Karl Marx in Hell
by Bob Wallace

Interviewer: It's nice of you to take time out from your busy
schedule for an interview.
Marx: Believe me, I can use the break.

Interviewer: Really? So tell me, what's Hell like? I don't see any demons, no flames, no lakes of boiling lead, no being jabbed with tridents.
Marx: Naw, that's not how it is. What Hell is really about is seeing all your handiwork. In my case, I had to sit here and watch the 20th century pass by. Do you know about 200 million people were murdered because of my ideas? I had to watch that. Now that's Hell.

Interviewer: You mean you've given up your beliefs?
Marx: Every one of them. Hey, I've had a lot of time to think.

Interviewer: Interesting. Could you give me some specifics as to why you're wrong?
Marx: Well, for only thing, I got human nature completely wrong. Completely backwards, actually. I didn't realize that human nature has both good and bad in it. You can say, roughly speaking, that a liberal is someone who thinks human nature is good and society, bad. A conservative thinks the opposite; human nature is bad and society, good, because it represses all the bad in human nature. A liberal usually thinks that if you get rid of oppressive society, then all the natural, innate goodness of people will automatically bloom. I thought if society was changed, along socialist lines, then the essential "goodness" of human nature would automatically turn all of us into gods. The exact opposite happened. Socialism appeals not to the best in human nature, but the worst: greed, envy, hate, theft, murder. It appeals to the animal in us, the bad part. Civilization, I realize now, is just a thin, fragile film on top of a lot of badness in people. And civilization is easily destroyed. And socialism will always destroy it. Socialism believes that State should control everything. But when the State controls everything, the absolute worst the ambitious, power-mad and amoral rise to the top. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Lenin, Castro, Pol Pot....all of them socialists.

Interviewer: Socialism appeals to the worst in us? Could you expand on that?
Marx: Socialism is based on envy, which is without a doubt the most trouble-making feeling in the world. Let's look at the story of The Garden of Eden. The serpent is actually a symbol of envy, and he wants to bring Adam and Eve down because he envies the fact they are favored by God. That's what envy always does, attempts to bring people down. So he talks Eve into breaking the rules, and she talks Adam into it. When they're caught, Adam blames Eve, and Eve blames the serpent. I think the story makes the most sense if you consider them to be about five years old, neither taking responsibility for their actions and instead blaming someone else. What this story shows is that envy is responsible for people blaming others for their problems. It's scapegoating. "It's because of you that I'm poor. Because you're rich, I live in poverty." Envy leads to murder, theft, greed...all kinds of horrible things. It's always about trying to level everyone and make everyone the same, so no one will be better than anyone else. This, of course, is impossible. The only way people can be the same is if they're identical, like two pennies. Only if you're completely identical can everyone be the same. In the Garden, envy is ultimately what brings evil into the world. One of the Ten Commandments prohibits envy, and the first murder Cain and Abel was because of envy. So socialism, since it is based on envy, will always lead to terrible tragedies.

Interviewer: Then there's no hope for socialism?
Marx: None whatsoever. It's evil to the core. Socialists should stop trying to change society and change themselves. That's the problem, really. They're flawed as we all are but they blame their problems on society. That's human nature, to blame your problems on someone else. No society is perfect, but a socialist society is the least perfect of all of them. I now realize socialism is a truly childish system, one that creates children instead of adults. Do you know what Thomas Hobbes said? "The evil man is the child grown strong." People like Hitler and Stalin weren't adults. They were children. For that matter, I never grew up, either. I was a child all my life, blaming my problems and the world's on "capitalism." If I had been born rich there never would have been a Marxism. I admired only aristocrats, anyway. I used to wear a monocle and go on fox-hunts. All socialists, deep down inside, know they're wrong. They can't admit it because of self-deception. That's why they keep trying socialism over and over, even though it never works. "Just one more time, then we'll make it work." One of the saddest but most true definitions of insanity I've ever heard is "to try the same thing over and over and expect a different result."

