical staff.”

Enver Hoxha, Yugoslav “Self-Administration” – Capitalist Theory and Practice

Selling the Country to Foreign Capitalists

Yugoslavia news reported on the 16th of August 1950 of new regulative issue of the “Federal Executive Veche” concerning the foreign investments in Yugoslavia.

“Under this law the foreign partners, on the basis of the agreements concluded between them and the organisations of socialised labour of this country, can make investments in currency, equipment, semi-finished and finished products and technology. Foreign investors have the same rights as the local organisations of socialised labour which invest their means in some other organisation of united labour.”

“Under this set of regulations greater interest (on the part of foreigners) is anticipated, because it guarantees the security of the joint economic activity on a long-term basis. Besides this, there is now practically no field in which foreigners cannot invest their means, with the exception of social insurance, internal trade and social activities”.

This investment by foreign capitalists began much industrialization. It produced countless goods, most of which were not even sold in Yugoslavia. To me it seems like they were the precursor to Deng Xiaoping’s selling out of China as cheap labour. It happened then for the same reason as now, the labour was cheaper. The cost of variable capital was lower allowing the foreign capitalists to get more value from that labour. This allowed the foreign capitalists to undercut its competitors whose exploitation was hindered by trade unions.

Defending the Market

The market can exist for some time during socialism, but the goal must be to eliminate it. Kardelj outright defends its continued existence and condemns the removal of it.

“… the free exchange of labour through the production of commodities and the free, self- governed market at the present level of the socio-economic development is a condition for self-government… This market… is free in the sense that the self-governing organisations of united labour freely and with the minimum of administrative intervention, enter into relations of the free exchange of labour. The suspension of such freedom is bound to lead to the regeneration of the state property monopoly of the state apparatus.”

There could be no more flagrant denial than this of the teachings of Lenin, who wrote:

“We must foster ‘proper’ trade, which is one that does not evade state control, it is beneficial to support it …for the free market is a development of capitalism…”

- V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 32

Marx makes it very clear that the market is a huge part of capitalism. Competition is the inner nature of capital, if you want a market that implies competition as well. In doing so you retain the manyness of capital which is a defining characteristic of capitalism and commodity production in general.

“Free competition, as Mr Wakefield correctly sniffs out in his commentary on Smith, has never yet been developed by the economists, no matter how much they prattle about it, and [no matter] how much it is the basis of the entirety of bourgeois production, production resting on capital. It has been understood only negatively: i.e. as negation of monopolies, the guild system, legal regulations etc. As negation of feudal production. But it also has to be something for itself, after all, since a mere 0 is an empty negation, abstraction, from a barrier which immediately arises again e.g. in the form of monopoly, natural monopolies etc. Conceptually, competition is nothing other than the inner nature of capital, its essential character, appearing in and realized as the reciprocal interaction of many capitals with one another, the inner tendency as external necessity.”

- Karl Marx, Grundrisse, Ch.8

Finally Enver Hoxha lays it out:

Thus an anarcho-syndicalist system has been established in Yugoslavia and this has been named “socialist self-administration”. What has this “socialist self-administration” brought to Yugoslavia? All kinds of evil. Anarchy in production in the first place. Nothing is stable there. Each enterprise throws its products on the market and capitalist competition takes place because there is no coordination, since it is not the socialist economy which guides production. Each enterprise goes it alone, competing against the other, in order to ensure raw materials, markets and everything else. Many enterprises are closing down because of lack of raw materials, the huge deficits created by this chaotic capitalist development, the build-up of stocks of unsold goods due to the lack of purchasing power and the saturation of the market with outdated goods. Yugoslavia’s handicrafts services are in a very serious state, too. Referring to this problem at the meeting of Slovenia’s leading activists, Tito could not hide the fact that “Today you have to sweat a good deal to find, for example, a carpenter or some other craftsman to repair something for you and even when you find him you are fleeced so blatantly that it makes your hair stand on end.”


There is so much more that could be said here but that would take longer to write. This is only meant as a quick introduction as to why Tito and Yugoslavia was revisionist. To get the full story and much more information I highly suggest reading Yugoslav “Self-Administration” – Capitalist Theory and Practice by Enver Hoxha.

* * *

Enver Hoxha, Yugoslav “Self-Administration” – Capitalist Theory and Practice
Frederick Engels, Anti-Dühring
Karl Marx, Grundrisse
Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Program
V. I. Lenin, The Tax in Kind
Karl Marx, Communist Manifesto
Joseph Proudhon, The Theory of Property

Review of You, Me and the Bourgeoisie by The Submarines

•2014 09 21 • Leave a Comment

You, Me and the Bourgeoisie by The Submarines… Anti-Capitalist message or just semi-conscious individualism and apathy typical of the 1st world? A Marxist Review.

Many of you may remember this song, shared mostly in instrumental form in the Apple iPhone commercial.

