If it is material conditions, the Marxists have sought, then free trade is the best means of material acquisition. Even so, why is material even good? Why is material acquisition so good? Why not die? This "class consciousness" quite obviously does not exist, as man is so shaped by so many variables, that everyone is so innately an individual, even if he is social, though social is not collective. No matter in capitalism, or communism, the masses only desire what is in their own selfish, materialistic interests, and this manner of "socialization", or the totalitarian state re-educating people, is actually attempts from the communists to change human nature, and try to nullify human sin through improper means. The Marxist could not exist without totalitarianism, and could not exist without massive immorality. The only difference between the sin of the Marxist state and a liberal state is how democratized the sin is. The ultimate problem is kraterocracy. The modern world is just kraterocracy, no? Why is Chinese material dialectics, American democracy, or European liberalism so good? Why said that? Why would we follow these? Why should civilization even exist? Or better yet, why should humanity exist? Why not die? It is circular to say we exist because we do, as there is no reason for it, and no reason not to prefer domination and slaughter to take primacy, and destroy everything? Why not? Why is that wrong? And so, as it seems, the modern world order is simply kraterocracy: people with no concept of morality and civilization ruling by their delusions of ultimate reality without consideration for the Creator. Even in prior ages, why is National Socialism any worse than the New Deal? Or Tsarism any worse than Bolshevism? There is no reason, as man is so sinful, he even ignores the law written upon his heart, and this is why most humans burn in hell, not that hell is Dantean, rather total privation, because they reject salvation in God and sin, pushing themselves away from God and into hell by their own misdeeds. The only reason humanity should exist is because we are creation, and God, in his perfection, created us. And civilization exists exclusively so divine-right kings can protect the innocent, propagate Christianity, sustain the state, and engage in just war. In this manner, the problem with this is a government which is grounded in nothing, or worse, in material. If material acquisition is so high, then why must it be collectivist? There is egoism of "I, myself, am the sole proletariat, and everyone around me is bourgeois, and depriving me of material, and thus I must slaughter and destroy everyone to bring about a utopia where I am served and obeyed.", as it entails that if material aspiration is the highest pursuit, then why would anyone care about collectives or utopia, when the mere egoist could establish his own tyranny, and slaughter all who oppose as the counter-revolutionaries of the Revolution of Me. Why are collectives so good? Why not pillage as the ego? But the problem in general is that both the egoist and Marxist assume that material, or satisfaction, are even virtues worthy of attaining, which has no metaphysical substantiation that can definitively proclaim that these assumptions have any value beyond the calls of vervet monkeys. It is all worthless. Man is clearly not collective. Man is social, certainly, but this is an "is", and not an ought "ought", and yet man is not collective, in the sense there is still theft, conflict, disputes, and crime in these so-called collective peoples. Mankind has a nature that is evident in history, which is that mankind is always with leaders, and that history is always a manner of sovereigns guiding civilization according to their ideas, and shaping the world around them, no matter what the axioms are, good or evil. The riot is simply the expression of man's pure egotism, as they achieve nothing unless organized, like the LA riots, while other riots are simply just man expressing his ego and acquiring material luxuries through force. But if acquiring material luxury through force is just, then why not slaughter and kill anyone who obstructs your acquisition? Why submit to a collective? Why not lead an army to enslave the world in a Utopia of Me, where all are enslaved to the Ego. Why is this wrong? And for alienation? Work is never fulfilling anyhow, no matter where it is, labor is always hard and nobody wants to do it, so what is this expectation that there is fulfillment? Maybe in mere physical activity, but no matter what, there is labor, and it must be done. To "socialize" man is to do no better than ideologically indoctrinate him beyond his baser nature. How does the Marxist know man is supposed to live in this manner of socialization, when humanity, throughout history, never behaves this way? And in fact, it is laissez-faire economics which has created the most benefit. And why not die? Who is to say that death is not the highest liberation, and we are all under false consciousness that life is somehow good, or that material is good? If man's nature is infinitely malleable, then perhaps he is to die! Perhaps we must MORTICIZE humanity, not socialize him! Of course, this is silly, but the Marxist cannot answer, for only in God is there answers. What makes Marxism any different from Mazdakism, or Sufism, or Islam in general? Marxism requires this elaborate socialization and collectivization, and yet this doesn't even work, and is not conducive to quality economics. Even if man was communal at some point in prehistory, so what? Human sacrifice and ritual warfare were equally practiced, albeit not universally, just as pure communalism was most definitely not practiced universally, as evident by the Maasai, who derive status and wealth from their cows, and the ownership of such. So what if some were communal? Man is fallen anyhow, and negates no sin, there was most certainly still conflict, theft, and corruption, so why elevate communalism to such virtue above these things? Collectivism is also immoral, per the Orthodox teachings on property rights and mutualism. So why not be corrupt? Who not slaughter? Why are these so bad? This goes back to my point, morticize humanity, because one may easily, and arbitrarily, elevate dying and ritual death to the ultimate virtue under this communist model, and so, everyone should die, because death is seen as a virtue, arbitrarily, just as the Marxists value collectives arbitrarily. But what is the point? Even so, all problems of the modern world descend first from human sin, and states predicated upon philosophy without meaning, and without moral grounding. Why would anyone behave justly if there are no metaphysical consequences, as mentioned prior, the socialist system merely concentrates the gravest sins into absolute, mostly unaccountable authority? Why? Why care about emotions? Why not enslave? Why not destroy? Why? It all seems so incredibly arbitrary. Unless