Interviewer: So it's a case of "meet the new boss, same as the old boss"?
Marx; Yes, that's true. Do you know I've actually seen The Who a couple of times from down here? I'm so far away I've never gotten a good view of them, though.

Interviewer: Let's discuss your ten-point system for changing society. Could you go through them and explain why they're wrong?
Marx: Sure. Let's take the first one, "Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes." If no one owns the land, then everyone will exploit it, because they think if they don't someone else will. It's called "the tragedy of the commons." And that's exactly what happens. People really only take care of things when they own them. I realize now that private property is the most important basis for civilization. Then there's the second, "A heavy progressive or graduated income tax." One of the problems with this is that when you tax people's money away, they'll cease to work, save and invest. This is why when taxes are cut, the economy always gets better, and when taxes are raised, it always gets worse.

Interviewer: What about the third, "Abolition of all rights of inheritance"?
Marx: Why should people build up a business if they can't give it to their children? And as for the fourth, "confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels," a rebel is only defined as what the State doesn't like. As for emigrants, the only time there is mass emigration is when the country absolutely stinks as a place to live. How many people are trying to get into America as compared to those trying to get out? And they sure aren't going to be productive immigrants, not if they believe all they own will be stolen if they ever leave, or even if they stay.

Interviewer: And the fifth?
Marx: "Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly." When this happens the central bank what you call the Federal Reserve always inflates the money supply. This causes a fake economic boom. When it's over, you get recession and unemployment. What's little known is that the first people to get the inflated money, they prosper and buy everything up. The last people to get the money get devalued money and can't buy much. Your dollar has lost about 99% of its purchasing power in the last 100 years, because of inflation. You have a small amount of enormously wealthy people. You know one of the reasons why? It's because they were the first to get their hands on the inflated money. Without inflation, there are far fewer very rich, and far fewer very poor.

Interviewer: And the sixth, "Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state"?
Marx: Ah, yes. People only get to hear or read or watch what the State allows. That's an attempt to brainwash people, to turn them into little robots who don't understand their country and the State are two totally different things. They think "patriotism" means defending the State. It means defending your country. (emphasis added) Of all the wars you've been in, how many were to defend an attack on your country, and how many were to defend the State's interests? As for the "transport" part, that ultimately means you can only live where the State wants you to.

Interviewer: The seventh?
Marx: "Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan." All of them have the same fatal flaw: you're supposed to work and give everything to someone else. No one's going to do that. Everyone ends up thinking, "Why should I work if no one else is?" So everyone is poor. One of the best definitions of capitalism and socialism I've heard is, "capitalism is the unequal distribution of wealth and socialism the the equal distribution of poverty." The eighth? "Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially to agriculture." Under the free market, if you don't work, you don't eat. Under socialism, if you work, you still don't eat. I guess there's some humor there, if you look hard enough. "Industrial armies." Armies are for war, not peace.

Interviewer: What about the ninth, "Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the population over the country"?
Marx: Only the free market can decide what business should be combined. Combining agriculture with manufacturing? Exactly how? I didn't think that one out too well, did I? As for abolishing the distinction between town and country, this can only be done if you shuffle people around at the point of a gun. Under this, people have to live where the State wants them to live.

Interviewer: What about the tenth?
Marx: "Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc." There's no such thing as free education. People always pay for it out of their taxes. That's a curious trait of humanity. They think if it's from the government, it's free. They often don't realize the money can only be taken from someone else and given to them. It's theft, really. Public schools? They mean bureaucracies, with the resulting destruction of creativity, imagination and learning. Bureaucracies are a terrible thing, only most people don't know it. One of the reasons Alexander the Great was so successful is that when he conquered a place he left the bureaucracies in place. Bureaucracies can bring civilizations down. What do you think they'll do to public schools, given enough time? When children's factory labor was abolished, those children no longer had a way to make a living. Which is worse, a crummy job, or starving and homeless? The one about education and industrial production wasn't too bad, as long as the free market does it, and voluntarily. When the State does it, either you do what the State says, or else.