I happened to catch the title of the song once during the commercial, and the title of the song intrigued me. The song itself is catchy, so I thought maybe… just maybe the artists might be sending a revolutionary message, or at least an anti-capitalist one. But why would that be in Apple’s commercial? After all Steve Jobs picks these songs out himself and surely he loves capitalism as much as the next CEO.

Read the rest at Marcel the Maoist Blog

The First World Mentality of the Anita Sarkeesian Bomb Threat

•2014 09 18 • Leave a Comment

Anita Sarkeesian

A bomb threat was called into the Game Developers Choice Awards that threatened at least a dozen on Wednesday the 19th in March. The threats were sent to several of the organizers. “We can confirm that approximately 25 of GDC’s organizers received an anonymous email early in the morning of Wednesday, March 19th, 2014 during GDC 2014,” the organizers said in a statement.

What was the reason for the bomb threat? Someone was demanding that the feminist pop culture critic of video games, Anita Sarkeesian, have her Ambassador Award revoked. Yes, someone was actually so angry that a feminist won an award that they decided to threaten innocent lives.

The message reads as follows:

“A bomb will be detonated at the Game Developer’s Choice award ceremony tonight unless Anita Sarkeesian’s Ambassador Award is revoked. We estimate the bomb will kill at least a dozen people and injure dozens more. It would be in your best interest to accept our simple request. This is not a joke. You have been warned.”

Well that threat was taken seriously and the police were called to sweep the place for explosives. San Francisco Police Department’s Explosive Ordinance Disposal Division, sent officers and bomb-sniffing dogs to the Moscone Center where the event was being held. As to be expected, there was nothing found. The organizers for the event did however take extra precautions by conducting random bag checks.

What is the award for?

“…an individual or individuals who have helped the game industry advance to a better place, either through facilitating a better game community from within, or by reaching outside the industry to be an advocate for video games and help further our art.”

Most people have come to the conclusion that it was a prank by a troll. Of course this turned out to be an empty threat, but it is very telling. Someone was so mad that a feminist was awarded for making criticisms of video games that they were willing to take the chance of being arrested and prosecuted for making threats. They felt it was important enough to make a threat that would waste a significant amount of man-hours and tax payer money. Causing this very serious situation was considered an appropriate response to someone criticizing video games.

Typically, when this happened Sarkeesian herself was attacked by various misogynist forces. They accused her of using this incident to promote herself. They accuse her of using this to make money. The hatred towards women in these actions is astounding. Someone threatens her in a very public way, and she is accused of using it to get attention? That is tantamount to Al-Qaeda calling American sorrow and outrage over the 9/11 attacks as attention seeking. It makes absolutely no sense. What this reveals is that no matter what harassment she suffers, these misogynists (closet ones and real ones) always try to turn everything against her as though it was her fault. This is no different than blaming a battered woman for the beating she took.

The great irony here is in the divergence between the words and actions of misogynists. They continually claim that sexism is over, women’s oppression is gone. Yet whenever someone mentions it they act like this (to varying degrees). The proof of the continued need for feminism can be found in the comment section of any feminist video, blog post, or news article. Every time they scream that sexism is dead they end up proving that it is alive and well.

I couldn’t think of a more First Worldist mentality thing to do. With global suffering from hunger, poverty, and war, this was the most important thing on this person’s mind. The drive to cause disruption to a functioning system, even as small as convention, was wasted on criticisms of video games. This was more important than say poor nutrition causing nearly half (45%) of deaths of children under five – 3.1 million children each year. 66 million primary school-age children attend classes hungry across the developing world, with 23 million in Africa alone. The true outrage in this person’s eyes was someone daring to criticize video games. This speaks to the mentality of First World people and the unbelievable amount of suffering they can ignore from the capitalist imperialism they benefit from. Capitalist alienation at its most transparent, a petty entertainment commodity is literally more important than child hunger, or labour enslavement. Why? Because First World privilege from imperialist plunder is not important. How dare she criticize video games!

There are people who work in producing electronics in the Third World in horrible conditions. There are conditions that cause suicides, serious health problems, literal slavery, and in some cases forced abortions. The worst of human rights abuses can be found in these places. These facts about global inequality that benefit a First World gamer are totally acceptable in their eyes. But if some woman dares question the content of the game, that deserves indignation and illegal actions committing harassment. The truth is laid bare here: global suffering means nothing to the First Worlder, but the questioning of male privilege is a crime. This is the mentality of the First Worlder; this is why they cannot be revolutionary, why they can never be relied upon to end the global suffering they directly benefit from.

The Third World must liberate itself out from under our domination.


Bomb Threat Targeted Anita Sarkeesian, Gaming Awards Last March, Kotaku

Series on Maternal and Child Nutrition, The Lancet, 2013

Two Minutes to Learn About School Meals, WFP, 2012

Dodging Feminist Criticism While Posing as Ally

•2014 09 14 • Leave a Comment

fake feminism

The top half of the image represents someone being criticized for their sexist behaviour. The bottom half represents someone else getting criticized for their sexist behaviour. The author and the attitude behind the creation of this image is saying it’s not real feminism when you criticize something I do, it’s only real feminism when you criticize something someone else does.