you have a concept of theism. God creates everything in the world, though humans have free will, and God is the reason for everything. Why should civilization exist? Why should humanity exist? Why listen to emotions? Why does empathy have any value? Why do humans have any value above the common ant? Why shouldn't one True Tyrant destroy absolutely everything? Why follow duties? Where are duties being derived if the world is godless and devoid of anything beyond the process of ecosystem? Well, the answer is in God! How do we follow God? In the Church! Which Church? The Eastern Orthodox Church! And upon the earth, the state exists for some moral ends, and is inhibited in some way through charters to sustain and prolong the existence of the state to perform its moral obligations, this is seen in the Magna Carta, Confucian Mandate of Heaven, or US Constitution, there is a moral order prescribed, whether it is divine or not, and a means of upholding it, whether in democracy, or just kingship, or elective monarchy, et cetera, as is the disposition of the state. Though without God, such as in the Japanese Constitution, is wrong and arbitrary, as they have no ontological foundation for these things without God. And humanity cannot live without a state of some kind, or at least some kind of leadership and culture, as even the Hadza have prestige-prowess leadership and riots are an example of the egotism and rival of man devoid of leadership, and in this regard, the Christian king is obligated to behave with morality upon existence. Because leadership will always exist, and because God is real, the leader must be Christians or suffer the metaphysical consequences, and if he is not Christian, a preacher must convert him, and if the king rejects, then he is an ontologically evil king, as he rejects Christ, who is God, who is Goodness inseparably. And the role of the Christian king is the stewardship of the state in the defense of the innocent. The state exists to protect the innocent, and the state must prolong itself to further protect the innocent. The prolonged state exists to uphold moral obligation for as long as possible, and must be prolonged to uphold moral obligation, and prolonged with the family unit and Christian culture, per the writings of Augustine, Thomas Sowell, and Dave Popenoe. But of course, the Church cannot exist as the state, as this would corrupt the Church, and so, the Church must inform the state as a superior of morality, but the state governs and sustains. And moving into the economics of this theonomy. Many oppose this vague, personified notion of "capitalism", as if that means anything. Capitalism? Well that's quite lazy in criticism of modernity, especially since capitalism is just the lack of any coercive force in the economy, and all ills typically emerge from state intervention, and any exploitation is a consequence of human fallibility, seeing as capitalism is the lack of a system and a reflection of mankind, whether he has or lacks God shall determine success and moral failure. It isn't like socialism is of any particular morality as well, as the human fallibility is simply monopolized in a totalitarian state, as opposed to democratized by communities and individuals, but the problem of human sin and godlessness persists irrespective. If material acquisition is all which matters, then one may say "I, myself, am the sole proletariat, and everyone around me is bourgeois, and depriving me of material, and thus I must slaughter and destroy everyone to bring about a utopia where I am served and obeyed.", as it entails that if material aspiration is the highest pursuit, then why would anyone care about collectives or utopia, when the mere egoist could establish his own tyranny, and slaughter all who oppose as the counter-revolutionaries of the Revolution of Me. But of course, why is material even inherently valuable? While every wants a nice car and house, why not slaughter and torture everyone to acquire them if they are so high? Who said they were so high? Why not commit suicide in this regard? Why should humanity exist? And this is my point about those who snuggle theism into these arguments, and presuppose a moral order selectively, without any reason to follow, or why those who espouse such materialism are even correct. Why pursue material? Why not suicide? Of course, Camus tried and failed to answer this, essentially providing a non-answer, and has been unable to answer the question of suicide, as only God provides reason to exist, and anything else is arbitrary in their ontology, as they lack any substantiation for any claim of value or meaning, and there's no reason to follow these people. And so, my point emerges so that capitalism is an amoral, albeit highly effective, method of resource allocation that is best left to itself without state oversight over the markets, but state oversight over the humans in the endeavor to protect the innocent and for the state to prolong itself to further remain steadfast in these endeavors. In this regard, the state must never engage in immorality. Neither promoting immorality, such as homosexuality, or engaging in it, such as taxation. Taxation is theft, and is not just. The must not murder anyone, murder being defined as the taking of innocent lives. The state exists for the sole purpose of defending the innocent, propagating Christianity, and sustaining itself to further remain steadfast in the previous two endeavors. Where money is derived? Fines, and voluntary donations, and harnessing the markets, such as state investments and such. I quite like Tolstoy, but I feel his ideas of anarchism are only applicable in contexts of monastic communities. Even so, mankind will always have leaders, and humanity will always be subject to kings, and so, I feel it is in the interest of moral and benevolent government that the state exists, the king is just and good, bound by a moral charter. Obviously, history is simply a matter of sovereigns commanding their forces, as every historical event which moved civilizations was one moved by sovereign forces, and begins with one individual, or a small group of individuals, this is the case among primitive peoples as well, who have their kings. Riots are a reflection of man without sovereigns, just aimless bursts of egotism and noise, really. I am absolutely willing to defend that the notion of taxation is indeed a form of theft, because it is coercion of funds, and if the state is willing to steal in this regard, then why not rob from anyone? Maybe liquidate the assets of criminals, or implement fines as minor penalties, but the theft of capital from innocent peoples, irrespective of their standing as either wealthy or poor, is unjust. Just war is not murder, to clarify. Murder is the taking of innocent lives. Just war is simply another means of defending the innocent, just as the First Crusade defended the Christians against the barbaric Seljuk Turks.