Critique on the Marginal Theory of Murder
The value of murder is determined by the "utility" (pleasure or satisfaction) of said murder.
So say the neoclassical murderers. The elementary step of nailing down the terms “pleasure” and "satisfaction" regarding murder escapes our dear Gacyesians and Dahmerists. They are all too pleased with their grandiose graphs and speeches to ponder that murder, in all its various forms, takes on widely different use values, not reducible to "utility", if such a concept even had a sound philosophical basis.
To them, the value of murder is wholly subjective, as immaterial as cryptids or the old tales of Olympus. They have no inkling of suspicion, for even a moment, that murder requires a man to pick up an instrument of harm, wrest the soul away from the body, and bury the freshly emptied vessel. In other words, they fail to comprehend that murder, like all commodities, presupposes human labour.
It is self evident that to the neoclassical murderers the deeper undercurrents of modern society remained forever hidden. In past epochs, murder was an artisanal trade. The murderer owned his instruments, knew his victims, and could contemplate the finished product of his own hands. But the development of the productive forces has transformed murder from an individual enterprise into a vast, industrial undertaking.
The so called “serial killers” of our modern day society are Boeing, Palantir, United Health Group, Shein; juggernauts of slaughter that extract labour of millions to carry out cold and calculated murders on a scale unimaginable hitherto. The external character of this kind of murder alienates the men who contributed to the butchering from their own handiwork. None can look upon his murder and proclaim, with the pride of the old master: I did that.
The chorus of neoclassical murderers shout if free association between murderers were to take hold, everyone would seek to murder the oldest of men for they have, over the course of their longer lives, absorbed more labour, therefore, their murder holds the greatest value.
In the first place, the value of murder is determined by the labour time needed to commit said murder, not total labour consumed by the victim. Subjugation of Nature’s forces, machinery, have rendered Heracles and Hephaestus equal to the economy of murder. A bullet to a man’s temple is a bullet to another.
In truth, this accusation is but a lamentation of existing society. The younger the man, the more labour power he readily has at his disposal, the more readily he is able to murder, or work for the goal of murder. Companies siphon scores of fresh labour to replace the old. They are compelled, nay obligated to lay ruin to their competitor’s freshest stock of labour, hence why bombs deployed by so called “civilized nations” seem to stray most prejudiced towards schools, nurseries, and hospitals.
This continues until the ends of the Earth, where no one murders by his own means, but the means of another, and those who own the means of murder, do not murder. Only when murderers of the world overthrow these conditions can killing between all run freely and abundantly.
“Tanto è amara, che poco è più morte.”