This academic termite is one of the main reasons why UP must either be privatized or abolished! People must not be forced to support or subsidize their own destroyers.
I didn’t quite expect to be retrieving my Marxist-Frankfurt files to try to refresh my memory on such esoteric issues as Karl Marx’s Labor Theory of Value, Communism and Marxist economics.
This after a Filipino communist and blog critic challenged me to spar (well, that’s what I initially assumed) on a number of absurd issues/topics.
I was referring to a blog critic’s comment on my blog titled “12 Things Violent Leftards Can Learn from Million People March“.
Here’s what this blog critic posted on his Facebook timeline:
My Facebook post was accompanied by the following statement: “Perhaps they also love killing innocent people, extorting small business-owners and farmers in the countryside, forcibly imposing revolutionary taxes on ordinary people who don’t support their violent political cause, and trying to fundamentally transform this society according to their violent ideology and through bloody revolution.”
Now that reminds me of George Orwell’s statist battle-cry:
This blog critic named Gerry Lanuza posted the following hilarious reply: “What’s wrong with violence? Fucking is violent! Love is violent! Your post is violent Rabadabango!”
Yeah! What the heck is wrong with violence?
Indeed, our very own Filipino communists have their own Orwellian newspeaks. Love is violent! What a very strong statement to make.
Gerry M. Lanuza is an associate professor at the Department of Sociology, University of the Philippines in Diliman, where he teaches Sociology of Religion, among other subjects.
I’m just curious, but… Why the hell UP students need to study “sociology of religion”?
He’s also very active online, as he maintains the following accounts– Facebook and LinkedIn. He also maintains his Facebook fan-page wherein he glorifies mass murderer Mao Tse Tung and many other Marxist revolutionaries. Plus, he’s on YouTube! Yes, anti-capitalist, anti-private property communists are heavy users of social networks as well.
But here I won’t focus on so-called professor Gerry Lanuza‘s justification and glorification of violence . Certainly he has his own weird, absurd understanding of things, which I think is absolutely linked to Karl Marx’s violent ideology. Marx and his devout followers advocated bloody revolution to fundamentally transform a society, and this is why violence or force is an indispensable, inherent aspect of Marxism.
So-called professor Gerry Lanuza‘s reaction to my blog says it all. They absolutely reject peaceful protest, as their ideological, political goal is to wage violent, bloody revolution! This came from a UP professor who is supposed to educate, not indoctrinate or brainwash, young students.
He urged his Facebook followers to learn from “the veteran revolutionary Che Guevarra” from whom he absorbed his weird idea of love– “the true revolutionary is guided by the great feelings of love”. Che Guevarra– the butcher– the chauvinist pig– the racist– the mass murderer! No wonder why this UP academic prefers bloody, violent revolution to peaceful protest. Is this what he’s teaching at the taxpayer-funded state university? We must be very concerned!
In my Facebook encounter with so-called professor Gerry Lanuza he continued to rationalize and glorify the use of violence. Consider the following screenshot:
One of the most used, most common fallacies he spouted is this— “And robbing the workers of their surplus labor, not institutionalized slavery?”
In response to that fallacious statement, I said: “Then DO NOT WORK. Who is your employer? NOBODY IS FORCING YOU TO WORK, Gerry Lanuza.”
That’s actually part of the Marxist strategy– to spread propaganda and to divide the world into two clashing, warring entities– the proletarians versus the bourgeoisie capitalists. To Marxists or communists, the current system, which is not even capitalism but Corporatism, is itself force– the enemy to be destroyed and replaced with their own collectivist, statist system. A number of irrational societies in the past tried to establish so-called professor Gerry Lanuza‘s Marxist system, and they all suffered disastrous, deadly consequences. In theory, the initial goal is to establish Socialism, which is the only route to Karl Marx’s Communism– a further development or a higher phase of Socialism.
Marx himself wrote: “The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.”
Obviously, that’s what so-called professor Gerry Lanuza‘s was thinking when he said, “We love revolution. Revolution is love”. Indeed, Monday’s very peaceful Million People March protest is the antithesis of the Marxist “bloody”, “violent” revolution! The commies hate it.