Interviewer: One last question. Is Hell eternal?
Marx: No, it's not. You just have to wait until all the bad things you've done have disappeared. When the day comes when not one person is the world believes in what I wrote, then I can leave.

Interviewer: Any idea when that day might come?
Marx: Your guess is as good as mine. But I do think it's going to be a long, long time.

Interviewer: Thank you, Karl Marx.
Marx: You're welcome.

December 18, 2001
Bob Wallace, a former newspaper reporter and editor,
and an incurable lover of puns, lives in St. Louis.

The purpose of this information is to disclose to the world what really happened during Stalin's reign of terror in the North, of which Finland became a victim, along with half of Europe. If we can understand why things went the way they did, perhaps something like that will never happen again, and God willing, some results can be corrected.

But with what some call a " James Bond Villain " like Vladimir Putin, we may have to wait. Now the United States is Russia's pal again. But time will tell how much "friendship" there really is. Is Russia now suddenly reformed after 1000 years in the long term and 70+ years recently? Does history repeat itself, or are there really new paradigms in store for Russia? What a novel idea: Russia becomes civilized. The dishonest image that the Finns have had of Russians through history was reinforced in 1939 when Russia tried to steal Finland, though it managed to only steal a part. The only way this can ever be changed is if Russia gives back what it stole, Finnish Karelia. Since this probably won't happen in our lifetime, I can see that mistrust of Russia will continue. Mistrust is what saved Finland many times, and it will do so again. This is unfortunate, since doing business with a neighbor is based on trust. This is why Russia will have trouble pulling itself out of financial woes - it simply cannot understand fair play - meaning that they always have to gain an advantage even if it is by trickery. This tradition must change for Russia to play with other civilized members of our shrinking world.

Putin tightens Journalist travel VISA approvals citing lack of respect

I hate it when someone demands respect. I get it at my work from inept people who have risen for political reasons, but don't have a clue how to deal with people. Early in 2005 Putin told the world that he wanted people to respect Russia. They can get a VISA to do journalism there ONLY if they write  good things. Your freedom to report is a priviledge earned by saying the right things, just like in the former USSSR. Putin does not understand the principles of democracy. I can imagine what the Russian newspapers are saying about him. Now wonder he got in a second time. There are a lot of reports about what happens to any news agency that opposes him. It reminds me of the United States, at least the part about how powerful news cartels can get their man in.

We already know about Putin's geocide in Chechnya, rolling back free enterprise and freedoms, his nationalizing businesses, bullying of neighbors, etc. make him an enemy of the people, but not the state. His policies will prolong their agony. So Mr. Putin, I'm going to make it very clear, any country or person who wants respect must earn it. Until then, you will be treated with kid gloves, and everyone will watch their backs. You are demanding respect with threats! It cant't be done!  You will just alienate those you demand respect from, anyone who might criticize you and those you have crushed with brutal force. You don't treat your neighbors with respect, and when they don't respect you, you want to punish them. You want your man in  Ukrain, so you tried to poison the competition. Oh, it wasn't you, sorry I should have known that a KGB officer can cover his tracks. Sure, we'll never prove it, but we aint stupid either. You have a criminal mind sir. This is the Soviet Union revisited, not Russia, you're "back in the USSR." And you know something, it just tells the world that you feel you have failed, and its the fault of the journalists. Those journalists are warning everyone not to throw away their money to the Russian Mafia, or Putin's nationalizing buyouts. So Russia flounders while China makes friends with the west, attracts their capital and booms. Meanwhile Putin, you stab everyone in the back and money runs away. Russia has not raped a country for quite a while now and the cupboards are getting bare. You should resign.

One of the major problems in the past was Russia's constant interference in the Baltic countries. This apparently is still causing problems, and Putin is the fellow doing it with veiled threats and comments. Putin the Terrible. EU condemns Communism. The Russian people approve of Putin.