What I’d like to present to you is this image, a good example of avoiding criticism while claiming to support criticism. This is a tactic used primarily by leftists and liberals who pretend to support feminism. It’s a way of being a part of the attack on patriarchy while simultaneously being a part of it. It’s a way of avoiding one’s own responsibility for their hand in continuing oppression.

Here’s another example: someone opposes the existence of pornography yet defends it being allowed to exist if people choose to engage in it. This is essentially another way of saying “I oppose pornography and want it to stop because of its harmful effects, but I’m against actually stopping it.” Which means the person “against” pornography really isn’t against it at all.

Feminism has never stood for women being greater than men, this is a lie created by anti-feminists to oppose feminism. This image continues that lie.

Stop Calling Suicide Victims ‘Selfish’

•2014 08 13 • Leave a Comment

There’s no questioning that suicide is catastrophic. It’s absolutely incomprehensible to me and most others that a person would feel so terrible, so trapped, so desolate that she would want to end her own life.

Yet, it seems every time the topic of suicide comes up, someone attacks suicide victims by calling them “selfish.” I’ve heard it in real life; I’ve read it in articles; I’ve seen it on Facebook. But this attitude is disgusting and abhorrent, and completely misunderstands what it means to be suicidal.

See full Huffington Post article here

Russia Is Pushing Back, My Thoughts

•2014 08 11 • Leave a Comment

Caleb Maupin has written an article for New Eastern Outlook that takes a dive into the ongoing hostilities between the US and Russia. His post can be seen here. Since he and I are friends I’d like to add some thoughts of my own to his work here.

Here’s my thoughts:

You’re right energy resources are a major factor in the situation, imperialism and all the rest. When you talk about the new advancements in the extraction of natural gas you’re talking about an increase in the efficiency in constant capital. This in turn requires less living human labour now replaced with dead labour. The result of this is a decrease in the value of gas via a rise in the organic composition of capital. This has forced the price (or monetary expression of value) to decrease leading to a decline in profitability. A lack of sufficient profitability is certainly a threat to the global markets. Its big part of what leads to a falling rate of profit, this is what they’re trying to avoid. They’re trying to avoid over production. In the case of oil there is no particular new innovation; more producers are simply entering the market increasing the supply without a corresponding rise in demand.

Your point about “The rule of the capitalist market is “expand or die,”” is correct. Capital must constantly expand finding new markets in order to avoid that same falling rate of profit. However Wall Street’s drive to avoid it is coming up against the BRICS countries desire to avoid it. Corporate profits have come out of the Great Recession quite nicely (leaving the rest of us behind) and are starting to see the signs of the limits of expansion. It’s now a matter of who is going to take whose market share. This of course causes contradictions among various capitalists.

Striving to get as much of the market share as possible (in many things but energy resources importantly) is the very essence of the drive of imperialism. As you pointed out this is what lead to the over throw and destruction of Libya. The oil exports dropped to 11% of what they were allowing the remaining producers to snatch up Libya’s now former market share. The destruction of Libya’s oil infrastructure was the primary goal. This is why the capture of its oil refineries was such a priority in the insurgent military campaign, in addition to reducing Libya’s ability to purchase the necessary war materials to defend itself. As soon as the rate of oil profits began to slow again the imperialist interference in Syria began attempting to take its oil of the market.

We’re seeing something similar with Russia. US imperialism sees that Russia is a growing power that also has great energy interests. It also has a huge percentage of the market. This is a threat to the profit rates of Wall Street oil firms and its various investors. Russia HAS to be removed as a world player in order for US hegemonic power to continue. The crisis that broke out in Russia was the perfect opportunity to take influence from Russia and justify sanctions that would increase their own profits. Unfortunately for the West Putin is no fool and knows how to struggle back against this kind of aggression. For every move they make against him, he has once in return. When the US cuts trade with them, Russia can turn to China, Brazil, India, maybe even the DPRK. The normally unilateral trade the US has with many countries is not an existing case with Russia; they can deflect such trade losses.

But there’s something very significant about this turn of events. US imperialism has always picked off small nations to expand their market share in energy. However that is not enough anymore. Due to increased competition and the already existing expanse of Wall Street oil companies, they’re becoming desperate to get new markets. This is causing them to engage in hostilities with more powerful nations. All the smaller weaker nations that can’t really defend themselves have been picked clean or are in the process of doing so. The only places left to undermine are the larger powers. China has far too much trade with the US to attack because it would cause them too much damage. Russia is the next logical choice, and it’s easy to make them out to be an enemy due to historical anti-Soviet attitudes.

Reaching the limits of capital (at least in energy resources) is causing intensification in the competition between imperialist powers. The antagonistic contradiction between different sets of capitalist classes is increasing the risk of war, possibly world war.

* * *

See more of Caleb Maupin’s work here:
Follow Caleb Maupin on Twitter:


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 143 other followers