The idea that Socialism grows directly out of Capitalism has been repeatedly debunked by reality. Also, the idea that Socialism will grow into Communism simply exposes the tyrannical nature of the Marxist ideology. Such a notion or Marxist prediction requires the use of absolute force or central planning to make it happen. It disregards human nature and the fact that reality is independent of human consciousness. Also, it rejects the indispensable aspect of human behavior. Well, that’s certainly because the Communists don’t just seek to carryout socio-economic planning, but social engineering as well via their reeducation camps and/or concentration camps.
I must state this axiomatic fact again– Communism is the impossible, and to try to establish or force the impossible is to wage war against reality and human nature. In the past, the more the communists tried to achieve their communist utopia, the more their system extracted human blood. Such a dictatorial Marxist society is doomed to failure, and this was evidenced by China’s betrayal of Mao Tse Tung’s revolution by Deng Xiaoping in 2979 when the latter forced his own “second revolution” against the will of his comrades.
But Gerry Lanuza said he doesn’t have any choice at all in this country. He said: “Really? Do I have the choice: death or starvation?”
Oh, poor Gerry Lanuza he’s being enslaved by UP! The State University must stop exploiting Gerry Lanuza‘s labor by giving him what he actually wants– commie-freedom and choice. UP should fire him! Oh wait! Isn’t UP controlled by his comrades? We’re doomed!
It’s very ironic he didn’t even realize that was the choice made by the Russians when they embraced Communist Bolshevism in 1917 and by the North Koreans when they embraced Kim Il Sung. Yes, he has a choice– to quit his job or to migrate to North Korea that practices communism.
Consider the following snapshot:
Gerry Lanuza asked: “Is it an option to allow others to enslave and exploit the majority? How selfish and stupid such a position. ”
First, he doesn’t know anything about Capitalism. Second, he ignores the fatal flaws of Communism and the reality in which people in communist countries like North Korea live in.
What he’s trying to say is, every business-owner is an automatic slave-driver. What about the communist leaders in Cuba and North Korea? He ignores the fact that even in semi-capitalist or semi-socialist societies like the Philippines, people still have a choice. They are free to put up a business or to find a job. Others who can’t find jobs, since we limit foreign investment and participation, are free to work abroad. This same “choice” or “right” is not available to North Koreans who can’t get out of their slave-country without being shot at the border.
The problem is, Gerry Lanuza is not that honest and ready to define his terms and to state his own ideology. Such a style is very common with most leftists. They want to keep their position as absurd as possible.
Since so-called professor Gerry Lanuza works at UP, is it safe to claim the UP System or the Government or the taxpayers are exploiting him or his labor? Again, he should quit his day job and practice what he preaches!
Obviously, Gerry Lanuza also has his own weird, anti-logic understanding of choice. To communists, choice is a government-mandated good or service. They believe that people living in so-called capitalist or semi-capitalist societies cannot make any “choice” as long as the institutions of private property and economic freedom remain in place.
Here’s my idea of choice– choice does not require government or social intervention. A free choice is a product of a person’s informed judgment and free, uncoerced action. People should be free to use condoms or contraceptives, and please, don’t ever try to lump me in with religious Conservatives. Anyone can be for Conservatism while reject Capitalism. In fact, there are who call themselves “Conservative Socialists”. Wasn’t Hugo Chavez a Conservative (religious) Socialist, by definition?
Observe that Gerry Lanuza‘s style mainly consisted of asking too many questions. That means he doesn’t actually want to engage in a rational debate. He simply wants to troll, or to show he knows too much!
You call this a debate?
Then he decided to change the topic when I said the following: “You should define your terms! I don’t think you have enough brain cells to understand Karl Marx ideology and his failed Labor Theory.”
But wait! That was after he posted the following on his Facebook timeline:
Gerry Lanuza LIE NUMBER 1:
THE TRUTH: Nobody blocked him. In fact, it was my very first time to deal with him. So, I think it was totally unnecessary for him to lie and to concoct unfounded stories. Of all commies, I hate the lying commie most! His poor students at UP must be ashamed of him!
Gerry Lanuza LIE NUMBER 2:
THE TRUTH: I didn’t say I wanted to “put an end to labor theory of value”. I said: ‘Karl Marx ideology and his failed Labor Theory.” Also, he never asked me to “summarize the main points”. Again, he didn’t have to lie to his Facebook comrades!
Here’s my reaction after learning he works as an associate professor at UP…
The next topic was Karl Marx’s Labor Theory of Value.
Here I thought he’d be more willing to define his terms and to really tell us his own political, ideological beliefs. I was wrong. Instead, he asked too many questions again. This time he tried to play the Victim Card by saying: “Di ako taga-UP. Don’t glorify me that much. Ako ay taxi driver lang. Moron nga ako sabi mo e. di ko nga ma define ang mga terms mo. Di ko nga alam ang labor theory of value that you claim to be an expert.”
There’s a reason why he had to play the Victim Card– to justify his so-called dialectic style and his own ‘Socratic method’. Here, his personal understanding of “debate” means asking too many unrelated questions without responding to his opponent’s arguments or questions.
Gerry Lanuza asked: “Balik tayo sa formal na usapan. Why is labor theory of value dead?”
My reply: “Because it’s been repeatedly debunked by economic reality and modern economic theories. It’s based on a flawed economic premise that value is intrinsic in labor. That’s wrong. Wealth or value, in real economic terms, is created by the Human Mind.”
Observe that Gerry Lanuza didn’t even try to define his own terms or refute my arguments. Instead, he raised a lot of questions without even dealing with my arguments.
He said he didn’t want to refute anything. He simply wanted “clarity”. But how can anyone, who knows nothing about an issue, ask for clarity? Isn’t that impossible?
I urged him to define his terms, but to no avail. He didn’t want to engage in a rational discussion. He simply wanted to expose his own ignorance.
Then he raised this “mind versus” matter dichotomy.
Observe his BIG STRAWMAN “Marx agreed with you”. He didn’t– or wouldn’t– say why. That’s because he was trying to hurl another strawman fallacy.
I said: “I am not saying labor must be removed from the equation. I am just saying, that’s not the main or fundamental aspect of production.” It’s either this so-called professor Gerry Lanuza doesn’t understand Marx’s Labor Theory of Value or he’s just plain ignorant.
Value does not originate from labor, which is just one of the means of turning an idea into an actual value. The real originator of value is man’s inventiveness or ability to create things. It’s the human mind.
When Karl Marx invented his Labor Theory of Value, he didn’t talk about the human mind; he simply glorified and justified proletarian labor, which is the basis of his entire philosophy, in trying to refute Adam Smith’s “free market” theory.
According to this theory, all value is created by physical labor. Yet the theory was mainly based on Marx’s pre-industrial, primitive understanding of things. As I said, economic reality and post-industrial revolution repeatedly debunked this Marxist theory of value, as we now clearly see and understand that what creates value, or provides value to things, is not the physical struggle of muscled men, but man’s intellectual work and ingenuity. Now we have Internet and computer technology, nano-technology, medical research, among many others. All these man-made wonders didn’t originate from men’s physical labor but from men’s ingenuity and intellectual work.
Today artificial intelligence and improved technology help humans solve the problem of scarcity, underproduction and even so-called overpopulation. Machines continue to replace manual labor in methods of production to increase efficiency, output and productivity. The past few years also saw the invasion of robots in the car manufacturing industry. Now, does wealth come from labor or the human mind? Well, according to the primitive, anti-industrial labor theory of Marx, wealth or value comes from the physical labor of the proletarian class. But the fundamental question is, who will provide jobs to manual laborers without the men of the mind and of real ability? Logic dictates we cannot reverse the law of cause and effect.
But then again, this so-called UP professor was not interested in a rational, educational debate. Dealing with Gerry Lanuza makes me lose faith in our education system.
- Here’s what Gerry Lanuza posted on his Facebook timeline after our encounter.